Is Science Good Or Bad?

[Guest Kronprinz Adam]

*****PLEASE NOTE BEFORE READING*****

The question; "Is science good or bad?" is specifically referring to exposing Bigfoot or keeping it a secret. Nothing more or less. I thought it was important to say this first so that nobody reading would get the wrong idea about my question.

Now then. Is science good or bad for Bigfoot? What does this question mean? It means that I am asking for people's opinions. Do you personally think that if Bigfoot was found and documented by someone (at long last), it would be the right thing to do to share this discovery with science and the world?

...Do you think it would be the right thing to do to keep your discovery a secret? ...

Dear Twilightfan.

I find your concerns as very real ones. There should be a difference be made between "good science" (responsible one) and "bad science". For example, trying to capture and imprison the creature, or making experimentation with Bigfoot.

We have also to pay attention to people's reaction. I think many people will be quite curious about these creatures, some others will be afraid of going to the woods, but I'm worried if a few indiividuals will try to hunt Bigfoot or to harm them.

I think many people are educated enough to understand the implications of the Bigfoot discovery and will accept this fact more or less naturally. But some legislation has to follow, so the creatures will be not harmed or hunted in any way.

Best regards.

K. Adam.

[Guest Peter O.]

what if they happen to be able to do human-like things like make crafts/carvings/drawings on stone etc, wouldn't that be cool?

Well, then it's only a matter of time before they start showing up in Branson and raking in dough!

My thoughts are basically what Jiggy and BFSleuth said. It's not the science, it's how you use it. At least that's what my microbiologist ex-girlfriend used to say

[bipedalist]

Science doesn't keep secrets, people keep secrets. If the goal of science is to harvest, cage, dissect and document, I'm content with my personal proof and to hell with science.

[Guest Twilight Fan]

@ bipedalist - +1!

@ Peter O - The problem with saying "it's not science, it's how you use it" in my opinion is that not everyone is going to use it in the same way. It's not a sure thing. People have always been known to abuse power, and the more people who are aware, the more of them can abuse the power of that knowledge if they please. That's where the danger (for BF) lies.

Of course there will be good people trying to protect the creatures, but the bad ones are out there too. If they know Bigfoot is real, where to find them, etc....they will be able to do that much more harm. (Just another thought to add).

Edited July 18, 2012 by Twilight Fan

[Guest Peter O.]

You have a valid point, Twilight Fan. I would argue for strong protection for the species once discovered. From an ethical point of view, it will not be ethical for anyone to harm them.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Peter O.

[Guest Twilight Fan]

^That is a point we can both agree on

[norseman]

Just in case this wasn't a joke, of course not. Science was the worst thing for Native Americans. When white man took over their lands, we forced their people to change to "our ways" or else we killed them and called them "savages." Modern man ruined their culture and their way of life. I'm not sure how anyone can argue that our arrival was anything less than awful for them.

Perhaps it would be similar for sasquatch?

Wanted to address this comment before going to the main jest of the thread.

Science was not a bad thing for Native Americans.......and many tribes had put it to very good use before European contact. It's actually kind of an arrogant mindset to think that the Europeans had a monopoly on science while Native Americans had none. In fact some tribes such as the Incas, Mayans and Aztecs where quite advanced in technology and had out paced the Europeans in certain fields. European mastery of the new world was as much chance as anything.....by a cruel twist of fate the Eurasian continent was better suited for animal husbandry (The Incas had the Llama only) which had given Europeans immunity to the microbes they carried such as small pox. Pizarro would have never been able to do what he did if it had not been for a small pox epidemic that had sent the Incan empire into chaos.

And as for modern Native Americans I seriously doubt many would willingly allow you to send them in a time capsule back 500 years ago. They like cell phones, cars, air conditioning and fast food just as much as the rest of us.

And as for Sasquatch? I do not understand your question; Perhaps it would be similar for sasquatch? Sasquatch lives in North America...........yes? So just like the Native American this species has also already gone through European contact and conquest of the continent. The only difference between Sasquatch and Native Americans is that we do not place Native Americans in the same category as Pixies and Fairies. As a conquered people they still have a voice and they still have rights within the US legal frame work.

Sasquatch on the other has zero recognition of being a living breathing creature. Which means far from living in peace, we can dam his salmon tributaries and clear cut his forests without giving him a moment's consideration. The survival of a species........any species is at a far greater risk here in North America if it has no recognition or protection from the Federal government. Wolves, Grizzly, Eagles, Woodland Caribou, Lynx and many other species enjoy protection under the endangered species act that gives them a fighting chance at survival.

But I promise you that not one of them would make that list IF science has not recognized them as a real species and they live in the realm of myth and fairy tales.

[Guest]

If BF is recognized by Science, many theories will change. The impact on our understanding of evolution and many topics will change and the social impact will be huge. Of course, most likely BF will be safe because laws will almost certainly be enacted in order to protect these creatures for scientific study and against poachers.

[AaronD]

Norseman I must agree with you on the notion that the europeans were not necessarily superior in smarts, in fact, even compared to modern medicine, I'd rather be treated by a true to life NA medicine man

[Guest Peter O.]

Sasquatch on the other has zero recognition of being a living breathing creature. Which means far from living in peace, we can dam his salmon tributaries and clear cut his forests without giving him a moment's consideration. The survival of a species........any species is at a far greater risk here in North America if it has no recognition or protection from the Federal government. Wolves, Grizzly, Eagles, Woodland Caribou, Lynx and many other species enjoy protection under the endangered species act that gives them a fighting chance at survival.

But I promise you that not one of them would make that list IF science has not recognized them as a real species and they live in the realm of myth and fairy tales.

Absolutely!

[Guest Twilight Fan]

For argument's sake, let's say that Sas is NOT an endangered species. Let's say there are quite a lot of them. In that case, people might not be as gung-ho to protect them. All bets are off if they're unprotected....

Just look at other animals we've found and "dominated" - Anything that flies, crawls, swims or walks on 4 legs is good enough to be eaten by humans. We kill what we please, we eat what we please. What we don't kill, we often put in labs for testing. (Monkeys included)...what we don't test on, we tend to use for entertainment. (Circuses, zoos, pets).

The point is, we have been exploiting our fellow creatures for as long as we have existed in some way or another. Early man had it right: he hunted to survive and took no more than he needed. Animals roamed free. Man was a predator like any other, but not yet a monster. It is sad that man has become monstrous to his "brothers of the earth" the animals.

Maybe laws would protect Bigfoot, and maybe not. We can't know for sure. Is it really worth the risk?

[Guest wudewasa]

Laws only work when they are enforced and must be well written so that they are actually enforceable.

So, when squatch steals a guy's zagnut bar collection, it's shoot, shovel and shut up!

[norseman]

For argument's sake, let's say that Sas is NOT an endangered species. Let's say there are quite a lot of them. In that case, people might not be as gung-ho to protect them. All bets are off if they're unprotected....

I seriously seriously doubt it. Let's say there are a million of them in North America (I don't agree with that but for the sake of the argument I'll go along with it). We are still talking about a BIPEDAL, TEMPERATE, NORTH AMERICAN ape!!! In the larger scheme of things it would be a tremendous find that would set primatology on it's ear.

Just look at other animals we've found and "dominated" - Anything that flies, crawls, swims or walks on 4 legs is good enough to be eaten by humans. We kill what we please, we eat what we please. What we don't kill, we often put in labs for testing. (Monkeys included)...what we don't test on, we tend to use for entertainment. (Circuses, zoos, pets).

This is not a factual statement...........nor do I feel that it is a "current" mindset with the times. There is no doubt that humanity has abused it's status on this planet concerning other species. But for about 100 years now there has been a serious conservation movement within the US that is directly responsible for saving many species from extinction by our hand.

Most Americans eat domesticated animals and not wild game species, far from eating ANYTHING, most Americans eat beef, poultry and pork almost exclusively. Certain species of animals get used for testing this is true, but most of them are specifically bred white lab rats. And circuses and zoos do not belong in the same category, a circus plays a minuscule role in the lives of animals as a whole. And a zoo is a very useful tool in raising awareness and empathy with humans towards animals. And it also is a place where humans can learn to better serve and save species in the wild that are in trouble.

The point is, we have been exploiting our fellow creatures for as long as we have existed in some way or another. Early man had it right: he hunted to survive and took no more than he needed. Animals roamed free. Man was a predator like any other, but not yet a monster. It is sad that man has become monstrous to his "brothers of the earth" the animals.

So you are all in favor of humanity returning to the stone age?

Maybe laws would protect Bigfoot, and maybe not. We can't know for sure. Is it really worth the risk?

Unless we prove it's truly a species and science takes a objective look at the subject? It's simply all conjecture.......... We don't know if there are 5 or 5 million. That's why science is important, it gives us a solid foundation to stand on, and allows us to make educated decisions from there.

Is it worth the risk to bury our heads in the sand while steel and concrete bulldoze them under? How would you feel if they as a species blinked out on our watch and we just sat on our hands and let it happen?

Laws only work when they are enforced and must be well written so that they are actually enforceable.

So, when squatch steals a guy's zagnut bar collection, it's shoot, shovel and shut up!

Right because this happens every other day........

If Mr. Squatch gains laws to protect him from harm? Does that also mean that he is going to become much less elusive and stealthy and just hang out in everyone's back yard tearing up the flower garden?

Mrs. Smith on phone to Fish and Game: "Since you people have passed that damned protection law.......this ape just showed up in my back yard like he owns the place! He craps in the petunias and has eaten ALL of my crab apples! If you don't get down here and do something I'm going to be forced to get my broom out of the closet! Look at him! Right now he is rubbing his crotch on my french doors and leering at me! **** stinking ape!"

[Guest Twilight Fan]

I seriously seriously doubt it. Let's say there are a million of them in North America (I don't agree with that but for the sake of the argument I'll go along with it). We are still talking about a BIPEDAL, TEMPERATE, NORTH AMERICAN ape!!! In the larger scheme of things it would be a tremendous find that would set primatology on it's ear.

Mountain Gorillas were once "cryptids" because nobody thought they were anything but folklore. After they were discovered and studied, people began hunting them for bush meat among other things. Just because a new species of ape is found, bipedal or not, doesn't mean that it won't be a target for hunters/crooked scientists or anyone else.

This is not a factual statement...........nor do I feel that it is a "current" mindset with the times. There is no doubt that humanity has abused it's status on this planet concerning other species. But for about 100 years now there has been a serious conservation movement within the US that is directly responsible for saving many species from extinction by our hand.

Really? It's not factual that humans have and still do exploit animals in various ways for our own entertainment? I would have to disagree with you there.

So you are all in favor of humanity returning to the stone age?

Nope. My point in bringing up the stone age man is to express my POV on his way of life. Specifically his relationship with animals. As said, he hunted to live and took what he needed but nothing more. If you want a more modern example, so did the Native Americans with most species. Whereas 21st century man takes much more than he needs and wastes more as well. This was my point in referring to the stone age man. Less was more for him, and the earth thanked him for it.

Is it worth the risk to bury our heads in the sand while steel and concrete bulldoze them under? How would you feel if they as a species blinked out on our watch and we just sat on our hands and let it happen?

Humans can't hunt a myth. I'd be willing to say that the majority of humans still don't believe in Bigfoot. If you're talking about deforestation, that is a different issue that is going on regardless of what species live there. As for sas, what we don't think exists won't be hurt by us directly.

[norseman]

Mountain Gorillas were once "cryptids" because nobody thought they were anything but folklore. After they were discovered and studied, people began hunting them for bush meat among other things. Just because a new species of ape is found, bipedal or not, doesn't mean that it won't be a target for hunters/crooked scientists or anyone else.

This is incorrect.

Western science "discovered them" only recently, but the native Africans have known they were there all along and have been hunting them for bush meat for centuries. Your proving my point. Because western science KNOWS they are a real species? People in Los Angeles, London, Berlin and Syndney can pool there resources together in a attempt to save the species from further harm. If the mountain gorilla was still a myth then.........native Africans could hunt them to extinction for bush meat and nobody would care.

This is a bit off topic because the mountain gorilla does not reside in North America and cannot receive the protection of the US government directly.......although indirectly the protections offered through wild life funds and various conservation groups is substantial.

Really? It's not factual that humans have and still do exploit animals in various ways for our own entertainment? I would have to disagree with you there.

Ask the wolf if he notices a difference in being listed as endangered. The wolf is making a huge comeback in the west and great lakes region. The current world that we live in is much more AWARE of the plight of various species and acts upon those needs in big ways. Obviously there are always exceptions to the rule, but I would certainly say the trend is to the opposite of your mindset. Do you know how much money would be thrown the way of a bipedal north American ape?

How much money do you think this organization pulls down every year?

http://gorillafund.org/

(almost 6 million dollars)

Nope. My point in bringing up the stone age man is to express my POV on his way of life. Specifically his relationship with animals. As said, he hunted to live and took what he needed but nothing more. If you want a more modern example, so did the Native Americans with most species. Whereas 21st century man takes much more than he needs and wastes more as well. This was my point in referring to the stone age man. Less was more for him, and the earth thanked him for it.

This is all very true of course........but a stone age culture cannot support 300 million people in the continental United States. It's great to be in love with a philosophy, but sometimes philosophy and reality are very far apart from one another.

Humans can't hunt a myth. I'd be willing to say that the majority of humans still don't believe in Bigfoot. If you're talking about deforestation, that is a different issue that is going on regardless of what species live there. As for sas, what we don't think exists won't be hurt by us directly.

Humans hunt myths every day on all four corners of the globe........from the Yeti to the Loch Ness monster. As far as deforestation.........again your statement is not factual. If a spotted owl can have as big of an impact as it did on the logging industry? Imagine again what a bipedal north American ape could do!

It's obvious to me that I'm not going to convince you, and that's cool. But your mindset and those like you are a mystery to me. I guess I see things from a very different perspective because I'm living it. I see Griz and Wolf sign where there was none 20 years ago.