Worlds oldest creature.

Been in the news a bit this. In a quest for knowledge scientists killed the oldest living animal to find out how old it was.

Now this was pure stupidity

http://www.independent.c...-scientists-8942102.html

If you think something is 400 years old IMHO I would say leave it be.

Even though it's only a clam, I actually feel bad for the poor thing. Shame, really

Yeah that's what I thought. All that time that it managed to survive for seems a shame to kill it. Wonder how common it is for them to get that old?

Yeah, I saw them hauling off this gigantic turtle (in an internet photo) that was over 400 years old that they found in the Amazon. They were hauling it off strapped to the top of vehicles or a flatbed or something, I forget. Either way, I thought the same thing - pure stupidity. They must have thought to themselves "well, gee...let's extract this crazy old animal from the very environment that allowed it to reach its old age. Obviously the Amazon is teeming with the largest variety of natural foods on the planet...Not sure what they got in the lab can keep up too long...Pure stupidity.

Something similar happened to the worlds oldest tree...

http://blogs.smithsonian...ed-the-oldest-tree-ever/

At least in this case it was an accident.

Based on what I read, it sounds like they were just doing some random study on the age of clams. I didn't get the impression that they purposefully killed the oldest animal in the world. They probably weren't even expecting the clams to be old. A clam is about the least controversial animal that could be sacrificed for science. It's kinda ironic that people are caring so much about the the life of this one clam without any concern for how many other clams where killed in this study.

From the article:


So what does it matter how old the animals are. Why is it that the life of an old animal is more valuable than that of a young animal?

Perhaps it's not so much of a dichotomy of old vs. young so much as "the oldest clam" having a completely unique status. I don't know if you would still even conclude "it's more valuable" than the lives of other clams, so much as it's just a shame that these scientists had to intervene on this old clam's run. Who knows how much older it might have gotten, revealing to us just how old clams can actually get.

Hixidom

I would agree with Global it's not about value of one life over another as such. I can see your point and people eat clams and don't shed a tear for them.

From a personal perspective though I wound feel bad if I killed something only to find that it had lived for so long.

I am not suggesting that the scientists are bad people or any of that just that it seems a bit of a paradox to kill something to determine it's age. If they had waited a day it would have been older.

I would say stick it in an aquarium and see how long it can go for then cut it open when it dies. I am sure there would be places that would love to have one of the oldest living things in there care. Could be quite educational and thought inspiring for kids to see something so old.

I agree with hixidiom and would even expand: couldn't cutting the life of something that hasn't had a long run of it be seen as eminently crueler than accidentally offing a very old one that has been around the block several hundred times?

Are we not anthropomorphizing a little? Using our numerical system as an index of respect? It is our curiosity that killed it, just as our curiosity would have tried to keep it living - "just to see". I see no cruelty here, even if it weren't an accident.

Though I do have to say it pains me also. I just recognize that "pain" as irrational, and tied to my own fear of death, and the empty hope that if a damn clam can make it to 507, maybe I won't have to die between 75 and 95 like the rest of you!

Cheers,
JBArk

These arguments no doubt are a bit irrational. However certain situations evoke certain emotions which can be inherently irrational, and so I think keeping the human element in perspective is rather important. I can't necessarily just make myself feel another way in the face of certain issues which may seem to have a logical end. It's fine if we all feel different from time to time

True, me neither! But from there to calling it stupidity is nothing but an irrational jump from one irrational state to another!

JBArk

Jbark

What about ancient trees? We have 75,000 or so in the UK (that works out at about one old tree per 800 people which is quite bad). We also have more ancient trees than the rest of Europe combined. Now should we cut them down and use the profits to plant twice as many new trees? Or should they be protected?

Now I am no tie dyed hippy but it seems that although these trees are common species the age makes them rare and they are afforded the same treatment as a threatened species. I don't see this as irrational.

What about testing a antique by breaking it? Similar concept but removing the "Life" aspect.

I have a little meteorite at home it is four and a half billion years old and basically unchanged in all that time. Holding it in your hands really makes you think about all those changes that happened around it as it drifted about in space. Guess I see this clam in a similar light. The world changed around it whilst it sat there doing its thing. Remarkable really how long they live. Now obviously it is difficult to feel empathy with a clam but it does just seem a shame to kill it. I don't think the scientists are bad people and they in all likelihood are going to be doing more to safeguard the future of these creatures than most people. If it were me that killed it I would defiantly feel a pang of guilt about the whole thing when I discovered the age. I know it's kind of irrational but that's what makes us human.

It's unfortunate in a way (as unfortunate as any other human/animal death), but as people say here, it's not like this specific clam was all that special opposed to other clams. Also, there still is an oldest animal in the world, it's just a different one. There will be more clams and trees to live this long. It's okay.

Well, that's not really analogous at all, now is it? No profit was mentioned, nor was any deliberation, nor were the clams "threatened" with extinction, unless I missed something in the article. You are comparing the mercantile razing of 75 000 trees to the accidental killing of one clam!! A clam that could easily have been caught by fisherman and eaten by you or me in vacuum sealed tin pack 5 years from now!

I was only claiming that it was irrational to consider "stupid" and cruel the accidental slaughter of one clam - gathered and mixed in with 200 others - to further the understanding of the life cycle of that particular species of clam. I agree it pulls my heartstrings too, but I admit it is totally outrageous and irrational.

A company chopping down all the remaining old trees in the UK for profit (your example) is beyond outrageous and I would fully support any opposition to that kind of environmental pillaging. But surely you don't still maintain their equivalence?

cheers,
JBArk

I am in so way comparing the trees and clam on scale of damage just that the trees are standard trees but treated differently because of there age rather than rarity of species. I only mentioned profit as you could replant trees and plant way more than had been cut down so it could in fact help the species and distribution.

I guess that the point I was trying to make is that age can make a difference in how something's value is perceived.

Rather than trying to start an argument saying that you wanted to cut trees down.

I must have misread your post, but it really does seem like you are comparing the two. If not, why bring them up side by side? And why refute my word, "irrational", with respect to the trees if not to compare my use of it with regards to the clam? If it is to have my opinion on cutting down 75 000 trees in the UK, old or otherwise "valuable", you have my stance on that. And on the clam.

And with that I shall "clam" up before I turn to "dead wood".

Cheers,

JBArk

Thinking about all life having equal value as I think was mentioned in the thread.

This works in a moral sense but not in an evolutionary sense. Often in nature a sexually mature and reproducing specimen has the most value. In some cases the young will die without the adult care and in other cases only a handful of thousands of juveniles will survive so these individuals are key to the species as a whole.

I am not saying this is the case with this clam just that the idea that every life has equal value is a very human notion.