Chas wants nuance? I'll give him nuance!
To: Chas
Cc: Kelly
Subject: Ass kissing
Oh I am sooooooo sorry for my sarcasm.
For the thinly veiled jabs that would land upon Slater’s
enlightened dome. For being the lucky fella who, despite his
diminutive stature, needed not a ladder to indulge in this
particular produce.
Chas believes insults should be cloaked by levels of
irony so complex that only a Master of Applied Linguistics can
comprehend. I’m sure Derek gets it and probably Nick C. and Longtom
too but me not that smart.
So for the sake of avoiding further scrutiny, I’ll lay out some
facts. Plain, objective truths that bear no malice or forethought.
Try not to wince, fully or otherwise.
But before I rip this band aid, let me ask you a question:
Would you surf in Reunion Island? No?
What about Maui? Oh, yes?
Hmmm…
Facts:
Reunion Island population: 843,617
Maui population: 144,444 (as of 2010, probably higher now)
Reunion Island square mileage: 970
Maui square mileage: 727
Reunion shark attacks since 2011 – 20
(8 fatal)
Maui shark attacks since 2011 – 28 (3 fatal)
I present this data to demonstrate the power of the media and
its trickle down effects on our culture, society, and beliefs.
Reunion Island has faced very many shark attacks in the past six
years. True.
Maui, despite having a smaller coastline and a fraction of the
population, suffered ~25% more attacks over the same period of
time. True.
Kelly Slater has never called for a cull on Maui. True.
It must be noted that in 2013, Reunion instituted a
swimming/surfing ban for more than half the coast. They continued
this effort by providing nets around certain spots and employing
trained divers to watch for sharks around high frequency surf
zones. This should have a negative effect on the number of attacks
in that period, thus skewing the data above, but it’s hard to know
by how much. Alternatively Maui has opposed all types of shark
protection, including nets and hunting.
Another major difference between Maui and Reunion is the number
of fatal attacks, with 8/20 being fatal for Reunion versus only
3/28 in Maui. This could be related to the types of sharks involved
in the incidents, plus a bit of luck in Maui’s favor.
Regardless of circumstance, Reunion’s near 50% mortality rate is
highly disconcerting and the island has received a lot media
attention because of it. And while it’s important that people are
aware of societal issues, overexposure to the evils of a particular
entity, especially a small faction of a particular entity, can lead
to rash behavior. Think Muslim ban, cop-killing.
In the original post I noted my neutrality on this topic, but
it’s important not to mistake ambivalence for indifference. I’ve
pondered deeply over this issue, heard arguments from “experts” on
both sides, and weighed the relative importance of current humans,
future humans, sharks, and the environment in trying to pick a
side. I just can’t bring myself to choose.
And apparently I’m not alone.
When interviewed about Western Australia’s
cull in 2014, Slater had some interesting talking points:
– “I think it’s kind of silly, humans want to control everything.
We try to control (beach) erosion, we try to control sharks … we
just try to control everything on this earth and it’s just
crazy.”
– “It’s like we’ve lost all feeling for other creatures on some
level and I think that’s kind of sad.”
– “If I got eaten by a shark, I’d be honored.”
Here, Kelly seems to be thinking more about the animals’ rights
(and feelings) rather than those of the people.
Alternatively, Kelly’s response to the Reunion crisis is an
example of how regular exposure to and personal ties with a subject
can tinker with one’s moral compass. I don’t know if Kelly had an
individual connection with any of the Reunion victims, but his
friendship with Jeremy Flores was likely enough to incite the
knee-jerk response. Despite his good intentions, Kelly doesn’t know
what a cull (isolated or not) would do to the ecosystem as a whole.
Not because he’s stupid or uninformed but because its unable to be
proven with conjectural science.
What has been proven is that we’re in the midst of the Earth’s
sixth major extinction, and it’s no coincidence. Whether
actively (Black Rhinos) or indirectly (Panamanian golden frogs),
human beings have provoked one of the most all-consuming extinction
periods in the history of the world. Thousands of species are
falling off at unprecedented levels (for a period without a major
natural catastrophe) because of our shitty practices. Don’t believe
me? There’s a whole book about it, the author of
which won a Pulitzer for General Non-Fiction in 2015.
So, is culling a few sharks wrong because it helps perpetuate
the downward spiral of our natural world, as caused by humans’
inherently destructive existence? Or can it be justified in the
name of saving a few lives today?
Big picture the answer is simple, but like Slater, I am not
immune to the grief of others nor fears of my own. To put it simply
– I don’t have an answer, but I still think Slater was wrong.
Nuanced enough, Charlie?
(Charlie: Yes!)