Okay, I think it's my turn to have an opener.
I don't know where I got this, but I could definitely tell you where it's from.
It's from the conversation.com.
Never heard of it before.
Not sure where I found this article in true Chelsea fashion, February 12th, 2024.
So probably over a year ago by the time this comes out.
But an interesting article nonetheless, I was just flipping through articles and I'm
going to settle on this one.
And this one is titled, Fascinating and Troubling.
Australians would rather save a single human life than prevent an entire species from becoming
extinct.
And yes, I am focusing on Australians right now.
Need not where the tension be, but here we are nonetheless.
I don't know who wrote this.
Maybe it'll say at the end.
Maybe it just appeared in the ether.
No, I just, it just seems to be something that was sent to me at the moment.
So we're just going to go with it.
Oh, hold on.
There's a bunch of authors.
John Wanarski, Hurston Zander, and Steven Garnett, Professor of Conservation Biology,
Professor of Environmental Economics, and Professor of Conservation and Sustainable
Eiffelyhoods.
Australia is in the grip of an escalating extinction crisis.
Since colonization, 100 native plants and animal species have become formally listed
as extinct due to human activities.
The actual number is undoubtedly far higher.
Studies suggest Australians want to prevent extinctions regardless of the financial cost
when it comes to the crunch.
How much do we really care?
In emergency situations, there's a long held convention that official respondents such
as firefighters first attempt to save human life, then property and infrastructure, then
natural assets.
Our research published today investigated whether this convention reflects community values.
We found the people we surveyed valued one human life more than the extinction of an
entire non-human species, a result both fascinating and troubling.
Catastrophic events force us to make hard choices about what to save and what to abandon.
In such emergencies, our choices reveal in stark detail the values we ascribe to different
types of assets, including plant and animal species.
Our priorities will become even more crucial under climate change, which is bringing worse
bushfires and other environmental catastrophes.
If nature is always safe last, we can expect recurring biodiversity losses including extinctions.
The unprecedented loss of biodiversity in the black summer fires was a taste of what's
to come.
The fires burnt the entire known range of more than 500 plant and animal species and
at least half the range of more than 100 threatened species.
The catastrophe led to at least one extinction of a mealy bug species in western Australia.
I don't know if I said that right, in English I'm pretty sure I'm at least 90% correct,
in Australian I might be closer to 10%.
It is a silly language.
It is.
It's almost like a joke language.
The loss has prompted reflection on our priorities.
The final report of a New South Wales parliamentary inquiry into the bushfires, for example, question
if this hierarchy of protection should always apply.
Our new research investigated community values on this issue.
The findings were illuminating.
Survey involved 2,139 Australians.
Respondents ranked the assets they would save in a hypothetical bushfire choosing from the
following options.
A person not warm to evacuate.
A person who had ignored advice to evacuate and so implicitly taken responsibility for
their own safety.
A population of 50 koalas of which many other populations exist elsewhere.
One of only two populations of a wallaby species.
The only population of a native stale species which would become extinct if burnt.
The only population of a native shrub species which would become extinct if burnt.
A flock of 50 sheep.
A house shed in tractor.
Two items of indigenous cultural significance.
A rock art gallery and a tree carving.
Survey respondents overwhelmingly gave the highest ranking to the two options involving
saving a human life.
Even the idiot who said I don't have to evacuate.
That's literally the next sentence.
Even that idiot who said they were repeatedly told to evacuate.
As a consequence to that person not evacuating, a snail or shrub species became extinct.
Saving a person who had not received evacuation warnings was rated highest.
Ahead of saving a person who ignored evacuation advice, saving the koala population was next
preferred, followed by saving the wallaby population.
I'm surprised at that.
Yeah, it's a weird hypothetical.
What would you save?
It's one person or 50 koalas?
I'd be like if I'm getting in my car I'm not getting 50 koalas.
Okay everybody in.
You know what?
I'm the exact opposite.
If I'm getting in my car I'm getting 50 koalas.
There better be 50 koalas if there's no reason to get in there.
There better be.
Exactly.
Like I'm not leaving without 50 koalas.
Maybe our priorities are just different.
Their remaining options had negative scores, meaning that respondents were more likely
to choose them as least important than most important.
I actually find this to be ranked fairly accurate.
My qualm with it would be people would react different under the stress of it being real
time if it was something they're reacting to within a fire.
I wonder as well if it has to do with the pain that is immediately felt by the, I don't
know why a wallaby would be under a koala.
The wallaby versus koala is surprising to me.
Maybe it's because they're more.
But obviously the mammals are being saved first other than actually steep rank understrap.
So I'm not sure about that one.
Wallabies are kind of like the deer.
They're basically small kangaroos, right?
I'm pretty sure they're like small little kangaroos.
Maybe they just hate wallabies there because they see them all the time.
Yeah that could be.
If it was deer, I would have the same thing like why would you want a deer in your car?
Yeah exactly.
I don't think kangaroos or wallabies are nice but I'm surprised by this.
It seems like the things that are most susceptible to extinction were put at the bottom of the
list pretty much.
Looking at the list right now, a shed is actually last on the list so.
You can't save a shed.
It was on the list apparently.
That makes me sick.
I don't, that's such a weird hypothetical to ask people though.
I feel like that's one of those like team building exercises where they say you're on
a raft to Desert Island where you're going to spend the next 50 years.
What do you bring with you of these things?
Yeah my shed.
There's a lot of good stuff in there.
Such useful shit.
Okay I'm just going to read a little bit more.
Oh no I didn't want to see that poor burnt koala.
Amongst the biodiversity assets, decisions based on conservation consequences would have
meant the top priority with preventing the extinction of the snail and shrub populations.
Next in line would have been the wallaby population then a relatively less consequential loss
of koalas.
But the results were the opposite.
People prioritized the koalas over the wallabies with less concern for the shrub and the snail.
Ranked even lower were the items and indigenous cultural significance saving the house and
shed at lowest range.
Okay well at least that makes sense.
I think that's far enough, it does go on not that much longer but I think we get the
gist.
I would be interested even thinking about it right now.
Would I rank this?
I think I would put human who was not notified that it was sprung upon.
Then I would do at least three snails.
Do you have to find the snails?
That's true.
Why didn't we think about this?
To prevent the snails going extinct.
Saying that there's a huge risk, why don't we save the snails to begin with?
I don't know snails are probably kind of hard to save.
Instead of you know going looking for them when they're in flames.
So I feel like I would go that person who put their safety, I don't think an entire
two species should go extinct for a person ignoring evacuation advice.
I'm sorry I don't.
Because you're putting yourself before who even knows how many species you're ignoring
evacuation orders.
So sorry.
I'd be admitting this on a blog.
It's fine.
I don't know.
Just don't be near Chelsea during a fire.
I think that's a reasonable thing to do.
I think the more endangered species take the priority in this as sad as it is.
It doesn't mean don't leave the koalas.
It means probably find the ones so we don't wipe them off the earth first.
And if you find 50 koalas on your way to the shrub or the snail, you might be looking
for the snails for a long time.
You'll probably be looking a long time and also that means you know which snails are
endangered snails.
Which I'm not up to date enough to know which things in my neighborhood are endangered and
I need to save in case of fire.
It's a good thing somebody conveniently keeps a pen of koalas who are trained to jump into
a car near me.
But outside of that, it's really hard to save animals.
I love going to that person's house.
And just open my car door and going get in.
And then you speed around with a bunch of koalas for a while.
But hey, you guys got 48 hours.
Are you going to save plant, a cactus, three quarters that I found in my ashtray, or syphilis
riddled ducks?
You got 48 hours to figure it out before I start the fire, so that's up to you.
Okay, bye.