Jump to content

New Yorker Article About Tarbosaurus Smuggler Eric Prokopi


Boesse

Recommended Posts

Even if you buy into the "no pure altruism" argument we should at least consider our own best interest in the advantages to this forum (and all the pleasure we take from it) if we would all strive:

- to be "pro-pals" like AgrilusHunter and others who help us here (for no $)

-to be dealers like mikey and others who give the science of paleontology the first priority.

-to be "amateurs" like most of us who collect responsibly. (Did Eric tarnish that image?)

-to look deeper like Harry who prods us to examine our relationship with "non-pals"

which suggests how best to urge "neo-pals" (pardon the oxymoron) to become responsible "pals".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if you buy into the "no pure altruism" argument we should at least consider our own best interest in the advantages to this forum (and all the pleasure we take from it) if we would all strive:

- to be "pro-pals" like AgrilusHunter and others who help us here (for no $)

-to be dealers like mikey and others who give the science of paleontology the first priority.

-to be "amateurs" like most of us who collect responsibly. (Did Eric tarnish that image?)

-to look deeper like Harry who prods us to examine our relationship with "non-pals"

which suggests how best to urge "neo-pals" (pardon the oxymoron) to become responsible "pals".

Well said, Bob.

fingers%20crossed.gif

The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true.  -  JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then I misunderstood the post.

Well then we both did. But it seemed clear to me that Harry argued that paleontology actually contributes nothing substantial, not just that people just don't understand/appreciate it. Here is the quote (from post #7):

"Not all science is equally important, and paleontology ranks now as a backwater endeavor compared to other fields of science. "

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, there are some kinda crazy arguments being made here. I can't believe that people are really saying that paleontology is just "knowledge for the sake of knowledge". Thobern, Cris, Agrilus, and others have made some excellent points. My random thoughts:

  1. "every human decision is predicated on the perception of what is best at the moment for the actor" Well, this is demonstrably not true.
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. Why all the hating on professionals? They really aren't here to stop you from collecting fossils. They aren't all trying to get famous, or get money, or get on top. Most professionals I know (and I know a few) just really love science and research. You can't blame them for thinking that scientifically important specimens should be in a museum where other researchers can freely access them instead of being sold for profit and put in somebody's house. This is a reasonable view to have.
  5. ...

OK, I'll go back to looking at fossil pictures now.

Thanks for your contribution, JW. It would be interesting if you can describe one human action that is purely altruistic . . . that is, a human action that can't be described in terms of fulfilling a human self-perception. People have willingly been immolated rather than deny some belief because preserving one's self perception (as a Jew, or a Christian, or as some subset thereof) is more important than life itself. But, I'd be interested in your example.

Perhaps these problems between amateurs and professionals (and their institutions) are more pervasive than you realize, JW. A clue to the scope of the problem may be found in the procedings of the 1987 annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists.

At that meeting, the vast majority of professionals voted to reject the recent recommendations of the National Research Council on regulating paleontological collecting. The NRC recommendations are a blueprint for reconciling the interests of professionals, amateurs, and even commercial collectors. For most of us, it is hard to find fault with the insights, the logic, and the compromises recommended by the NRC panel of experts; but, the SVP professionals manage to do so.

What motivates vertebrate paleontologists (and their institutions) to reject compromise, to want it all their way? Their argument is well known: "There is a Sacred Duty to collect, curate, and interpret the limited vertebrate fossils resources in order to add to the pool of human knowledge." Whether or not they believe in the Sacred Duty concept, some professionals (and institutions) seem to find it a convenient rationale for exploiting amateurs. In the professionals' view, amateurs are usually a necessary evil, sometimes a curse, rarely an asset; amateurs and commercial collectors are the competition!

The reality is that professional careers are built on acquiring significant fossil material. Significant material means institutional prestige. It also leads to publishable research; publication leads to a better job, tenure, grant money, status among peers, travel, and other good things. Getting significant fossils can mean the difference between being curator at a prestigious museum or teaching earth science at a community college.

Considering the importance of significant fossils to the professional, it is understandable that he may perceive amateurs as unreliable and undesirable competition. In this light, it becomes clear just how useful to an ambitious professional the "Sacred Duty" rationale can be: it is at once the moral high ground AND an excuse for actions which would be unthinkable in another context.

Holding this self-erected moral high ground and driven by ideology or career ambition, perspective and sense of fair-play can become distorted. Fossil collectors, both amateur and commercial, may be seen as the forces of chaos and destruction which must be defeated or, at least, controlled (permits). Compromise may be viewed as a victory for evil. I think these are the notions which may cloud the judgement of professionals and their institutions.

Despite the Sacred Duty demagoguery, there may still be professionals who try as best they can to deal honestly and equitably with collectors. There will always be misunderstandings and misperceptions in this arena of conflicting interests, but a totally predaceous professional probably is as rare as a collector motivated solely by greed.

http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page

 

What seest thou else

In the dark backward and abysm of time?

---Shakespeare, The Tempest

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite the Sacred Duty demagoguery, there may still be professionals who try as best they can to deal honestly and equitably with collectors. There will always be misunderstandings and misperceptions in this arena of conflicting interests, but a totally predaceous professional probably is as rare as a collector motivated solely by greed.

Am I wrong, or is Harry softening ? :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry, I appreciate the opportunity to contribute. Clearly this is an issue that people have strong opinions about. A couple more comments:

"Thanks for your contribution, JW. It would be interesting if you can describe one human action that is purely altruistic . . . that is, a human action that can't be described in terms of fulfilling a human self-perception. People have willingly been immolated rather than deny some belief because preserving one's self perception (as a Jew, or a Christian, or as some subset thereof) is more important than life itself. But, I'd be interested in your example."

I'm pretty sure that no matter what I come up with, you'll find a way to make it fit your definition. ​Also, "a human action that can't be described in terms of fulfilling a human self-perception" is very different than your previous assertion that "every human decision is predicated on the perception of what is best at the moment for the actor".

I agree that there is a discussion to be had over the relationship between professionals working for museums or educational institutions, and people who collect and sell fossils for profit. I don't have a problem with commercial fossil dealing, as long as it's done legally and responsibly. I've bought several fossils myself. My problem with your argument is that you keep ascribing all of these rather negative motivations to a large and diverse group of people, as if everyone who got a job in paleontology are a bunch of cuttroat jerks who think they're better than everybody else and want all the fossils for themselves. Saying that an entire profession think that they have a "moral high ground", are primarily concerned with "status among peers", "want it all their way" and are driven by "career ambition" is no more true for paleontologists than it is for high school math teachers. In fact, I would bet, and I'm just guessing here, that paleontology attracts far less of these kinds of people than most other professions. There's not a lot of status and prestige to having an office in the basement of a 50 year building and making $50,000 a year.

"Getting significant fossils can mean the difference between being a curator at a prestigious museum and teaching earth science at a community college" Well, I guess there could be situations where "getting" (finding?) lots of significant specimens could eventually get you a promotion, but I don't think that's really how it works most of the time. There is definitely pressure to get published in academia, but there's a whole lot of work of to be done that doesn't require new specimens or even involve getting out in the field. I would say that the most "prestigious" paleontologists, e.g., the the Stephen J. Goulds of the world, get where they are by interpreting and synthesizing paleontological data that's already available, and looking at the big picture. No new specimens required. If you get promoted to "curator of a prestigious museum", its more likely that it's because you're a good researcher and have good ideas. If you're teaching earth science at a community college (which there is nothing wrong with), it's because you want to be doing that, or that you didn't have the drive to do research

I would also think that most professionals who do have an issue with commercial collecting do so in the larger, more abstract sense, rather than in the sense of "hey, that commercial guy got a better skeleton than me so now I won't get tenure"-- it's more philosophical rather than the sense that amateurs are direct competition. So yes, I think professionals do have a difference in ideology with commercial collectors- they think that scientifically significant fossils should be kept in a museum, where they'll be stored for potentially hundreds of years, freely available to be studied. As I said before, I think this is a reasonable view to have, and it's not the same thing as thinking you're morally superior to someone who feels differently. Also, I doubt that most working paleontologists have ever read the proceedings of a SVP meeting that happened almost 30 years ago, so it's a stretch to assume that their behavior is guided by the "sacred duty" statement quoted above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry, I appreciate the opportunity to contribute. Clearly this is an issue that people have strong opinions about. A couple more comments:

" I'd be interested in your example."

I'm pretty sure that no matter what I come up with, you'll find a way to make it fit your definition. ​Also, "a human action that can't be described in terms of fulfilling a human self-perception" is very different than your previous assertion that "every human decision is predicated on the perception of what is best at the moment for the actor".

I try to avoid unsupported opinions, JW. Evidence is what I want to rely upon. Opinions are like navels; everybody's got one. If you've got opinions and I've got evidence, the debate goes to me.

I'm glad you accepted my caution that, in the realm of Perceptual Psychology, there is no incontrovertible evidence of purely altruistic behavior. I didn't author the definition. There is no contradiction in what I've asserted. Behavior, even what we may consider self-sacrificing behavior, is guided by perceptions of self and what's best for that self at the moment of acting.

http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page

 

What seest thou else

In the dark backward and abysm of time?

---Shakespeare, The Tempest

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite the Sacred Duty demagoguery, there may still be professionals who try as best they can to deal honestly and equitably with collectors. There will always be misunderstandings and misperceptions in this arena of conflicting interests, but a totally predaceous professional probably is as rare as a collector motivated solely by greed.

Am I wrong, or is Harry softening ? :o

Human motivation is rarely pure anything. People - and pro-pals are people - usually behave with complex, sometimes conflicting, motives. Pro-pals are just like the rest of us -- sometime angelic, sometimes evil, but mostly somewhere in between those poles.

But, any person always behaves in the manner that seems best for his or her 'perceived self' in that moment. We only judge that person's behavior good or bad, depending on how it impacts our own view of the world and our place in it.

http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page

 

What seest thou else

In the dark backward and abysm of time?

---Shakespeare, The Tempest

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The third paragraph in Wikipedia under "Altruism" says:

"Much debate exists as to whether "true" altruism is possible. The theory of psychological egoism suggests that no act of sharing, helping or sacrificing can be described as truly altruistic, as the actor may receive an intrinsic reward in the form of personal gratification. The validity of this argument depends on whether intrinsic rewards qualify as "benefits."

Back to the topic, great post jwcounts! :fistbump:

youtube-logo-png-46031.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me share my thoughts.

I am a fossil collector from Singapore, and here there's no fossils to be found. There's no museums right now dealing with fossils or dinosaurs. Due to work commitments and cost of travel, it is unfeasible for me to physically travel to other countries to dig/find my own fossils.

This leaves me with just one option: fossil-dealers.

I do feel bad for Eric as well as his family in general. And I dare say that if I had the money to spend, I would have indeed purchased fossils off him(even if his sources were dubious. How many times have we heard 'I got that fossil from China decades ago when it wasn't illegal yet'). If he was to be punished, then I feel that his only crime was the forgery of documents, nothing more.

I understand the importance of paleontology, the problems of an over-abundance of amateur collectors or fossil dealers looking to make a quick profit. But honestly, this world is driven by money and economics. If there wasn't the potential for cash to be earned, then there would be far lesser fossil-hunts going on. While it would benefit science in that any fossil found would likely be sent to a museum or lab, it also means there is a smaller chance for important specimens to be found.

Eric spent countless hours meticulously prepping that Tarbosaurus. True he did it for profit. But at least he did a darn good job. Better a fossil dealer finds and protects a fossil from being lost to the rigors of nature, then prep it carefully, than let a potentially important specimen be lost or damaged.

I would rather pay a hungry farmer and his family in China/Mongolia and receive black-market fossils from them, than to see said fossil go into the store rooms along with hundreds of crates of other similar specimens. At least I can make personally sure he gets paid much more than what the government/landlord would pay.

Just how much of the law really serves to protect the country's scientific interest, rather than economical interests or even pride. I get the need to preserve a hominid or feathered dinosaur skeleton(and there is no way I would condone keeping of such fossils in anyplace BUT a museum/lab), but seriously, how scientifically important is a Keichousaurus/Mixosaurus/Lycoptera right now anyway? Why not I pay a premium for those "illegal fossils" to the collectors, giving them an incentive to go back to dig for more, potentially finding important specimens.

My two cents. No offense intended to anyone.

Looking forward to meeting my fellow Singaporean collectors! Do PM me if you are a Singaporean, or an overseas fossil-collector coming here for a holiday!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I do feel bad for Eric as well as his family in general. And I dare say that if I had the money to spend, I would have indeed purchased fossils off him(even if his sources were dubious. How many times have we heard 'I got that fossil from China decades ago when it wasn't illegal yet'). If he was to be punished, then I feel that his only crime was the forgery of documents, nothing more...

And that is all that he was charged with. The conversation - when coherent - has been whether it should have been illegal for them to have been exported, and whether it should ever be illegal to collect certain fossil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that is all that he was charged with. The conversation - when coherent - has been whether it should have been illegal for them to have been exported, and whether it should ever be illegal to collect certain fossil.

Right, but left out of the conversation is the impact of asking landowners for permission to collect on their place who have read about Eric and might judge all collectors by his disregard for the law in general. I have been denied access because of tresspassers who came before me by folks who told me they would have let them in if they had only asked first. This may be the more salient lesson we can take away from all this.

P.S. Thanks Cris for (hopefully) taking the conversation back to fossils.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I argue that paleontology today is analogous to highly-specialized rock-collecting, interesting to very few professionals and amateurs (I am here discounting curio-collectors) for economic or ideosyncratic reasons, contributing - at this time - little that has significant impact on humanity today or in the future....

Seriously?

Paleontology contributes immeasurably to our understanding of how life on earth got to where it is today, and this knowledge is crucial to our efforts to mitigate the self-destructive impact that mechanized man's activities have on this crowded planet!

That too few people appreciate this does not negate its importance.

"The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts" Paul Ehrlich

"There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant

“Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley

>Paleontology is an evolving science.

>May your wonders never cease!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, but left out of the conversation is the impact of asking landowners for permission to collect on their place who have read about Eric and might judge all collectors by his disregard for the law in general. I have been denied access because of tresspassers who came before me by folks who told me they would have let them in if they had only asked first. This may be the more salient lesson we can take away from all this.

P.S. Thanks Cris for (hopefully) taking the conversation back to fossils.

Good point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was a rancher in the US, with land in T-rex territory, I’d be out there every weekend digging the place up, I know the chances are remote but I mean imagine uncovering a ‘Sue’ on your land, there's gotta be more specimens down there, and it wouldn’t get any more fun than digging it up on your own land and knowing you're on safe ground legally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was a rancher in the US, with land in T-rex territory, I’d be out there every weekend digging the place up, I know the chances are remote but I mean imagine uncovering a ‘Sue’ on your land, there's gotta be more specimens down there, and it wouldn’t get any more fun than digging it up on your own land and knowing you're on safe ground legally.

I don't remember the tv program I saw recently, but during the show a landowner in the US (dino territory) was working with a major University to bring in some sort of ground penetrating radar device to try and look for bones under the surface. My guess is that both parties would benefit - the landowner would find a dinosaur, and the University would get to prep it and study it, make a cast etc. Unfortunately I only saw the last few monutes of the program and don't know more about it or how it turned out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with claiming that there is no such thing as real altruism is that the argument relies on knowing someone else's motivation - and that is always purely a guess. Even if you tell me what your motivation is, I have no way to test whether what you tell me is true or not, as I do not have access to your thoughts. Thus, that argument is specious at best. It smacks of some branches of philosophy, which seem to me to have no practical value at all.

I suppose one could construct some convoluted argument to claim that a parent, giving their life to save a child of theirs, isn't really altruism, but merely "guided by perception of self and what's best for self at the moment of acting". But such an argument is silly at best.

Anyone who thinks paleontology doesn't matter to people has never visited a first grade classroom to talk about dinosaurs, and run into 30 kids who know more of the Latin names than you do. Dinosaurs are hugely popular in common culture in this country, and almost every developed country in the world (and in some third world countries as well). Interesting that a company like McDonalds would sink millions into buying Sue if they thought paleontology "didn't matter" to the public at large.

The animosity that some folks (none here, I'm sure!) demonstrate towards professional paleontologists speaks more about themselves than it does about the professionals, in my experience. Some in particular carry long term grudges because some professional years ago didn't fawn all over their miserable bone scrap. That this is idiosyncratic behaviour (on both the part of the rare professional and the rare collector/dealer) is easily demonstrated by the many collectors and even dealers who are able to work with professionals for a beneficial mutual relationship, and the number of professionals who go out of our way to try to cultivate good relationships with collectors and dealers. Instead of continuing to complain, and to try to spread hatred of the professionals like a disease, how much more fruitful would it be to cooperate?

Further respondent sayeth not.

Rich

The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was a rancher in the US, with land in T-rex territory, I’d be out there every weekend digging the place up, I know the chances are remote but I mean imagine uncovering a ‘Sue’ on your land, there's gotta be more specimens down there, and it wouldn’t get any more fun than digging it up on your own land and knowing you're on safe ground legally.

Most of the ranchers I know... and they do potentially have T rexes on their place... think we are nuts... digging all day in the hot sun, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, the museum community (mostly not paleontologists, but some are involved) has some responsibility to bear in the lack of good relationships with collectors and dealers. How many times have we seen on this Forum, and others, that someone at a museum identified something as a dinosaur, or whatever, when it clearly is not that at all. For some reason, everyone at a museum feels they have to identify everything brought into them with solemn profundity and authority - even if their specialty is far removed from fossils. Be assured that I take note of these, and make an effort to gently prod museums to exercise more care in dispensing information. It's really important that we, as scientists, communicate the uncertain nature - the provisonality - of all hypotheses in science. And an identification of a fossil is nothing more than another hypothesis to be tested, supported by or contradicted by, the evidence. Communicating that is more important than the actual identification, for it is teaching people about the nature of all science.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how any of this matters to this discussion either way. This whole argument is based on the notion you put forth about whether or not it is really "good for humanity". But it does not one bit matter if its genuine altruism on the part of the actors or not. There are actions that are better for the whole and actions that are purely or almost purely better for the individual. One's motivations matter little to the discussion. I don't see how multiple posts purely about perceptual psychology are relevant to this topic, more than tangentially.... as obfuscation. Perhaps it is because your real evidence is mostly comprised of some 25+ year old majority opinion in a hobby that has changed drastically since then and experienced exponential growth.

Human motivation is rarely pure anything. People - and pro-pals are people - usually behave with complex, sometimes conflicting, motives. Pro-pals are just like the rest of us -- sometime angelic, sometimes evil, but mostly somewhere in between those poles.

But, any person always behaves in the manner that seems best for his or her 'perceived self' in that moment. We only judge that person's behavior good or bad, depending on how it impacts our own view of the world and our place in it.

I try to avoid unsupported opinions, JW. Evidence is what I want to rely upon. Opinions are like navels; everybody's got one. If you've got opinions and I've got evidence, the debate goes to me.

I'm glad you accepted my caution that, in the realm of Perceptual Psychology, there is no incontrovertible evidence of purely altruistic behavior. I didn't author the definition. There is no contradiction in what I've asserted. Behavior, even what we may consider self-sacrificing behavior, is guided by perceptions of self and what's best for that self at the moment of acting.

---Wie Wasser schleift den Stein, wir steigen und fallen---

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...