AzurePhoenix

I personally want my battles to be filled with blood spattering flesh-scorching horrors that will haunt the survivors' dreams and every waking thought to the day they die. While I sit in safety and sip pomegranate juice as I watch it all unfold on a ten foot plasma tv I should have indicated my sarcasm better, or they could operate on good faith.

Why not just take it one step further and have all warfare take place on a sort of international internet-like thing designed to be some immense Warcraft sorta thing?

How could you say that?! Cicadas are so neat and hulking and pretty, like super-flies on steroids. Their scream on the otherhand.... how I loathe their buzzing... I've always liked buggies, so many are so pretty and others just cool, like cyborg-alien hunter-killer mutant assassins. I especially like lobsters, which puts me at odds because I love them buttered up on a platter even more than I like them alive I've never been afraid of the standard moths, spiders, bees, wasps, hornets, but I am very skittish about letting ants get the chance to crawl over me (and now that I think about it, I just hate swarms of tiny skittery things in general), and I do have a repulsive aversion to american and german roaches and earwigs... I can't stand earwigs.

That show was awesome, like Friends with all the stops taken out, though I didn't like the characters as much individually.

I heard a movie might be in the works. I never liked it myself though I watch both stargates (SG1 and Atlantis), Lost, and Invasion religiously, as well as House, and Supernatural when I remember that it's on. Otherwise I mostly just watch the simpsons, southpark, and reruns of Friends. I hate all reality television... passionately

It doesn't. It's just more poorly thought out, false creation-"science" bullcrap Clicky for yet another TalkOrigins explanation of the truth

Humans aren't a species that can be allowed any sort of excuse like that. As I've said before, we are thinking beings better able to make choices, seek alternatives and actually be moral. There might not be a "right" or "wrong" in the grand universe, but we have the ability to understand a set of ideals, and we shouldn't pretend that we don't. We aren't lions, you can't rationalize such acts by saying it's part of nature. Humans are different. Humans are excessivley smart. We can make choices. Such needless horrors as these are in no possible way justifiable as "natural". Reality is reality, and nothing changes it. Perception is a limited, incomplete and oft-times innaccurate picture of that reality. To imagine otherwise is childish. Same lousy argument. Same response. You can't rationalize away evil and immorality when it comes to humans.

I'm rather surrpised by this. They're prolific hunters, preying on monkeys, cannibalizing chimps, attacking humans and eating our babies.

This is becoming tiresome. You draw back and say you don't have a theological outlook, despite a rampant use of the word desrving, then you decide you'll upgrade it all the way up to destiny. The reality of the matter is that a thing happens or it doesn't. It's not "meant to be." All things said, many of the species we destroyed might have gone on for a few more millennia, maybe millions of years, then likely they'd go extinct, yes, maybe leave behind one or more daughter species, and many might have been wiped out prematurely by some other random event. There was not and is not a destiny in store for any of them, only an infinite bundle of possibilities, and get this, when humans decided to meddle, they changed all the possibilities, changed one "destiny" to favor another. What sets humans apart from any other cause of extinction is that we have a friggin' choice in the matter, and could avoid it if we gave a damn. Saying that we should NOW back off and let species take the road to their HUMAN-CREATED fate because we wouldn't want to interfere is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. Let me get this straight, try to see where you're coming from; we changed it all once, for the worse, but that was and is acceptable, and now it's meddling to go in and try to hold off the possibility-warping damage WE inflicted in the first place? This doesn't make sense to me. And for the sake of all I hold dear, someone slap me if I do that obnoxious capitalization for emphasis thing again.

That's no more than narrowing your focus to within your own species, and frankly, it's selfish and stupid. There is no reason for it, not when we are capable of being so much more. So it's okay to reap wanton destruction across the face of the world as long as we're perfectly willing to be utterly ignorant, but it's NOT okay to try to fix or stop OUR extremely blatant and drastic mistakes simply because we can't see the future? This is irrational and not well thought out, as many of your other arguments; for instance... | v This is ALL i have argued since the beginning of this, so what exactly have you been arguing about for the last three pages? You'll notice I said the same thing specifically once or twice, and the rest has been rationalizing why. Insane? How so? SHould I be beaming with joy for our excellent behavior over the centuries? Maybe I should buy a "the Dodos were asking for it! " bumper sticker? Damn those birds, being well adapted to their island habitat, damn them to hell, they earned it. I am not obsessed with the glorification of humans because I simply happen to be one. I don't turn a blind eye to the atrocities we've committed, the sheer disreagard for consequences and utter disdain for any and all other species. I look at the big picture, and the big picture to me is life, not humanity alone, not a soul or intelligence or the ability to give a different name to two types of rocks, but life itself. What I see in so much of humanity's legacy on Earth pisses on that. Yeah, it's sad, isn't it? I guess I should just sweep everything under the rug and pretend things aren't the way they are. Gee, I feel better already. GROW UP. Life sucks, the world sucks, everything sucks. The sooner you come to accept that and stop trying to rationalize that simple fact away, the sooner you can truly see how great the non-sucky parts are and start to really appreciate them. I may not be a happy-go-lucky teletubby-wannabee, but I am happy, content, at peace even, and if I didn't understand the world the way I do, I can garuntee you I'd be an emotionally broken wreck of a person. You don't get it. A technologically advanced species can be just as some primitive tribe that worships the sanctity of every living organism, and vice versa. It's not our success, it's our attitude and belief that nothing else matters but that success. And even if that success were dependent on the way we've behaved, I don't think it's worth it. If you ask me, we're wasting our vast potential to live in a better, maybe even utopian world by gang-raping it over and over again in between crawling into a little private corner shut off from the rest of existence to whittle neat toys and gadgets. Whoo-hoo!

unless you're a kangaroo Prostitution is older than anyone ever guessed (and started out a bit more furry)

We have it. Certain other species demonstrate it. Like it or not, we are part of nature, and we possess the capacity for a number of these "moral" concepts. It serves a purpose in creating a binding agent between humans to help us survive, because we are pack animals. It's not some useless freak emotion. But we have rather well surpassed the point of awareness and understanding that we should have the simple decency to apply this awareness to the actual world we depend on and owe our existence to.We no longer have to fall back on a more archaic "them or us" mentality so many animals need, and I say we should look at the world as our pack now, as its stewards. All succesful and new species do that to a certain extent. You'll even see that the old hunters and gathers would burn tracts of forest to flush out prey. BUt I would say that it wasn't until a few hundred years ago that we became AWARE of what we were doing and what we were capable of. Even then, it seems few people realized that that might be a bad thing until this last century. I'd also point out that as industrialization took flight, things got far worse as far as the destruction humans caused. I don't know, I attribute human advancement to a rare few who are far ahead of the rest, but I also give warfare alot of credit. Would either of those be so prevalent and driving without an enormous, locust like population? I doubt it. The rare geniuses would be rarer still, and smaller numbers of people, in the world means to me less to fight over, so more peace, and less drive for the purpose of outdoing your foes. To me this is ajust a "if it benefits us in some way, should we give a dman who else gets hurt in the process?" And with so many people on this world, there's no going back, even if that's what I advocated (which it's not) but I do think we can stop being selfish jerkass bastards and simply be more responsible and less outright destructive just for the sake of hardwood furniture, luxury gravel and potatos. The landscape may only be changed, but that environment, that habitat, is obliterated for many of the species that depend on it, whether animal, plant or fungus. I see that as just another fallback excuse for saying "we might be causing the sixth great extinction, but it's okay cuz things will recover eventually at their own pace." And if I blow up a city block in New York, for a reason that benefits me, even non-malicious, it will probably be rebuilt in time. What's the difference?

I think they're a difference between "aging" in the sense of the body eventually wearing down, and not developing past an infantile state. They didn't mention anything about that, but I would be willing to put money down on a bet that on a cellular level, she's twelve years old. I don't think applying what she's got to a fully devloped human would be much help in preventing the inevitable body breakdown that comes from aging cells. It is astounding though, either way.

Trust me when I tell you that this does not escape my notice, I'm no fool. I was addressing scale, and fully understand that circumstances that lead to the fact that all human acitivity will pose a risk to something or other, just as any other succesful species will pose a risk to others. But I just don't feel that attacking these particular people is the right course. There are larger, more frivolous fish to fry before such things can be properly addressed. I agree, however, I am more concerned with the threats that go beyond individual species, the large scale habitat destruction that results largely from agrilcultural expansion, such as that in Madagascar, central and south america, and southern asia. While i'm very fortunate that my family has made it to where we stand today, it's silly to think that someone doesn't know hardship simply because of where they are now. And yes, I'm especially fortunate to have been born at the very tail-end of that hardship, so what I do know of it is mostly second-hand. But there were and are times when people, yes even americans, might as well be living in a third world country, where everything they have to eat has to be homegrown in a barely fertile plot of land, hunted, or comes from the rare dead horse or donkey whose meat they don't dare let go to waste. I know I'll never be able to look at it the same way, I don't have that personal viewpoint, and I really am sorry if the way I worded anything might have implied that I've suffered myself, but it does not mean I'm ignorant to the harsh reality. I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with comparing an aware being able to understand and choose it's actions with a bundle of coded proteins. And I think we have the capability and the potential for responsibility to do better. I don't like huamnity, I know i"ve made that clear many times over. I don't think we're "worth" more than any other organism on anything beyond a strictly personal concern for our own kind, but I recognize that we can recognize and make better choices than what we have. I just don't think it's right to go on actign the way we do, no matter whether it's "natural" or not. Frankly, i think we put too much weight in this abstract concept of "natural" as it is, falling back on it as an excuse for bad behavior. Unfortunate, yes. Bad? no. It's a hard fact of life on earth. Things evolve, some things do well, some things do better than others. Things go extinct and end up making room for new things. But what we do is extremely beyond the bounds of what's necessary to do well, even to live comfortably. And that is what I'm against.

double post

no one ever said to the contrary, I know I plainly indicated that the economic-factor was not an all-encompassing rule. But, as regarding habitat loss, small, self-sufficient communities and people actually pose little threat. The agrilcultural threat comes from major large scale operations that just so happen to utilize the labor of these same people for a larger economic goal. In my eyes at least that's also the essential difference between a poacher killing a rhino to sell its horn and a congo-native killing a chimp to eat its meat. Now, I full well understand that it's not very sensitive of me to judge the poacher so harshly, but fact is I don't give a damn. To me, when you leave the hunting and gathering lifestyle to play the economic game, you should have to take on a few extra responsibilities and make some sacrifices. yes, five, and maybe a few hundred frogs. And I might as well point out that those three apes are all suffering for very similar reasons and in rather similar proximity, so it's not as if they show a great range of africa. If you like I could go in and jot up a more comprehensive list with less bias for continent if you'd like, rather than foolishly pretend that the bare handful I mentioned is somehow representative of the majority. Not so much really. I come from a low income agrilculturally supported family, one that hit hard times and lost their land and the means by which we supported ourselves for well over two centuries, or from the angle of my native family line, who had even harder times trying to survive off of meager sheep herds in the deserts of the Navajo Nation region. I understand what it's like. But I don't think that a hard life gives someone a free pass to do what they please and by any means necessary, especially if they aren't going to be responsible about it. I'm curious as to what the hell you're trying to say right here. Again, because programs that feature such species draw in the public, they get the funds; more often than not breeding and rescue programs for reintroduction, yes. All too often it does come down to economics. But then again, these are species that are more likely to be infected directly, actively targeted for hunting and such, making such programs more viable for their particular needs. For many of the "lesser" species as some might consider them, their threat comes from habitat destruction. If you could breed them, where would you put them? For them, the only real hope is preservation and restoration of the habitat itself. This obsession with 'deserving' of yours just isn't making sense to me. I'm curious, what's your whole "theology," and what's it's premise? I really do want to understand where you're coming from.

Could they simply be spending the cold months in home walls and such? I know it doesn't exactly get cold where I am, but during the chillier months we do find them inside far more often.

Basically I see it as a question of our responsibility in the matter based on extinctions caused by our own rather ravenous exploitation of resources we don't really need to exploit, vs the more natural extinction of one species being outdone by another in the very arms race that shapes life on earth, just trying to survive. For a global extinction event, I agree we should do our best to try to stop it, whether or not the intent is to save the whole world or just ourselves and the world by association. As for preventing extinction on the scale of nature on a more single-species level, a species being outdone by another species, or just not faring well in survival, then I say let nature take the course it has been for billions of years, we have no right to tamper in what doesn't concern us (as long as we didn't CAUSE whatever threatened the species, even indirectly). Then again, maybe the dying species is useful to us, so it might be in our better interest to step in and see what we can do. Then again, it might turn out the only way to do so might not be fair to the other species of organism possibly involved and responsible forthe threat to the species we're protecting, so I'd be rather hesistant.

It's possible that they're taking advantage of areas where the climate is newly welcoming to them, but it might just be that they're only recently making it up that far. Remember, they're a transplanted species, non-native. Also, the geckos seem to depend pretty heavily on human habitation to thrive. Around here, I only ever see them in the town and suburb, never out in the surrounding desert, so it seems to me that they can only go as far as people are. When a new housing development opens up, the native lizards tend to rebound well enough and are right at home, but it take months for the geckos to start showing up and build a notable populace, despite having an open niche free for the taking. As far as I can tell form personal observation it's because their movement and spread is restricted by where people are.

I see it as being divided into three generic brands of extinction; 1. Extinction is an inevitable fate for most species, and while it's unfortunate it's a perfectly natural and key part of any ecosystem, even important to the development of new species by whichever of several courses. Its even inevitable that even an idealized humanity would kill off a few. Such things can't be helped, they're part of the natural course of life. 2. Now, when a catclysmic extinction occurs, it's rather more unfortunate yes, but in most cases, nothing could possibly be done to stop it. And I'd say yes, if you think you've got a shot, go ahead and try to stop it, not just to save a few species from extinction, but simply to save the world we inhabit and depend on. 3. Then there is the kind of devestation humanity spreads. Countless species falling beneath an onslaught of habitat destruction, contamination of the environment (whether through transplanted species, pollution, or whatever), exploitation and possibly exploitation of the species themselves. There is no acceptably valid reason for this to go on or to be allowed. Some might say that is all is part of human survival, but I disagree, I say simple survival doesn't have to be so influential, and might not have to be; this is about satisfying greed, manifested in human economics for no other reason than people WANT more stuff or luxuries because they're bored from not even having to try to survive (in many societies). Now, some might say that there is no "reason" behind anything anyway, so what's it matter? Well I say that humans ahve the capacity to create their own reasons, to understand some version of right and wrong, and that it is irresponsible and damned childish to ignore that, to just go about self-centeredly worrying about their ultimately frivolous income. We have the ability to appreciate something, to place our own value in something, and that in itself I believe gives other living species above all other things their own intrinsic value from teh human frame of reference, their own importance in our world, and thus the right to exist and be treated as our own kin and coinhabitants of the planet. We don't need to be the prtoectors of the world, it isn't required of us by no means, but shouldn't we at least excercise our ability to judge right and wrong and at the very least not destroy everything? And where we've already raped and pillaged the world, that is where I say we should focus our efforts to try and fix the damage we've caused. Of course, by this point, that's most of the this damn space-rock anyway.

A few hundred species of frogs, tigers, clouded leopards, black rhinoceros, asian rhinos too, gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, orangutans, the ivory billed woodpecker, the gharial, pandas (though they seem to be doing a bit better now), sable antelope, manatees, and those are simply a very large sampling of the large vertebrates commonly known. Get down to insects, crustaceans, small fish, countless arthropods of all types, and you can tack on a few thousand more. In contrast, there are very FEW species experiencing population booms as a result of human interference. This is a blatant misconception that as far as I can tell is based on YOU relying on the media for your world view. Most true biologists and conservationists are extremely aware and concerned of all such critters. The media oversight arises from the easy-to-sell ratings pleasing airtime given to the species the GENERAL PUBLIC loves. An utterly ignorant general public I might add. You'll notice that a true environmentalist makes a fuss over the environment as a whole, rather than a specific species, with the goal of maintaining the entire ecosystem. You'll also notice that there are comparatively few large vertebrates at all compared to "creepy crawlies." They are easier to idenitfy and recognize on a common basis because there aren't thousands upon thousands of them

I use the members list quite a bit myself... otherwise I've seen sites with recent news articles integrated nicely onto the page. Our news threads are practical enough, but they don't have the same... zip.

Right, even if you don't care if all bonobos and mental hopsital patients get whacked, a human being must feel his heart-strings pulled by the thought of the pandas. They're just so comically adorable

Nature doesn't "care" about anything, including weak or strong. Why shouldn't it be okay for humans to care? We have the ability, why not use it. There is no "deserves" to live or die in nature, there is only chance. Whatever theology you're working with is rather twisted. Humanity is not some perfectly natural phenomena, it is an out of control wildfire that is doing as much damage to itself as anything else. What we do is NOT simple survival, it goes well beyond the bounds of a healthy system and is a threat to the very biosphere we depend on. There may be no "intent" or "plans" in nature, nothing to say we should act otherwise, except for two things. Good practical SENSE, and US. WE can make that decision, WE are smart enough to plan, WE should have the responsibility to act as such As for the second part, there just are no words.