Aardvark

I'm guessing it was Newtonian who caused the offence, not your quite sensible, informative post. As it happens some scientists are now challenging the theory that a metorite strike caused the mass extinctions. They point out that the Earth was suffering major environmental stresses for some time before the KT boundary, the atmosphere was becoming toxic from dramactically increased vulcanism and the oceans were, ineffect stagnant, much more shallow and without the strong currents that now exist. Also the plate tectonics of the time were not conducive to healthy ecology, with the continents being more closely together than they are now, resulting in reduced average coastline, leading to greater continental climatic patterns which are always more extreme. Personally i don't think this is sufficent to explain the mass KT extinction. Ecological stresses would have been a significant factor in weakening the ability of species to withstand mass bolid collision, but the coincidence of there being a mass bolid collision and the mass extinction seems to close to be merely coincidence.

That sounds like a good example of bad, disrespectful hunting. Those people might as well have gone to a slaughter house and shot a few sheep in their pens.

It's surprising how tetchy a heavily loaded camel can be. I'll let you experiment with that piece of straw, just remember, camels can kick 6 feet in any direction!

I don't remember them being promised anything. The reasons for invading Afghanistan were always openly stated as being about hitting the Taliban, any benefits for the locals were honestly presented as a matter of spin offs rather than the main purpose.

The supersition of giving thanks isn't necassarily believed by the hunter to actually make the animals spirit comforted, but is part of the process of developing the closer bond to nature that is an important part of hunting to many people. Responsible hunters are often the strongest conservationists as they develop a deeper understanding, on both a practical and emotional basis, to nature. Giving thanks to the creature you have killed is part of that emotional process of developing respect for the natural world. The reasoning about fish feeling pain is valid as far as we can know. But, without wanting to seem trite, nature is cruel, if we want to understand and be part of nature we have to accept this. In nature creatures are in a constant state of hunting and being hunted. This is not an excuse for gratuitous cruelty, that is disrespectful to nature, whether a hunter should be imbueded with respect for nature, rather cruelty can be accepted as part of the results of behaving in a natural balanced manner. In the near future it does not seem likely that humans are going to be leaving the environment. But efforts can be made to limit the harmful impact You make valid points about the abuses committed by some hunters, those who blast trophy kills with high powered rifles from their cars or comfortable hides are, in my opinion, disrespectful scum. But that should not invalidate the idea that hunting can be about deeping an understanding and respect for nature. It is how hunting is carried out that is problematic, not whether hunting should take place. I hope you find this response intersting and it helps with your essay. aj

A bit off topic, but why do you have to spray your apples to make them edible? That sounds a bit disturbing.

Personally speaking, hunting isn't about controlling nature but becoming part of it. We control nature in our everyday lives with cars, electric lights and all the other ammentities of civilisation. When we hunt we are getting away from that and indulging our primeval instincts, returning to a more natural state.

Very good, although quite how you are supposed to load a camel that's not on the ground eludes me

Thank you, you are right, people do have a misapprehension about where the money is going. Most of the money goes to the richer, bigger farmers and agribusinesses, not the smaller, poorer farmers who could genuinely use a helping hand. As subsidies are linked to production the bigger the farmer the bigger the subsidy, while the small farmer is left out in the cold. (and i never did like those sentimental movies anyway )

'Warfare is the continuation of diplomacy by other means.' Surely a balanced strategy of confronting terrorism with both the use of diplomacy and the use of force is best. Al Qeada are attempting to fight a physical war of violence against the west, as such, the use of military means to fight them would make sense in conjunture with diplomatic means to isolate them from, and to shrink, their suport base.

Any Arab philosopher would know that an overladen camel would break its front legs as it tried to stand up, not its back.

Good. Agricultural subsidies are an obscenity. They result in environmental damage through over production and intensification. Economic harm as they result in misallocation of capital. Social harm as they divert money from other areas such as schools and hospitals into the pockets of rich farmers and agri businesses. And finally, they cause farmers in third world countries poverty as markets are closed to them and their markets are flooded with subsidised dumped produce.

If they believe that only a few millenia are needed then they are crazy, it takes a lot longer than that.

Maybe the Shia in Iran will now start wondering why they can't have a democratic, representative government?

That was one of the most serious posts i have ever made.

The election in Afghanistan was a great success.

You completely misunderstand me. I am pointing out the difference between the justification and the true reasons. The talk of WMD was justification, but the true reasons were deeper matters of geopolitics. I think this is a point we can agree on. And as Mr Bush openly announces, he's going after those countries as well. According to your posts, yes it is.

[quote=john5746 They continue to teach hate. Seems like this would be easier to tackle then invading all the countries over there. Don't you think? How would you tackle them? Invading them seems like one way of tackling them.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding this point? At no point did i state that animals don't experience pain. If you read my posts you will see that i clearly state that animals do experience pain. I am simply arguing that experiencing pain is not evidence of consciousness. If you wish to reply to any of my posts i would appreciate it if you would actually read them first.