walrusman Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Yet sadly, wild bonobos are being driven into extinction. Well, maybe I'm heartless but I don't worry about what's becoming extinct. If they're becoming extinct, then they should be. That's how this thing works. By the way, aren't we in the middle of a mass extinction right now?
herpguy Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 By the way, aren't we in the middle of a mass extinction right now? No. I did a google search and found nothing saying that we are. In fact, if there is a cycle, we should be safe for about 10 million years.
silkworm Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Well' date=' maybe I'm heartless but I don't worry about what's becoming extinct. If they're becoming extinct, then they should be. That's how this thing works. By the way, aren't we in the middle of a mass extinction right now?[/quote'] There's a difference between something becoming extinct because it can't survive and becoming extinct because idiots keep shooting them - as is in the case of the Bonobo.
walrusman Posted July 10, 2006 Author Posted July 10, 2006 Well I googled it and found several entries on the subject. http://www.well.com/~davidu/extinction.html That particular page reads a little alarmist to me. I never trust anything put in bold letters with exclamation points on the end. But, I heard a few years ago a mass extinction was underway because we were losing an exponential amount of species per day. ( I'd sure like to know how they figure that out... ) And of course, the trend is that humans are bad and we plunder everything and blah blah blah. Too bad the rest of the animal kingdom doesn't feel sorry for itself and blame itself for it's behavior.
herpguy Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 There's a difference between something becoming extinct because it can't survive and becoming extinct because idiots keep shooting them - as is in the case of the Bonobo. It's also different when idiots keep destroying their habitat for more money.
herpguy Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Walrusman, that article does make me think. But in other mass extinctions, such as the KT event, 95% of life on earth was wiped out. I don't think that's going to happen because of humans.
walrusman Posted July 10, 2006 Author Posted July 10, 2006 There's a difference between something becoming extinct because it can't survive and becoming extinct because idiots keep shooting them - as is in the case of the Bonobo. Ummm...I don't agree. If idiots shoot them, then they're not surviving are they? How is it any different if a human kills something or some other predator? I'm not suggesting that the Bonobo is hunted by any other predator than the idiots you mentioned, but an idiot is still a predator and if it can't survive then I guess that's destiny. Sure, we humans can change our behavior and save some species, and perhaps we should, as in the case of the Bonobo, but I'm tired of getting left out of the nature equation. We are animals. We eat other animals and we flourish doing what comes natural to us. If species become extinct because of our actions, then perhaps they were supposed to be exterminated. Maybe that's our role here. What makes you think they deserve to survive?
JustStuit Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Ummm...I don't agree. If idiots shoot them' date=' then they're not surviving are they? How is it any different if a human kills something or some other predator? [/quote'] Because we have the potential to destroy the world and all species on it. We destroy what we want easily and often for no reason. I do believe that is different than an animal hunting for food.
herpguy Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Because we have the potential to destroy the world and all species on it. We destroy what we want easily and often for no reason. I do believe that is different than an animal hunting for food. I totally I agree with you, Stu. When humans kill for money, IMO, it's no good reason. I have created a new thread about extinction so this one doesn't get locked for being off topic. http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=21873
ecoli Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Ummm...I don't agree. If idiots shoot them, then they're not surviving are they? Because human's kill for sport/fun. I've heard this argument before. You're claiming that humans evolved the ability to make weapons, so killing them, for whatever reason, is merely an extension of evolution. But, then, is not our ability to show compasion for animals also an evolved trait? By using your logic, saving an animals life is as much an evolutionary advantage as killing them. Perhaps more so, because keeping the planet diverse in terms of speciation, will benefit us more in the long term, then killing animals for sport or for their land. IF we think we humans are the 'top of the food chain' maybe we should take some responsibility, for other animals and for mother nature, along with that.
silkworm Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Ummm...I don't agree. If idiots shoot them' date=' then they're not surviving are they? How is it any different if a human kills something or some other predator? I'm not suggesting that the Bonobo is hunted by any other predator than the idiots you mentioned, but an idiot is still a predator and if it can't survive then I guess that's destiny. Sure, we humans can change our behavior and save some species, and perhaps we should, as in the case of the Bonobo, but I'm tired of getting left out of the nature equation. We are animals. We eat other animals and we flourish doing what comes natural to us. If species become extinct because of our actions, then perhaps they were supposed to be exterminated. Maybe that's our role here. What makes you think they deserve to survive?[/quote'] There's a difference, the pointless killing of a peaceful animal is much different than killing a predator for defense. For example, there's a difference between yahoos going out and hunting mountain lion for sport, and shooting one in defense. Bonobos, on top of simply being living things, deserve to survive because they are obviously a very intelligent species, and possibly our closest cousin. I'm not sure that the hunting of a bonobo is restricted to eating, but I will tell you this, driving the bonobos into extinction is leaving us out of the equation. As soon as there are no more bonobos, we are deprived of an animal that's study has taught us a lot about ourselves.
walrusman Posted July 10, 2006 Author Posted July 10, 2006 I've heard this argument before. You're claiming that humans evolved the ability to make weapons, so killing them, for whatever reason, is merely an extension of evolution. No, I'm not claiming that. Much simpler actually. I'll leave the diversity of speciation to the expert - mother nature. I'm just saying that if you're the fittest, then you'll survive. Personally I think it's sick for people to kill for sport or money. You should only kill what you eat. I also think it's sad for a lion to chase down the wounded, sick antelope. But those are the thoughts of animals that empathize and have pity. Not the thoughts of nature. I realize we're at the top of the food chain, at least the local one, and we have the unique ability to reason and change our instinctive behavior. However, instinct should never be underestimated. There's usually a good reason for it. For whatever reason, we like to kill. We kill each other, we kill other animals - half the time just for fun. But I can't really take you seriously when you sit there in your air conditioned room, over a concrete slab most likely, judging mankind and big business for lack of habitat. Besides, we don't take up that much space. That's another tired old argument. When's the last time you've taken a road trip? Seen a satellite snap shot of Earth? Green all over the place. I don't see any concrete in those pictures. All this human bashing just sounds like poetry to me. People love hating themselves. Just like Hollywood liberalism. They love to feel guilty about being rich.
walrusman Posted July 10, 2006 Author Posted July 10, 2006 Bonobos, on top of simply being living things, deserve to survive because they are obviously a very intelligent species, and possibly our closest cousin. I'm not sure that the hunting of a bonobo is restricted to eating, but I will tell you this, driving the bonobos into extinction is leaving us out of the equation. As soon as there are no more bonobos, we are deprived of an animal that's study has taught us a lot about ourselves. Ok, now think about this... What would the Bonobo do if nobody cared about it? Would it still deserve to survive? You're basically saying it deserves to survive because you think it's really cool and stuff. There's probably countless species of animals that have alot to teach us but have since become extinct, perhaps by our behavior or perhaps not. But we're still here, alive and kicking. They are not because they don't deserve to be here. Life isn't a right, it's earned. There are no rules and no referees. Cheaters win too. Sucks huh?
ecoli Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 I realize we're at the top of the food chain, at least the local one, and we have the unique ability to reason and change our instinctive behavior. However, instinct should never be underestimated. There's usually a good reason for it. For whatever reason, we like to kill. We kill each other, we kill other animals - half the time just for fun. We don't have to though. We have evolved to overcome our instinctual behavior. But I can't really take you seriously when you sit there in your air conditioned room, over a concrete slab most likely, judging mankind and big business for lack of habitat. Actually, I don't have an air conditioner. In fact, you know nothing about me, so instead of making ad hominen attacks, why don't just stick with the issue. Besides, we don't take up that much space. That's another tired old argument. When's the last time you've taken a road trip? Seen a satellite snap shot of Earth? Green all over the place. I don't see any concrete in those pictures. Don't assume that the amount of physical space we occupy has a direct relationship on the effect we have on the planet. The Earth looks blue from space because the earth is 75% water. There are humans living on almost every land mass on the planet except for antartica and probably a few desserted islands. All this human bashing just sounds like poetry to me. People love hating themselves. Just like Hollywood liberalism. They love to feel guilty about being rich. I'm not bashing humans. I'm just saying that your argument is faulty. Humans DO have the capacity to overcome instintual behavior. (If killing each other and damagin the environment is even instintual - a point you have yet to prove). We should care about the bonobos being killed off because we have the ability to care. Surely, that must mean something about survival of the fittest, too.
silkworm Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 You know what. I agree Walrusman. In fact, let's go ahead and just start killing everything we don't think we're using right now and see how it works out for us. (sarcasm) How about this for example. Say these idiot hunters come to get you for sport. Do you deserve protection or do you even deserve to be here? They are breaking the law, but cheaters win too right? Also, we should probably do our best to preserve all species on the edge of extinction - which can be justified on purely selfish grounds. Causing a species to go extinct is a hell of a lot more counterproductive to human progress than perserving it, studying it, and possibly using it.
ecoli Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Ok' date=' now think about this... What would the Bonobo do if nobody cared about it? Would it still deserve to survive? You're basically saying it deserves to survive because you think it's really cool and stuff. There's probably countless species of animals that have alot to teach us but have since become extinct, perhaps by our behavior or perhaps not. But we're still here, alive and kicking. They are not because they don't deserve to be here. Life isn't a right, it's earned. There are no rules and no referees. Cheaters win too. Sucks huh?[/quote'] You're missing the point. Survival of the fittest means the strong (whether that's physcially or mentally) will survive. Somehow, we humans evolved with capacity to care about nature, and with the capacity to be able to curb our own actions, which would destroy it. Surely that counts for something. Also, we are mentally fit. So, we should realize that killing off animals, their habitats and depleating our natural resources will have long term side affects that will affect us negatively. Part of our fitness is knowing the consequences of our actions, and learning how to minimize that.
JustStuit Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Ok' date=' now think about this... What would the Bonobo do if nobody cared about it? Would it still deserve to survive? You're basically saying it deserves to survive because you think it's really cool and stuff. There's probably countless species of animals that have alot to teach us but have since become extinct, perhaps by our behavior or perhaps not. But we're still here, alive and kicking. They are not because they don't deserve to be here. Life isn't a right, it's earned. There are no rules and no referees. Cheaters win too. Sucks huh? [/quote'] I'm confused to as what your point is. Is it that weaker animals deserve to die and only humans should inhabit the earth? Or that animals we think are cool deserve to be killed? Or are you saying that all animals deserve to live, whether we view them as cool or not. If it was this case I would agree with you, but looking at your previous posts I am not inclined to believe so.
walrusman Posted July 10, 2006 Author Posted July 10, 2006 Actually, I don't have an air conditioner. In fact, you know nothing about me, so instead of making ad hominen attacks, why don't just stick with the issue. I was sticking with the issue. That was just a colorful way of saying that we are all guilty of these things - if you want to call it guilt. All of us are typing on computers in controlled environments where hundreds or thousands of living things USED to live. There is no reason for the elaborate housing we choose to dwell in. But we do it anyway, don't we? You know what. I agree Walrusman. In fact, let's go ahead and just start killing everything we don't think we're using right now and see how it works out for us. (sarcasm) How about this for example. Say these idiot hunters come to get you for sport. Do you deserve protection or do you even deserve to be here? They are breaking the law, but cheaters win too right? Also, we should probably do our best to preserve all species on the edge of extinction - which can be justified on purely selfish grounds. Causing a species to go extinct is a hell of a lot more counterproductive to human progress than perserving it, studying it, and possibly using it. If it's natural for us to go on a serial killing spree of the entire animal kingdom, then I guess that's the way it rolls huh? Look, we group up and form civilizations and establish rules and we should enforce those rules in reverance of that. But no one here can tell me why we're here. What's the big plan? Is there a big plan at all? No, I don't think it's necessarily productive to preserve a species that nature is trying to exterminate. Did you ever think that it might be catastrophic to preserve a particular dying species? A dying species that will threaten the foundation of another species due to come into existence in the future? Perhaps after our time here? We can go all day at this, but at the end of the day, only mother nature knows what she's doing. And the only communication we get from her...is instinct. I'm not bashing humans. I'm just saying that your argument is faulty. Humans DO have the capacity to overcome instintual behavior. (If killing each other and damagin the environment is even instintual - a point you have yet to prove). I also said that humans have the capacity to override their instinctual behavior. I question how often we SHOULD do that. I didn't say never. I didn't say always. Damaging the environment is intictive because it's only damage to the eyes of the beholder. When someone pours a concrete slab, I see damage - they see construction. When someone trims their lawn up to a park like setting - I see damage (since most wildlife needs cover), they see progress. Of course it's instinct to modify our environment. We all do it without question everyday. Rearranging your furniture, putting in a flower bed...changing your environment - damage to one, progress to another.
walrusman Posted July 10, 2006 Author Posted July 10, 2006 Also, we are mentally fit. So, we should realize that killing off animals, their habitats and depleating our natural resources will have long term side affects that will affect us negatively. Part of our fitness is knowing the consequences of our actions, and learning how to minimize that. How do you know? Can you guess the future? Maybe we need to be altered as well. Maybe the gradual global warming is happening at a rate that our evolution can adapt to, and later humans will be built for higher tempatures. And maybe that's in preparation for a new foundation of life on this planet that helps propel humans to the next level. Or maybe we don't have a role in the future. I'm just making this up, because the point I'm trying to make is that you don't know that your interference is good or bad. Of course, you think it's good. But then so did the scientists who started playing with nature and transported species from one continent to another only to find themselves overwhelmed with overpopulation problems. Nature knows what it's doing, I simply have faith and trust in that. Afterall, life's been around a long long time before we ever came along. No one here to babysit the weak and help the doomed species of earth until we popped up. We are just another animal, poking and proding trying to figure stuff out. I believe there are too many variables for us to be playing that role. We could doom ourselves early because we don't understand ENOUGH about the effects of what we do or don't do. Of course, I guess that would be fate then too. I simply believe the closest interpretation to mother nature's intent, is instict.
JustStuit Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 No' date=' I don't think it's necessarily productive to preserve a species that nature is trying to exterminate. Did you ever think that it might be catastrophic to preserve a particular dying species? A dying species that will threaten the foundation of another species due to come into existence in the future? Perhaps after our time here? We can go all day at this, but at the end of the day, only mother nature knows what she's doing. [i']And the only communication we get from her...is instinct.[/i] We have come to the point where we are more powerful than other animals. We can do as we please and kill what we want easily. This is not nature. Nature is not trying to kill them. And people are killing them by instinct, they are killing them for sport. This comes from a much more conscious part of the brain. I would also argue there is no mother nature and no one knows the future but that is irrelevant here.
silkworm Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 If it's natural for us to go on a serial killing spree of the entire animal kingdom' date=' then I guess that's the way it rolls huh? Look, we group up and form civilizations and establish rules and we should enforce those rules in reverance of that. But no one here can tell me why we're here. What's the big plan? Is there a big plan at all? No, I don't think it's necessarily productive to preserve a species that nature is trying to exterminate. Did you ever think that it might be catastrophic to preserve a particular dying species? A dying species that will threaten the foundation of another species due to come into existence in the future? Perhaps after our time here? We can go all day at this, but at the end of the day, only mother nature knows what she's doing. [i']And the only communication we get from her...is instinct.[/i] I suppose we could nuke ourselves out of existence, but is it good practice? You didn't answer my question. If a group of idiots with guns hunt you down in the interest of sport, do you deserve protection or do you even deserve to live? As you said, it's illegal, but cheaters win too. You're really making me wonder what your interest is here. Your arguments are less than weak, and apparently driven by some sort of ideology instead of anything relevant or scientific. I'm not sure your lack of foresight can be remedied as you seem to have fallen subject to rhetoric instead of available to any post-conventional approach based in logic and science. But I very much wish you luck. (As a note, the last paragraph of your response to me may have shown that you have a very lackluster understanding of basic principles in evolution, though it was too hard to understand to be sure).
walrusman Posted July 10, 2006 Author Posted July 10, 2006 Geez there's a bunch to reply to. I'm doing my best but I can't argue with everybody - haha! I'm confused to as what your point is. Is it that weaker animals deserve to die and only humans should inhabit the earth? Or that animals we think are cool deserve to be killed? Or are you saying that all animals deserve to live, whether we view them as cool or not. If it was this case I would agree with you, but looking at your previous posts I am not inclined to believe so. Much simpler. If an animal deserves to live, it will be alive.
JustStuit Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Geez there's a bunch to reply to. I'm doing my best but I can't argue with everybody - haha! Much simpler. If an animal deserves to live' date=' it will be alive.[/quote'] I disagree but I don't think reason will do any good. Hope you change your views.
herpguy Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Much simpler. If an animal deserves to live, it will be alive. Earlier you said we should allow nature to take out the things it wants to take out. Who says nature wants us to kill all of these animals.
Dr. Dalek Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Humans are a very strange species in the fact that we beileve in survival of the fitest, only when it aplys to other animals. Because human's kill for sport/fun. Not sport exclusivly, I hunt with the intention of eating. I also believe heavily in ethical hunting. aka: not taking what you won't use.
Recommended Posts