herpguy Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Oh and walrusman... I may have an a/c but it's up set to 80 right now. I do have a heater, but it's set to 60 in the winter. I buy items that are not exactly good for the environment, but I reuse/recycle a lot of it. For the most part, I grow my own fruits and veggies. The things I don't grow, I buy from the nearest source. I ride my bike almost everywhere. I donate to save the rainforest and such regularly. You get the point. Sure, we do our part in destroying what we don't want destroyed. But a lot of us do more than our share in preserving and protecting what's possible as of right now.
walrusman Posted July 10, 2006 Author Posted July 10, 2006 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. This is as much a philosophical argument as a scientific one. And what great scientific argument have you made here? Some weak reference to animal intelligence that we can learn from? Where's the science that you eluded to, that I did not? I don't see it. I think you have an ideological agenda yourself. Everyone thinks we should poke around and interfere with nature because of our noble intention. I'm simply questioning that logic since we are all just stupid humans. Nature is far more complex than any of you are giving it credit for. We've been here for millions of years and only recently decoded the human genome. Just because we can build fancy tools and learn stuff, doesn't mean we can now APPLY what we've learned on the animal kingdom. I think if a species is meant to be exinct, then let it go. It's probably for a good reason. If it deserved to live, it would be alive. That's nature's law. I trust nature far more than any man ( or woman ). I've seen what man does when he thinks he's got something figured out...much like the posts I've seen from some of you.
ecoli Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 I think if a species is meant to be exinct, then let it go. It's probably for a good reason. If it deserved to live, it would be alive. That's nature's law. I trust nature far more than any man ( or woman ). I've seen what man does when he thinks he's got something figured out...much like the posts I've seen from some of you. You're not talking about nature's 'laws'... now you're talking about fate and how things are 'meant' to be. How do you know what is 'meant' to be?
AzurePhoenix Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 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. It goes beyond what room is left behind and not built over, the damage is done to vast tracts of land that will never be apparent to someone who does't know something's wrong. Sure there are enormous open "wild" places across the plains of america, yet there are rpactically no bison where there were millions, scarcely any black footed ferrets. Arizona is larger than many contriess, but there are no more grizzlies, the only wolves are reintroduced and already dwindling. The same goes for species all across the face of the planet, and habitats are being whittled away from hunting, over-grazing, hunting, chemical polution and all sorts of nice things that lave the land but do their damage anyway. No matter where they live, humans have a bubble of influence that envelopes the entire world and does its damage in every corner. Then when you focus down on these chimps, you suggest destiny, a them or us natural course of evolution outlook, but no matter how stupid we are collectively, we are NOT ignorant of the damage we cause, the damage DOES reflect back at us simply by damaging and imbalancing OUR ecosystem, not even to mention destroying something unique to our planet for no better reason than gratuitous slaughter to satisfy our own monetary desires. Killing these chimps and a few other notably intelligent species is scarcely different from killing humans in the sense that they are thinking, feeling beings, truly aware. And while they may not be as intelligent as a human, I'd say some humans are equally more inteligent than their kin as their kin are to dogs. Does that mean they should have free reign to treat the rest of humanity like caattle? Somehow I don't think you'd be as willing to accept a bunch of poachers raiding a mental care home to cut down the patients and sell their skins to Americans for their value as wall tapestries as "part of the natural course of evolution". And I sincierely doubt anyone is saying it's okay to slaughter other things just because they're "not cool." Look at the effort put into saving pup-fish and rare minnows.
walrusman Posted July 10, 2006 Author Posted July 10, 2006 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. In reverence to man's law I will seek and deserve protection in that context. In the context of survival of the fittest, however I do not. If I deserve to live, then I'll somehow defeat those hunters. If I deserve to die, then I won't. Nature doesn't care about right and wrong - just weak and strong. 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. Well let's put that in perspective. If there's few enough of these animals BEFORE we start shooting them, then it's not really humans that drive them to extinction. We may be putting the nail in the coffin, but their numbers should have been such that our murderous frenzy didn't wipe them out. If it did, then they deserve to die and obviously would have anyway since their numbers were down to that point in the first place. However, if their numbers were up and we started killing them to the point they are almost extinct - then that is quite a slaughter which implies money and survival. Don't think that killing animals for their skin or other parts, and selling them isn't survival. It most certainly is. Money buys food, clothing and shelter. Just because we don't have four legs and eat meat raw in a field doesn't mean we didn't kill for survival. And in that case, they deserve to be extinct since we just flat out absorbed them. Although I wouldn't feel too proud about it.
AzurePhoenix Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 In reverence to man's law I will seek and deserve protection in that context. In the context of survival of the fittest, however I do not. If I deserve to live, then I'll somehow defeat those hunters. If I deserve to die, then I won't. Nature doesn't care about right and wrong - just weak and strong. 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.
walrusman Posted July 10, 2006 Author Posted July 10, 2006 Somehow I don't think you'd be as willing to accept a bunch of poachers raiding a mental care home to cut down the patients and sell their skins to Americans for their value as wall tapestries as "part of the natural course of evolution". Well I didn't say I'd like it or accept it, but then it's not up to me. Without man's law, that's probably a likely reality in a way, and in that case the patients would deserve to die since they obviously can't beat their attackers. The funny part about all of this is I'm just repeating an already accepted norm of science. Survival of the fittest. The problem is, all of you want to leave humans out of it. Just because we're really smart doesn't mean we're not animals and part of this whole thing. Other animals wouldn't lose a second of sleep over eating the last beating heart of a given species, but somehow we humans are just beside ourselves about it. Well, it's actually sweet. We care. But that doesn't mean we know better than nature. Part of this is very philosophical in that I don't question our behavior so much because we don't understand the big picture. We don't know why we're here or anything, so how do we know what SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be done? Maybe our job is to plunder this planet and cause the great extinction. Maybe we're the proverbial meteor - just more selective. Or maybe not... For this reason, I choose to do it nature's way. If they're endangered, let them die.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 I split this off, because it was wildly off-topic.
walrusman Posted July 10, 2006 Author Posted July 10, 2006 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. Chance? There is indeed chance, but I doubt an antelope has a "chance" of fighting off a hungry lion. Between survival and natural selection, the fittest prevail. Not the luckiest. Talk about twisted theologies... Why not care? We can care. We can care enough to leave it well enough alone. I think I made that point several times. As for the rest...I've grown tired of the same old human loathing poetry. It doesn't hold water...
Dr. Dalek Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Chance? There is indeed chance, but I doubt an antelope has a "chance" of fighting off a hungry lion. Between survival and natural selection, the fittest prevail. Not the luckiest. Talk about twisted theologies...... Luck does have a part to play, and it dosn't mean that an antelope is unfit because it can't fight off a lion.Antelopes who are "unfit" are usualy the slowest, because they don't fight lions, they run.
walrusman Posted July 10, 2006 Author Posted July 10, 2006 Luck does have a part to play, and it dosn't mean that an antelope is unfit because it can't fight off a lion.Antelopes who are "unfit" are usualy the slowest, because they don't fight lions, they run. Yes, luck does have a part to play just like I said in the quote of mine that you used for your post. But AzurePhoenix is all wrapped up in splitting hairs with me about my phrasing, like "nature" is a concious being or something. It's all about weak and strong, not man's ideas of right and wrong - that's my point. And the whole point I've been trying to make is that just because you all "feel" like you know alot about nature, doesn't mean you know what you're doing enough to tamper with it. You're not talking about nature's 'laws'... now you're talking about fate and how things are 'meant' to be. I can see why you are interpreting it that way, but that's not what I mean. I mean it very simply. If you are alive, then apparently you have survived the "Survival of the Fittest" challenge, if you will, up to this moment. If you are dead, then obviously you are supposed to be dead. Otherwise, you would have been superior to whatever challenge took you out. I'm just stating the obvious. That's what is so funny about all of this.
Skye Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 And the whole point I've been trying to make is that just because you all "feel" like you know alot about nature, doesn't mean you know what you're doing enough to tamper with it. Right, but what you've been are talking about here is humans tampering with nature, i.e. killing bonobos.
walrusman Posted July 10, 2006 Author Posted July 10, 2006 Right, but what you've been are talking about here is humans tampering with nature, i.e. killing bonobos. Tampering? Not sure I agree with that. I know nothing about why they are shot is why I say that. If it's just for sick fun, then tampering I guess would be a good word for it. And I did say early on that we shouldn't do that... Sure, we humans can change our behavior and save some species, and perhaps we should, as in the case of the Bonobo Of course, I'm only agreeing with this because I don't think we want the Bonobo going out of existence because of our lust for sport hunting. But my premise remains the same. They really should be extinct. They're low in numbers because they are not fit to survive in the present conditions.
ecoli Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Of course, I'm only agreeing with this because I don't think we want the Bonobo going out of existence because of our lust for sport hunting. But my premise remains the same. They really should be extinct. They're low in numbers because they are not fit to survive in the present conditions. But, there is no reason why we shouldn't change the conditions so its favorable for them again. Considering we are the reason why conditions are presently unfavorable. There is so much we can learn from the Bonobos, allowing them to become extinct would be to hamper our OWN evolution and our own growth. That, my friend, is just plain common sense.
ed84c Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 And I assume you grant the same fate to Pandas Walrusman.
AzurePhoenix Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 And I assume you grant the same fate to Pandas Walrusman. 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
reor Posted July 11, 2006 Posted July 11, 2006 http://www.liu.edu/cwis/cwp/library/exhibits/panda/panda.htm - weird animals The ecological system is very fragile, but we don't always see the results immediately. Remember: Cause and action. Of course, it's almost impossible to say what's best (for us and the rest).
walrusman Posted July 11, 2006 Author Posted July 11, 2006 The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) lists 72 insects as extinct worldwide. In the United States, the Natural Heritage Program lists 160 insect species either as presumed extinct or as missing and possibly extinct. Many scientists believe that these numbers drastically underestimate actual insect extinction and that many hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of species have gone extinct unnoticed in North America and Europe in the last two centuries. The loss in tropical areas has probably been much greater. Are you as gung-ho about saving endangered icky little insects? Or is all of this "caring" just limited to cute fuzzy things that make us laugh? Or animals that remind us of ourselves? The ecological system is very fragile, but we don't always see the results immediately. Remember: Cause and action. Of course, it's almost impossible to say what's best (for us and the rest). I couldn't disagree more. Fragile? It's only fragile if you want it to stay status quo - then yeah I'd agree that's a precarious balance. But life has been here for billions of years and hasn't been stopped yet. Ecological systems change and seemingly adapt to the change in evironment. It's the players that get swapped out.
bascule Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 If an animal deserves to live, it will be alive. So all the Jews that died in the Holocaust didn't deserve to live?
reor Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 ... I couldn't disagree more. Fragile? It's only fragile if you want it to stay status quo - then yeah I'd agree that's a precarious balance. But life has been here for billions of years and hasn't been stopped yet. Ecological systems change and seemingly adapt to the change in evironment. It's the players that get swapped out.Define status quo. You're right, it has always been going on, no matter what the universe threw at earth. Some species got extinct in the process, but pfrt, eh... so what? Who wants Status Quo, right? I don't want to live forever, either! Wait... yes i do. I'll be one of the first Cyborg prototypes as soon as they need human ginea pigs. Er... aha: So, the "Status Quo" we live in should stay, in my opinion. Not for too long, of course. I meant "fragile" as in "it has buffers, but when they are supersaturated, the whole system is going down at lightspeed! Severe, man! SEVERE!!!"... get my drift?
walrusman Posted July 13, 2006 Author Posted July 13, 2006 So all the Jews that died in the Holocaust didn't deserve to live? Apparently not. This is not a moral issue, this is a logical issue. Does the sick and injured antelope deserve to be a lion's meal? From a moral standpoint, absolutely not. That's insensitive to take advantage like that. But if nature was "sensitive" and "fair", evolution would not be possible. Propogation of the species and natural selection takes precedence over everything. I'm pretty much done re-explaining this point. I'm just pointing out the obvious.
ecoli Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 Are you as gung-ho about saving endangered icky little insects? Or is all of this "caring" just limited to cute fuzzy things that make us laugh? Or animals that remind us of ourselves? Strawman.
ecoli Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 Apparently not. This is not a moral issue, this is a logical issue. Does the sick and injured antelope deserve to be a lion's meal? From a moral standpoint, absolutely not. That's insensitive to take advantage like that. But if nature was "sensitive" and "fair", evolution would not be possible. Propogation of the species and natural selection takes precedence over everything. That's a poor comparison. The antelope is required by the lion for food, the lion has no choice but to eat the antelope. Humans have choices, and scapegoating Jews and killing them was not necesary for survival.
walrusman Posted July 13, 2006 Author Posted July 13, 2006 Who wants Status Quo, right? I don't want to live forever, either! Wait... yes i do. I'll be one of the first Cyborg prototypes as soon as they need human ginea pigs. Er... aha: So, the "Status Quo" we live in should stay, in my opinion. Not for too long, of course. I meant "fragile" as in "it has buffers, but when they are supersaturated, the whole system is going down at lightspeed! Severe, man! SEVERE!!!"... get my drift? Admittedly, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer...and I have no idea what you're saying here. By status quo, I mean the current arrangement and players of the ecosystem. Changes here and there can drastically change this system, meaning it's "fragile" or sensitive to change. But it's not fragile in terms of the very existence of an ecosystem. I'm probably mincing words. I just reject the idea that nature is all fragile, like life on earth is teetering on the verge of TOTAL ANNIHILATION - AHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
walrusman Posted July 13, 2006 Author Posted July 13, 2006 That's a poor comparison. The antelope is required by the lion for food, the lion has no choice but to eat the antelope. Humans have choices, and scapegoating Jews and killing them was not necesary for survival. That has absolutely nothing to do with my point at all whatsoever. The fact is they DID get killed unfairly. They did not defeat their attacker. In the proverbial eyes of nature, they are unfit to survive. And, it may not be survival to you, but it was to them. They believed the jews were an inferior race and that white anglo saxxons were the gift of the earth. In their perspective it was a survivalist act. Do you also think war is unnatural? That would be silly to think that. Countless numbers of humans have been slaughtered over time - not to eat - but still for survival. Perception is reality. If humans believe something to be a threat, it's perfectly natural to attempt to eliminate it. The thing is, our perceptions have always been way screwed up. As in the case with the jews, witches, racism...
Recommended Posts