Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Not good

At this point, what do you think, specifically, would be the best action to take in order to alleviate the damage?

I know that question was not directed at me.

But I'll answer it.


Nothing different than what we are doing now.

I asked it because there was nothing to really discuss. It was like, "here's a link". Okay?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I asked it because there was nothing to really discuss. It was like, "here's a link". Okay?

I think we are doing more than enough, already. Sure, our conservation groups could use a bit more money. Probably somewhere between $50-$100 million a year more.


But, we have many more humans dying all over the place when they should not be.


We also have humans having too many children in places they shouldn't be.



So we need to fix our human problems before we go overboard with our other species problems. Sure, we can do both...but we should focus more on the humans..





Also: HIV/AIDS and cancer.

Thank you Dadudemon for your refreshing insight on HIV/AIDS and cancer.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
At this point, what do you think, specifically, would be the best action to take in order to alleviate the damage?

Well, it's a complex problem. We could start with our own country.

Instigate an immediate ban on hunting of all large predators, bears, mountain lions, wolves. etc.

Secondly we could set aside more land (much of the land in the west and Alaska is owned by the federal government and managed by the BLM) for wildlife habitate and permantly close it off to development.

We could reintroduce many of the said predators to areas where they have been eradicated. There have already been efforts to do this but it's only been in baby steps, a lot more can be done.

Make the importance of healthy ecosystems mandatory cirriculum in schools.


On an international level it's much harder, many conservation groups are having some success, particularly in Africa, by educating local populations about the economic benefits of native wildlife via tourism.

Basically educating young people worldwide about the importantce of healthy ecosystems is the best overall option.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Thank you Dadudemon for your refreshing insight on HIV/AIDS and cancer.

Yes, AIDS and cancer are always refreshing. It's like a ice cold glass of OJ during a hot humid summer afternoon.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think we are doing more than enough, already. Sure, our conservation groups could use a bit more money. Probably somewhere between $50-$100 million a year more.

I disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion.




Ok, I agree, but what does this have to do with this thread?




No truer statement has ever been said, but again, off topic





But we are all tied in together. A healthy natural world is good for humanity too.




Off topic again but it is my opinion the medical profession does not want to find cures for these types of diseases. They are in the business of treating, not curing disease. Do you know how much money they would lose if a cure for cancer were found?

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion.




Ok, I agree, but what does this have to do with this thread?




No truer statement has ever been said, but again, off topic





But we are all tied in together. A healthy natural world is good for humanity too.




Off topic again but it is my opinion the medical profession does not want to find cures for these types of diseases. They are in the business of treating, not curing disease. Do you know how much money they would lose if a cure for cancer were found?

I don't think it's off-topic.

When talking about saving animal life, you are talking about shifting money around.

It then becomes a discussion of what is more important: doing better to save other species or doing better at saving our own?

I think our first priority is not animals, but humans.

Then comes animals. Why? We are animals ourselves. Sure, we are not going to go extinct any time soon. But our conditions for some are disgusting when there's more than enough to go around.


Apex consumers dying out? We're working on saving them, already.

We need to work harder at saving other humans first.




Any time someone brings up saving animals, I always bring up fixing humans, first.


Also, if we cured AIDS and cancer, yeah, lots of money would be lost. But, I disagree that we are trying to NOT find cures, though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, AIDS and cancer are always refreshing.

for a fraction of the price, fighting malaria, TB, and other curable diseases in the 3rd world would probably have more impact in terms of human lives saved per dollar

also, lol and the medical conspiracies

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think it's off-topic.

When talking about saving animal life, you are talking about shifting money around.

It then becomes a discussion of what is more important: doing better to save other species or doing better at saving our own?

I think our first priority is not animals, but humans.

Then comes animals. Why? We are animals ourselves. Sure, we are not going to go extinct any time soon. But our conditions for some are disgusting when there's more than enough to go around.


Apex consumers dying out? We're working on saving them, already.

We need to work harder at saving other humans first.




Any time someone brings up saving animals, I always bring up fixing humans, first.


Also, if we cured AIDS and cancer, yeah, lots of money would be lost. But, I disagree that we are trying to NOT find cures, though.

Well, we can agree to disagree, If we lose these species and the natural world it's not coming back. I agree we need to do more to help humanity and I've post numerous threads on just that very subject, BUT I also think lots more can be done to help nature and wildlife.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It then becomes a discussion of what is more important: doing better to save other species or doing better at saving our own? To be equally specific and equally correct, saving a species saves an ecosystem saves a human race. But such arguments as this one and that one mean nothing until we've hit a far, far more specific level of detail. For example, to make your argument fly, you'd have to present a reasonable estimate showing the percentage of the budget currently used for "saving the human race." Call it a hunch, but I'm willing to bet heavily that we make room for plenty of frivolous projects that don't "save" anyone. Comparing every idea with the cure for cancer is quite simply a "straw man."

Originally posted by Quark_666
To be equally specific and equally correct, saving a species saves an ecosystem saves a human race.

Not really.

Unless you can provide evidence that saving lions, elephants, or killer whales will save all life necessary to sustain human life.

Originally posted by Quark_666
To But such arguments as this one and that one mean nothing until we've hit a far, far more specific level of detail. For example, to make your argument fly, you'd have to present a reasonable estimate showing the percentage of the budget currently used for "saving the human race." Call it a hunch, but I'm willing to bet heavily that we make room for plenty of frivolous projects that don't "save" anyone. Comparing every idea with the cure for cancer is quite simply a "straw man."

Not really. Cancer, HIV, and the like were only examples. Narrowing down my points to just cancer is almost missing the point entirely especially since I already stated what you stated.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sure, we can do both...


Sure, we can do both. But we shouldn't lose our shit over the decline of apex consumers when we are already doing more than enough to preserve them.

It's like building a tornado shelter, crawling inside it, and then screaming that we are all going to die when a tornado is spotted in the vicinity. Sure, that shelter needs improvement, but it is sufficient.


Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Well, we can agree to disagree, If we lose these species and the natural world it's not coming back. I agree we need to do more to help humanity and I've post numerous threads on just that very subject, BUT I also think lots more can be done to help nature and wildlife.

While I agree that humans should do better with their evironment, it's actually quite rediculous to think we will destroy all life to the point it won't come back. Even if we nuked every last square inch ofthe planet, life would still persist.

Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again...I don't think humans are special and any more deserving of life on earth than the other species that live here.

Originally posted by inimalist


also, lol and the medical conspiracies

Lol at anyone who thinks that a business (in this case a $1.3 TRILLION dollar business) wouldn't manipulate things to it's benefit. It's hardly a conspiracy.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not really.

Unless you can provide evidence that saving lions, elephants, or killer whales will save all life necessary to sustain human life.
Congratulations, you just identified the logical mechanics that render both my point and your point irrelevant. Notice my exact phrasing was "to be equally correct."


Originally posted by dadudemon
Not really. Cancer, HIV, and the like were only examples. Narrowing down my points to just cancer is almost missing the point entirely especially since I already stated what you stated.




I could've listed cancer with two dozen other examples and still maintained that we have a budget with room for more than saving lives. Of course, you acknowledged this, and it's a relevant perspective to say we already invest enough to save predators, but when you fuel such an argument with the comparison of human lives with animal lives.... well, like I said, "straw man."

Your tornado exaggeration suggests you hear someone panicking. Some of us are simply admiring the beauty of species that are currently disappearing despite our efforts. This admiration is not to be confused with a budget proposal, but rather with a refusal to slide the problem under the table like it doesn't exist. Notice the thread starter.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Lol at anyone who thinks that a business (in this case a $1.3 TRILLION dollar business) wouldn't manipulate things to it's benefit. It's hardly a conspiracy.

evidence?

Originally posted by Quark_666
Congratulations, you just identified the logical mechanics that render both my point and your point irrelevant. Notice my exact phrasing was "to be equally correct."

I disagree.

We could destroy all apex predators and still survive.


We could destroy all apex herbivores and still service.


We could also destroy all apex consumers (d, all of the above) and still survive.

And we can already replicate meat in a petri-dish in addition to grow our own algae that is highly nutritious. We are fairly close to being food independent from nature. All we have to do is ensure enough wild plant life survives to keep our air breathable and our environment non-hostile.


The notion that the sky is falling is ridiculous.


Originally posted by Quark_666
I could've listed cancer with two dozen other examples and still maintained that we have a budget with room for more than saving lives. Of course, you acknowledged this, and it's a relevant perspective to say we already invest enough to save predators, but when you fuel such an argument with the comparison of human lives with animal lives.... well, like I said, "straw man."

Your tornado exaggeration suggests you hear someone panicking. Some of us are simply admiring the beauty of species that are currently disappearing despite our efforts. This admiration is not to be confused with a budget proposal, but rather with a refusal to slide the problem under the table like it doesn't exist. Notice the thread starter.

I disagree, again.

Contrary to the Utopian picture you painted, it's not as simple as spreading the money around properly. This will never happen in any relevant time frame. What it entails is getting people on board enough to get the necessary projects funded. We are doing sub-par on our conservation and the various human problems I mentioned.

If we were to truly spread the money around properly, we would have over-funding in food, animal conservation, and various other human "negatives."

This will not happen, as I said prior.


Additionally, some people ARE freaking out like in my tornado example. They say stuff like, "I would rather 20 humans die than this one cat die." I am not joking. Have you met one of these types?

Additionally, my comment was more about the direction of the article: there is no super urgent need beyond what we are doing now. We could do better, for sure...but we could do better with our HIV research, as well. Which do you think is more important?: Pouring $50 Billion more into HIV research, annually; or $50 Billion more in to animal and habitat preservation? Before you answer, no, the apex consumers are not essential to maintain functioning ecosystems.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree.

We could destroy all apex predators and still survive.


We could destroy all apex herbivores and still service.


We could also destroy all apex consumers (d, all of the above) and still survive.

And we can already replicate meat in a petri-dish in addition to grow our own algae that is highly nutritious. We are fairly close to being food independent from nature. All we have to do is ensure enough wild plant life survives to keep our air breathable and our environment non-hostile.


The notion that the sky is falling is ridiculous.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. When I said "to be equally correct," I meant both statements were false. I don't know how to make that any simpler. Are you missing what I'm saying on accident or on purpose?
Originally posted by dadudemon


I disagree, again.

Contrary to the Utopian picture you painted, it's not as simple as spreading the money around properly. This will never happen in any relevant time frame. What it entails is getting people on board enough to get the necessary projects funded. We are doing sub-par on our conservation and the various human problems I mentioned.

If we were to truly spread the money around properly, we would have over-funding in food, animal conservation, and various other human "negatives."

This will not happen, as I said prior.


Additionally, some people ARE freaking out like in my tornado example. They say stuff like, "I would rather 20 humans die than this one cat die." I am not joking. Have you met one of these types?

Additionally, my comment was more about the direction of the article: there is no super urgent need beyond what we are doing now. We could do better, for sure...but we could do better with our HIV research, as well. Which do you think is more important?: Pouring $50 Billion more into HIV research, annually; or $50 Billion more in to animal and habitat preservation? Before you answer, no, the apex consumers are not essential to maintain functioning ecosystems. Someday, when someone brings up killing people, or even fifty billion dollars, this little rant of yours is going to mean something and I'll probably be saying something similar. Meanwhile, you understand I don't have time for this....

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again...I don't think humans are special and any more deserving of life on earth than the other species that live here.

I agree, and I would not mind a bit if lions tried to do everything in their power to save their species. Fair is fair.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. When I said "to be equally correct," I meant both statements were false. I don't know how to make that any simpler. Are you missing what I'm saying on accident or on purpose?
Someday, when someone brings up killing people, or even fifty billion dollars, this little rant of yours is going to mean something and I'll probably be saying something similar. Meanwhile, you understand I don't have time for this....

You're right about everything.





See? That didn't change anything.


We still are underfunded in "human saving" projects and still underfunded on animal preservation projects.


So what good did our conversation do for anything other than point out the obvious?

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Lol at anyone who thinks that a business (in this case a $1.3 TRILLION dollar business) wouldn't manipulate things to it's benefit. It's hardly a conspiracy. The medical 'business' doesn't have a hive mind. You think it's each individual researcher's concern that a cure for major diseases is never found so that the med business can make money in the long term?

Besides, in the pursuit of finding a cure, we find ways to treat. If you're claiming that the money lies in the treatment, then its in the best interest monetarily for medical institutes to search for a cure and then charge tons for it. Look at every major treatment for cancer currently.

Your logic would make more sense if you were arguing for a conspiracy to increase cancer or at least decrease preventative efforts but given the number of household objects these days that are claimed to be leading causes of cancer, I wouldn't put much stock in that theory either.

Originally posted by dadudemon
We still are underfunded in "human saving" projects and still underfunded on animal preservation projects. This we agree on. The rest, you're right, we'll drop it