So, I'll answer the point that was addressed to me before hitting on a couple of other things
I will say I think it is tragic how poor of a view members have of humanity, as if we should feel guilty for the fact that we have industry and civilization. Oh, but the matrix said.... get a ****ing life /sigh
Originally posted by General G
I personally let my body fight off any bacteria that enters my body.
And you prove the hypocracy of your argument
killing bacteria is wrong unless it is I who is killing the bacteria
Originally posted by General G
But then there is another less Rhino, and we can deal with losing a few humans, rhinos can’t.
What objective advantage is there to having one more rhino?
In the case of elephants, they are causing mass damage to the environment where they are held (nature preserves). It is clearly objectively beneficial to move or cull the population, however, given that they are endangered, this is not allowed. What is your solution?
Let us drive this further. We have, as a species, driven certain viriuses to the brink of extinction. These viruses have all the same rights as the other animals you talk about, but are also very damaging to human society. Should we try to make deadly viruses extinct?
And finally, since animals are (re: ARE) adapting to human civilization and learning how to use our habits for their benefit, what if there were a predatory animal that learned to "knock" on a door. Now, lets pretend that this is a highly evolved mammal, and that there are only 16 of them left. Is it more important to save the humans who that animal will kill or to save the animals who are killing humans?
Originally posted by General G
Yes they did, in a natural way, we are killing them in unnatural ways, we are shooting them, destroying where they live unmercifully. If they were still going endangered and extinct in a natural manner, I would not have wrote this.
why is a gun unnatural?
If it is, so are beaver damns and chimpanzee tools. All of a sudden we must rise up against the immoral beavers who have DELIBRATELY flooded valuable grasslands.
Originally posted by General G
I basically wanted to find an even number of years to figure it out so that it makes it more real to more people, and I wanted to make sure it fell into the estimated number of species.
So, you have just admitted to fudging statistics to make a more convincing argument. Boy does that sound intellectually honest
Originally posted by General G
But those animals will basically be clones of those older animals, and there are obvious problems with that.
Why is biodiversity important to human society in anything but an aesthetic or abstract way?
Originally posted by General G
I know, I just don’t see why we have to do whatever we can to kill species off while we are here.
we are clearly not doing whatever we can to eliminate species. Individuals make money off of the trade of endangered animals, which is pretty much uniformly denounced by all the major world powers, and the rest die as a consequence to our industry and civilization.
Were the cyanobacteria who changed all the "air" in the atmosphere from CO2 to O2 immoral for the obvious strife and change they caused the planet. Oh, ok, so why are we? ESPECIALLY when the vast majority of people in WESTERN nations oppose wanton environmental destruction?
Originally posted by General G
And I actually agree with you there, many people do try to do the right thing, I know many. I should have reworded it. It was more of a general thing.
ah yes, the moral absolute "right thing". All good arguments are based on those.
Originally posted by inimalist
So, I'll answer the point that was addressed to me before hitting on a couple of other thingsI will say I think it is tragic how poor of a view members have of humanity, as if we should feel guilty for the fact that we have industry and civilization. Oh, but the matrix said.... get a ****ing life /sigh
Grumpy grumpy aren't we?. 😄 😛
Originally posted by inimalist
And you prove the hypocracy of your argumentkilling bacteria is wrong unless it is I who is killing the bacteria
Calling that hypocrisy is to miss his entire point. He was saying that he doesn't take antibiotics or other things that he considers unnatural and he allows his body to fend off the "infection" like all of the other animals do. You know, along the same lines of only breast feeding you babies, or only eating natural unprocessed foods...some people are like that.
Originally posted by inimalist
And finally, since animals are (re: ARE) adapting to human civilization and learning how to use our habits for their benefit, what if there were a predatory animal that learned to "knock" on a door. Now, lets pretend that this is a highly evolved mammal, and that there are only 16 of them left. Is it more important to save the humans who that animal will kill or to save the animals who are killing humans?
You make a good point. I wanted to say that same thing earlier but I chose to wait for someone else to say it first so people wouldn't get as angry at me. Intelligent and thrifty animals are getting along just fine with humans being all up in their business. Animals like that will have an excellent future on our planet. Some animals are so well adapted to surviving-like we are-that they may never become extinct.
Originally posted by inimalist
why is a gun unnatural?If it is, so are beaver damns and chimpanzee tools. All of a sudden we must rise up against the immoral beavers who have DELIBRATELY flooded valuable grasslands.
I've made that point already... 🙁
Originally posted by inimalist
So, you have just admitted to fudging statistics to make a more convincing argument. Boy does that sound intellectually honest
Look at my math. I cited sources. Your above point is moot. I've already showed that his math is good by working his numbers in reverse...despite that fact that he did some rounding.
Originally posted by inimalist
Why is biodiversity important to human society in anything but an aesthetic or abstract way?
I have already addressed that as well..from a scientific approach. Even IF the first generation of lab created species were perfect clones of each other, mutations in subsequent generations would increase their chances of independent survival. However, it is likely that the gene sequence/s used to recreate an expired species would have an intelligent design...to prevent breeding failures due to "inbreeding".
Originally posted by dadudemon
One could also argue that the actions of man are natural; we are animals too. Why aren't the things we do natural too? (Though I do not agree with that idealology, I am just playing devil's advocate.)
Well, if you already realise, then there is not much point stating stuff already known to us both.
Originally posted by dadudemon
What do you expect from a fellow Star Wars fan? 😄
I should have known. 😛
Originally posted by dadudemon
1. All organisms are basically clones, though.Scientists have been aware of the extremely minute genetic differences in one specimen of species to another of the same species for many years. The very very tiny differences are what make each organism not an exact replica of its progenitor/s. In order to successfully "replicate" a species from just data, scientists would have to master the ability to create these very very minute differences so that the species could procreate successfully. Of course, in a few decades, I am very sure software will be able to do all of that and eliminate the need for the geneticist to think that much about that organism's genome.
2. I agree, we are very far from being able to terraform a planet. We were looking 300 years into the future and 300 years from now, terraforming should not be an issue. My point was not the ability to terraform a planet, but to introduce the idea of terraforming a planet just to put our planetary species on that planet that we have replicated just from data alone. I guess I just used it for novelty only.
1. OK, I will start off with this, lets say that we are cloning the extinct Tasmanian Tiger (Thylacine if you will), first off, we would need the DNA, which can be hard to come by when they finally perfect cloning. Second, that species went extinct once, what is stopping it from doing so again? Poachers will still hunt and forests are still being cut down at alarming rates, there will be nowhere to put them. And we are much closer to cloning then terraforming, so we can't just put them on another planet.
2. Alright.
Originally posted by inimalist
In the case of elephants, they are causing mass damage to the environment where they are held (nature preserves). It is clearly objectively beneficial to move or cull the population, however, given that they are endangered, this is not allowed. What is your solution?
If humans would stop killing them for their tusks and whatnot, they wouldn't have to destroy a nature preserve made for them.
Originally posted by inimalist
And finally, since animals are adapting to human civilization and learning how to use our habits for their benefit, what if there were a predatory animal that learned to "knock" on a door. Now, lets pretend that this is a highly evolved mammal, and that there are only 16 of them left. Is it more important to save the humans who that animal will kill or to save the animals who are killing humans?
Perfect then, a slight taste of our own medicine perhaps? There is lots of room for the human population to decrease quite dramatically.
Re: I do not like humans.
Originally posted by General G
Please read all before posting, this is my first visit, let alone post in here, this may get closed, but what do I care, I got to say it.Back on topic:
I hate people and our arrogant ways, that just because we can blow each other up with nuclear weapons and kill each other with guns, we are therefore better than any other species and have the right no totally wipe them out.
On average, about 1 species goes extinct every 18 minutes, whether that is a particular plant or bacteria, or a large mammal (most recent was a type of dolphin just a few weeks ago) which means that with all of the species on Earth, in just 300 years, there will be NO more species.
I personally think that animals lives are far above the value of a humans and that the next species to go extinct or endangered should be well...us. We are way too overpopulated too spread out, and because we are so arrogant, we think that it doesn’t matter what we do to anything else. With the amount of trees and forests we are cutting down each year (damn, each day for crying out loud) is disgusting and is a surprise that anything can still live in those areas.
I remember a bit ago a man shot a hunter dead because the hunter was about to kill a Rhino, and he got extremely ridiculed for it and was sent to jail. But I still remember what he said before he did, he said that if someone was robbing a bank and ran out with a bag of money (basically a bag of paper) and he shot that man dead, he would be praised, perhaps even rewarded, and to see that one of our endangered animals, a living, breathing animal has less value than a silly bag of paper just disgusts me.
And we are not stopping, the Amur Leopard has less than 40 left in the wild, only six of those are females, we pushed them to extinction, I guarantee within the next couple years, there will be no more. They get so little attention because they live in the same area as the Siberian (Amur) tigers which is the Amur River Valley in Russia.
The Dusky Seaside Sparrow…it took us about 118 years to drive them to extinction after we first found them. They went extinct in 1990. The person that took care of the very last Dusky Seaside Sparrow had this to say, "The last member of the rarest species known to us. He became blind in one eye, became old for a sparrow, and yet he persisted as if he knew his sole task was to sustain the bloodline as long as possible., I wondered if he felt sorrow or excruciating panic at the thought of his oneness. Orange Band, blind in one eye, old and alone, was gone.” Orange Band was the name of the Sparrow.
I personally wouldn’t mind the removal of humans from this planet, we do nothing good.
Anyways, I am done now.
Humans have done bad things, but they have also done good things.
Some of us are responsible for the extinction of other species, but some of us are also responsible for saving endangered species.
Originally posted by inimalist
why can't violence just be natural?things kill eachother, its not that big of a deal. As a society we have to prevent it for social reasons, but as far as nature goes, stuff kills stuff.
Species protection is such an abstact and anthropic idea. Look at the massive deforistation problems in Africa associated with an abundance of elephants in non-suitable environments. Because the environment changes animals have to go extinct. If that environment includes humans and pollution, the animal kingdom will have to, and will, adapt. Think about the generations of insects and rodents that have the behavioural tendencies to live inside of human dwellings. Their offspring's offspring's offspring's.... offspring will undoubtedly be almost parasitic to human construction.
Agree with this for the most part.
The original poster just wants some attention - "This is my first post and I don't care what you say."
A new Czarina?
Re: I do not like humans.
Originally posted by General GI personally wouldn’t mind the removal of humans from this planet, we do nothing good.
Anyways, I am done now.
This part just really has no point though. It seems as if he would want to wipe himself out also.
If you have no hope, you have nothing. To just say "we do nothing good" is more a statement about what he is surrounded by and what he "observes." Choosing to overlook the entire picture is ignorant and makes his logic seem bland.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Grumpy grumpy aren't we?. 😄 😛
lol. After you posted this I read a part of the Fountainhead where a group of pretentious individuals (who also write newspaper columns as art critics) are talking about this bad play that they were going to give great reviews to, so that the people who see it will think they need to enjoy it as much as the play of a good writer. It goes something like:
Now, the bad author knows he cannot win in a real competition of artistry with the talented author. However, if the critics write that people "in the know" are the ones who think the bad author is the next talented author, people will believe it, and eventually they will no longer be able to tell who the talented authors are. And thus, art will be equal opportunity, open to everyone, not just those with "talent", it's so discriminatory.
Thats what I think of the Matrix.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Calling that hypocrisy is to miss his entire point. He was saying that he doesn't take antibiotics or other things that he considers unnatural and he allows his body to fend off the "infection" like all of the other animals do. You know, along the same lines of only breast feeding you babies, or only eating natural unprocessed foods...some people are like that.
That kindof misses my point. It is natural for one thing to kill another, you have no control over your body killing living things.
He was the one who put bacteria and microorganisms on the level of mammals. And in a very strictly genetic evolutionary perspective, microorganisms and mammals are the same thing, meaning that, if killing an animal is "immoral", the same would be true for your body's immune response.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You make a good point. I wanted to say that same thing earlier but I chose to wait for someone else to say it first so people wouldn't get as angry at me. Intelligent and thrifty animals are getting along just fine with humans being all up in their business. Animals like that will have an excellent future on our planet. Some animals are so well adapted to surviving-like we are-that they may never become extinct.
absolutly, I couldn't agree more. A lot of what I would call environmental nonsense is based on a worldview that holds that the way the world is today is the way that it must be, or even more nonsensical, the way the world was before is the way it should become. It kinda ignores the history of life and the world itself.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I've made that point already... 🙁
🙂 it is a good point. As winston churchill said "If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time-a tremendous whack."
Originally posted by dadudemon
Look at my math. I cited sources. Your above point is moot. I've already showed that his math is good by working his numbers in reverse...despite that fact that he did some rounding.
not questioning the math, more the "I made it more real for people" attitude. I might have been too harsh, but "fudging" or "usefull rounding for comprehension" is notorious in the green movement. I saw your figures, I didn't question the stat.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I have already addressed that as well..from a scientific approach. Even IF the first generation of lab created species were perfect clones of each other, mutations in subsequent generations would increase their chances of independent survival. However, it is likely that the gene sequence/s used to recreate an expired species would have an intelligent design...to prevent breeding failures due to "inbreeding".
You said:
Originally posted by dadudemon
To a certain extent...yes. Humans need to stop reproducing so much.We need a large plague that wipes out a thrid of humanity or something. Humans are so smart that all the time we are circumventing mother nature's natural population controls.
And maybe I should have been more clear. I completely understand that we are making species go extinct. I am wondering why that is as big of a problem as we make it out to be. Like, people lament the Dodo, but I don't think its dissapearance has affected human society or the lives of people at all.
I anticipate the "what gives us the right" or the "what about the dodo's rights" argument, but all I can say to that is that it is nature. Things go extinct. We are a part of nature, our guns, our technology, our pollution, our hunting, our criminals, and even our environmental protection programs. It is all part of the environment. If animals cannot adapt to their environment, they go extinct.
Originally posted by General G
If humans would stop killing them for their tusks and whatnot, they wouldn't have to destroy a nature preserve made for them.
Killing elephants is illegal, governments police it fiercly. It is so difficult to kill elephants that there has been no culling of the heards, which would seemingly be necessary for them to have a habitable environment.
The vast majority of humanity are against the eradication of the elephant population. A small group of criminals are willing to continue killing them. People are so determined to save the elephants that they may be over-protecting them. Can you please explain to me how these facts are congruent with a worldview that proposes that humans are trying to destroy the elephants? Explain to me how the elephants would benefit more from not having humans around...
Originally posted by General G
Perfect then, a slight taste of our own medicine perhaps? There is lots of room for the human population to decrease quite dramatically.
thats pretty gross, but I would actually rather you comment on the morality of causing a deadly virus to go extinct.
Originally posted by chithappens
Agree with this for the most part.The original poster just wants some attention - "This is my first post and I don't care what you say."
A new Czarina?
I doubt it, he seems to have some sense
Just seems to be a youngster with some angst, and the environmental gangsters have got to him with their oh so salient memes
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
''A free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular."I wonder why.