as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I think we let children die daily because of the mistakes we make. And I'm just not on your side of the fence with the whole "survival of a species" thing. Species go extinct. That's evolution...baby. If there was one female of a species left on earth. And humans transported that female to where there is a male so they could procreate, wouldn't that be an example of humans interfering with nature?
i thought we've moved past the legitimacy of the question ... the question, as it was perceived to me, is about the value of maintaining a species vs. the life of one child ... the semantics of the hypothetical were ignored ... obviously, if there is only one female left - the species is essentially extinct unless some males become females ... which i guess only happens in fish maybe ... in any case - my position is in the value of not allowing species to go extinct vs. the life of a child ...
do you understand the concepts of biodiversity? how ecosystems work? and/or tipping points? ... this is not meant to be facetious but simply a question to determine if you understand what it means for species to go extinct and it's consequences to everything else ... also, gorillas are endangered in this world because of one singular entity ... humans ... that's not evolution ...
lastly, we let children die because of our selfish choices and our ignorance ... it's not just mistakes ... it's about continuing to live in a world where it is acceptable to exploit childhood labour and kid soldiers ... it's easy to disassociate ourselves from that but the truth is that by supporting the global economy particularly here in north america as we do - we affect the lives of many children around the world ...
I don't understand why you're discounting humans as part of the natural selection process.
because it allows lazy people to simply say that everything is part of the evolutionary cycle ... that there is no accountability in our actions as humans and that everything we do good or bad is all part of something that is inevitable ...
we aren't killing off habitat and species because we need to survive ... we are doing it because we are greedy, selfish and stupid ...
Humans and everything humans do, for whatever the reason, are part of the evolutionary process. If gorillas could build homes, buildings, and had a concept of money, do you not think they'd do the same thing? Of course they would. Natural selection still applies.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I think we let children die daily because of the mistakes we make. And I'm just not on your side of the fence with the whole "survival of a species" thing. Species go extinct. That's evolution...baby. If there was one female of a species left on earth. And humans transported that female to where there is a male so they could procreate, wouldn't that be an example of humans interfering with nature?
i thought we've moved past the legitimacy of the question ... the question, as it was perceived to me, is about the value of maintaining a species vs. the life of one child ... the semantics of the hypothetical were ignored ... obviously, if there is only one female left - the species is essentially extinct unless some males become females ... which i guess only happens in fish maybe ... in any case - my position is in the value of not allowing species to go extinct vs. the life of a child ...
do you understand the concepts of biodiversity? how ecosystems work? and/or tipping points? ... this is not meant to be facetious but simply a question to determine if you understand what it means for species to go extinct and it's consequences to everything else ... also, gorillas are endangered in this world because of one singular entity ... humans ... that's not evolution ...
lastly, we let children die because of our selfish choices and our ignorance ... it's not just mistakes ... it's about continuing to live in a world where it is acceptable to exploit childhood labour and kid soldiers ... it's easy to disassociate ourselves from that but the truth is that by supporting the global economy particularly here in north america as we do - we affect the lives of many children around the world ...
I just don't see how Gorillas in particular are vital to any ecosystems on this planet here in the year 2016. I just don't see it. Maybe I'm blind to Gorilla importance. And if I am...oh well.
you're are not selfish and ignorant because you aren't concerned with gorillas. even if the radical liberals say so.
not sure why the need for constant name calling/labelling. no one here is a radical liberal. not even close.
i didn't think it was physically possible to type so many posts and so many words without actually contributing to the discussion ... proven wrong i guess!
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I think we let children die daily because of the mistakes we make. And I'm just not on your side of the fence with the whole "survival of a species" thing. Species go extinct. That's evolution...baby. If there was one female of a species left on earth. And humans transported that female to where there is a male so they could procreate, wouldn't that be an example of humans interfering with nature?
i thought we've moved past the legitimacy of the question ... the question, as it was perceived to me, is about the value of maintaining a species vs. the life of one child ... the semantics of the hypothetical were ignored ... obviously, if there is only one female left - the species is essentially extinct unless some males become females ... which i guess only happens in fish maybe ... in any case - my position is in the value of not allowing species to go extinct vs. the life of a child ...
do you understand the concepts of biodiversity? how ecosystems work? and/or tipping points? ... this is not meant to be facetious but simply a question to determine if you understand what it means for species to go extinct and it's consequences to everything else ... also, gorillas are endangered in this world because of one singular entity ... humans ... that's not evolution ...
lastly, we let children die because of our selfish choices and our ignorance ... it's not just mistakes ... it's about continuing to live in a world where it is acceptable to exploit childhood labour and kid soldiers ... it's easy to disassociate ourselves from that but the truth is that by supporting the global economy particularly here in north america as we do - we affect the lives of many children around the world ...
I just don't see how Gorillas in particular are vital to any ecosystems on this planet here in the year 2016. I just don't see it. Maybe I'm blind to Gorilla importance. And if I am...oh well.
you're are not selfish and ignorant because you aren't concerned with gorillas. even if the radical liberals say so.
not sure why the need for constant name calling/labelling. no one here is a radical liberal. not even close.
i didn't think it was physically possible to type so many posts and so many words without actually contributing to the discussion ... proven wrong i guess!
i didn't think it was physically possible for people to take themselves so serious on the interweb. i also didnt think it was physically possible for a horse to get that high....
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I think we let children die daily because of the mistakes we make. And I'm just not on your side of the fence with the whole "survival of a species" thing. Species go extinct. That's evolution...baby. If there was one female of a species left on earth. And humans transported that female to where there is a male so they could procreate, wouldn't that be an example of humans interfering with nature?
i thought we've moved past the legitimacy of the question ... the question, as it was perceived to me, is about the value of maintaining a species vs. the life of one child ... the semantics of the hypothetical were ignored ... obviously, if there is only one female left - the species is essentially extinct unless some males become females ... which i guess only happens in fish maybe ... in any case - my position is in the value of not allowing species to go extinct vs. the life of a child ...
do you understand the concepts of biodiversity? how ecosystems work? and/or tipping points? ... this is not meant to be facetious but simply a question to determine if you understand what it means for species to go extinct and it's consequences to everything else ... also, gorillas are endangered in this world because of one singular entity ... humans ... that's not evolution ...
lastly, we let children die because of our selfish choices and our ignorance ... it's not just mistakes ... it's about continuing to live in a world where it is acceptable to exploit childhood labour and kid soldiers ... it's easy to disassociate ourselves from that but the truth is that by supporting the global economy particularly here in north america as we do - we affect the lives of many children around the world ...
I just don't see how Gorillas in particular are vital to any ecosystems on this planet here in the year 2016. I just don't see it. Maybe I'm blind to Gorilla importance. And if I am...oh well.
you're are not selfish and ignorant because you aren't concerned with gorillas. even if the radical liberals say so.
not sure why the need for constant name calling/labelling. no one here is a radical liberal. not even close.
i didn't think it was physically possible to type so many posts and so many words without actually contributing to the discussion ... proven wrong i guess!
i didn't think it was physically possible for people to take themselves so serious on the interweb. i also didnt think it was physically possible for a horse to get that high....
hey ... continue to troll ... if that is what makes you happy ... i can easily ignore you ...
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I think we let children die daily because of the mistakes we make. And I'm just not on your side of the fence with the whole "survival of a species" thing. Species go extinct. That's evolution...baby. If there was one female of a species left on earth. And humans transported that female to where there is a male so they could procreate, wouldn't that be an example of humans interfering with nature?
i thought we've moved past the legitimacy of the question ... the question, as it was perceived to me, is about the value of maintaining a species vs. the life of one child ... the semantics of the hypothetical were ignored ... obviously, if there is only one female left - the species is essentially extinct unless some males become females ... which i guess only happens in fish maybe ... in any case - my position is in the value of not allowing species to go extinct vs. the life of a child ...
do you understand the concepts of biodiversity? how ecosystems work? and/or tipping points? ... this is not meant to be facetious but simply a question to determine if you understand what it means for species to go extinct and it's consequences to everything else ... also, gorillas are endangered in this world because of one singular entity ... humans ... that's not evolution ...
lastly, we let children die because of our selfish choices and our ignorance ... it's not just mistakes ... it's about continuing to live in a world where it is acceptable to exploit childhood labour and kid soldiers ... it's easy to disassociate ourselves from that but the truth is that by supporting the global economy particularly here in north america as we do - we affect the lives of many children around the world ...
I just don't see how Gorillas in particular are vital to any ecosystems on this planet here in the year 2016. I just don't see it. Maybe I'm blind to Gorilla importance. And if I am...oh well.
you're are not selfish and ignorant because you aren't concerned with gorillas. even if the radical liberals say so.
not sure why the need for constant name calling/labelling. no one here is a radical liberal. not even close.
i didn't think it was physically possible to type so many posts and so many words without actually contributing to the discussion ... proven wrong i guess!
i didn't think it was physically possible for people to take themselves so serious on the interweb. i also didnt think it was physically possible for a horse to get that high....
hey ... continue to troll ... if that is what makes you happy ... i can easily ignore you ...
ok. and you can continue to gallop on your unicorn... and pass the granola while you're at it.
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I think we let children die daily because of the mistakes we make. And I'm just not on your side of the fence with the whole "survival of a species" thing. Species go extinct. That's evolution...baby. If there was one female of a species left on earth. And humans transported that female to where there is a male so they could procreate, wouldn't that be an example of humans interfering with nature?
i thought we've moved past the legitimacy of the question ... the question, as it was perceived to me, is about the value of maintaining a species vs. the life of one child ... the semantics of the hypothetical were ignored ... obviously, if there is only one female left - the species is essentially extinct unless some males become females ... which i guess only happens in fish maybe ... in any case - my position is in the value of not allowing species to go extinct vs. the life of a child ...
do you understand the concepts of biodiversity? how ecosystems work? and/or tipping points? ... this is not meant to be facetious but simply a question to determine if you understand what it means for species to go extinct and it's consequences to everything else ... also, gorillas are endangered in this world because of one singular entity ... humans ... that's not evolution ...
lastly, we let children die because of our selfish choices and our ignorance ... it's not just mistakes ... it's about continuing to live in a world where it is acceptable to exploit childhood labour and kid soldiers ... it's easy to disassociate ourselves from that but the truth is that by supporting the global economy particularly here in north america as we do - we affect the lives of many children around the world ...
I just don't see how Gorillas in particular are vital to any ecosystems on this planet here in the year 2016. I just don't see it. Maybe I'm blind to Gorilla importance. And if I am...oh well.
well ... can you answer my questions on your knowledge of ecosystems and biodiversity? ... sure, there are few organisms that life couldn't live without ... the issue here is that if gorillas are expendable ... what else is? ... and at what point do we lose enough species that results in an ecological collapse?
I guess I can't. So why don't you go ahead and educate me? I feel that every "expendable" species could disappear and it wouldn't affect humans. I'd wager a guess you'd say that's wrong. Well explain why. Like bees and butterflies help pollinate, so they're not expendable. Bats kill insects, so they're not expendable. Certainly the animals that are a food source for humans are not expendable. But gorillas, giraffes, walruses, etc...if they were to go extinct....is that a big deal? Are there ecosystems that would crumble without them?
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I think we let children die daily because of the mistakes we make. And I'm just not on your side of the fence with the whole "survival of a species" thing. Species go extinct. That's evolution...baby. If there was one female of a species left on earth. And humans transported that female to where there is a male so they could procreate, wouldn't that be an example of humans interfering with nature?
i thought we've moved past the legitimacy of the question ... the question, as it was perceived to me, is about the value of maintaining a species vs. the life of one child ... the semantics of the hypothetical were ignored ... obviously, if there is only one female left - the species is essentially extinct unless some males become females ... which i guess only happens in fish maybe ... in any case - my position is in the value of not allowing species to go extinct vs. the life of a child ...
do you understand the concepts of biodiversity? how ecosystems work? and/or tipping points? ... this is not meant to be facetious but simply a question to determine if you understand what it means for species to go extinct and it's consequences to everything else ... also, gorillas are endangered in this world because of one singular entity ... humans ... that's not evolution ...
lastly, we let children die because of our selfish choices and our ignorance ... it's not just mistakes ... it's about continuing to live in a world where it is acceptable to exploit childhood labour and kid soldiers ... it's easy to disassociate ourselves from that but the truth is that by supporting the global economy particularly here in north america as we do - we affect the lives of many children around the world ...
I just don't see how Gorillas in particular are vital to any ecosystems on this planet here in the year 2016. I just don't see it. Maybe I'm blind to Gorilla importance. And if I am...oh well.
well ... can you answer my questions on your knowledge of ecosystems and biodiversity? ... sure, there are few organisms that life couldn't live without ... the issue here is that if gorillas are expendable ... what else is? ... and at what point do we lose enough species that results in an ecological collapse?
I guess I can't. So why don't you go ahead and educate me? I feel that every "expendable" species could disappear and it wouldn't affect humans. I'd wager a guess you'd say that's wrong. Well explain why. Like bees and butterflies help pollinate, so they're not expendable. Bats kill insects, so they're not expendable. Certainly the animals that are a food source for humans are not expendable. But gorillas, giraffes, walruses, etc...if they were to go extinct....is that a big deal? Are there ecosystems that would crumble without them?
gorillas occupy jungle or forested areas ... they help disperse seeds of fruits and other plants in their poop ... this also helps the food supply to replenish for other animals that rely on it ... now, if the gorillas were extinct - does it mean ecological collapse? ... not necessarily but because everything is interconnected - we may not grasp the full extent of its contribution ... for example ... if gorillas are extinct then it's possible that the forest regeneration doesn't happen as it should and animals that rely on that regeneration suffer so they fall off ... and then whatever role those animals play will be impacted and so on ...
everything is of course very hypothetical and it is likely that without gorillas - life would sustain itself in other ways ... however, my point from the beginning has always been that the preservation of species in general should be prioritized because once you let one go ... then another and then another ... eventually, the strains on the ecosytem not in balance can cause a collapse ... it's similar to the notion that the earth can withstand a level of warming but if we allow it to warm too much - systems in place that allow us to live in this place can be affected ...
I have no issue with a species going extinct as long as it wasn't human-caused. actually, I'd even go so far as to say we shouldn't interfere in natural extinction.
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I think we let children die daily because of the mistakes we make. And I'm just not on your side of the fence with the whole "survival of a species" thing. Species go extinct. That's evolution...baby. If there was one female of a species left on earth. And humans transported that female to where there is a male so they could procreate, wouldn't that be an example of humans interfering with nature?
i thought we've moved past the legitimacy of the question ... the question, as it was perceived to me, is about the value of maintaining a species vs. the life of one child ... the semantics of the hypothetical were ignored ... obviously, if there is only one female left - the species is essentially extinct unless some males become females ... which i guess only happens in fish maybe ... in any case - my position is in the value of not allowing species to go extinct vs. the life of a child ...
do you understand the concepts of biodiversity? how ecosystems work? and/or tipping points? ... this is not meant to be facetious but simply a question to determine if you understand what it means for species to go extinct and it's consequences to everything else ... also, gorillas are endangered in this world because of one singular entity ... humans ... that's not evolution ...
lastly, we let children die because of our selfish choices and our ignorance ... it's not just mistakes ... it's about continuing to live in a world where it is acceptable to exploit childhood labour and kid soldiers ... it's easy to disassociate ourselves from that but the truth is that by supporting the global economy particularly here in north america as we do - we affect the lives of many children around the world ...
I just don't see how Gorillas in particular are vital to any ecosystems on this planet here in the year 2016. I just don't see it. Maybe I'm blind to Gorilla importance. And if I am...oh well.
well ... can you answer my questions on your knowledge of ecosystems and biodiversity? ... sure, there are few organisms that life couldn't live without ... the issue here is that if gorillas are expendable ... what else is? ... and at what point do we lose enough species that results in an ecological collapse?
I guess I can't. So why don't you go ahead and educate me? I feel that every "expendable" species could disappear and it wouldn't affect humans. I'd wager a guess you'd say that's wrong. Well explain why. Like bees and butterflies help pollinate, so they're not expendable. Bats kill insects, so they're not expendable. Certainly the animals that are a food source for humans are not expendable. But gorillas, giraffes, walruses, etc...if they were to go extinct....is that a big deal? Are there ecosystems that would crumble without them?
gorillas occupy jungle or forested areas ... they help disperse seeds of fruits and other plants in their poop ... this also helps the food supply to replenish for other animals that rely on it ... now, if the gorillas were extinct - does it mean ecological collapse? ... not necessarily but because everything is interconnected - we may not grasp the full extent of its contribution ... for example ... if gorillas are extinct then it's possible that the forest regeneration doesn't happen as it should and animals that rely on that regeneration suffer so they fall off ... and then whatever role those animals play will be impacted and so on ...
everything is of course very hypothetical and it is likely that without gorillas - life would sustain itself in other ways ... however, my point from the beginning has always been that the preservation of species in general should be prioritized because once you let one go ... then another and then another ... eventually, the strains on the ecosytem not in balance can cause a collapse ... it's similar to the notion that the earth can withstand a level of warming but if we allow it to warm too much - systems in place that allow us to live in this place can be affected ...
I have no issue with a species going extinct as long as it wasn't human-caused. actually, I'd even go so far as to say we shouldn't interfere in natural extinction.
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I think we let children die daily because of the mistakes we make. And I'm just not on your side of the fence with the whole "survival of a species" thing. Species go extinct. That's evolution...baby. If there was one female of a species left on earth. And humans transported that female to where there is a male so they could procreate, wouldn't that be an example of humans interfering with nature?
i thought we've moved past the legitimacy of the question ... the question, as it was perceived to me, is about the value of maintaining a species vs. the life of one child ... the semantics of the hypothetical were ignored ... obviously, if there is only one female left - the species is essentially extinct unless some males become females ... which i guess only happens in fish maybe ... in any case - my position is in the value of not allowing species to go extinct vs. the life of a child ...
do you understand the concepts of biodiversity? how ecosystems work? and/or tipping points? ... this is not meant to be facetious but simply a question to determine if you understand what it means for species to go extinct and it's consequences to everything else ... also, gorillas are endangered in this world because of one singular entity ... humans ... that's not evolution ...
lastly, we let children die because of our selfish choices and our ignorance ... it's not just mistakes ... it's about continuing to live in a world where it is acceptable to exploit childhood labour and kid soldiers ... it's easy to disassociate ourselves from that but the truth is that by supporting the global economy particularly here in north america as we do - we affect the lives of many children around the world ...
I just don't see how Gorillas in particular are vital to any ecosystems on this planet here in the year 2016. I just don't see it. Maybe I'm blind to Gorilla importance. And if I am...oh well.
Especially gorillas in captivity.
again ... the hypothetical makes no sense at all ... the response is based on the philosophical nature of the question ... is the preservation of gorillas as a species more important than the life of one child ... that's what I'm answering ...
I was speaking to gorillas in captivity and their role in ecological balance and biodiversity- they have none.
That is some serious self-involvement. If it doesn't affect you directly and relatively immediately you don't care. Okay then. Now i understand where you are coming from.
As far as animals go...yes. And if a species is down to one remaining female, it's nearly extinct anyway. And probably would be if not for humans interfering
Actually most of the species that have gone extinct in the past couple hundred years would probably be absolutely thriving if not for humans interfering.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I have no issue with a species going extinct as long as it wasn't human-caused. actually, I'd even go so far as to say we shouldn't interfere in natural extinction.
Yeah, of course. Unfortunately, the HUGE majority of species that have gone extinct in the last 500 years or so have gone extinct solely because humans killed them off. Same with almost all of the animals that are currently endangered. It`s a very sad state of affairs, and altogether, it IS destroying a sustainable ecosystem on Earth.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I have no issue with a species going extinct as long as it wasn't human-caused. actually, I'd even go so far as to say we shouldn't interfere in natural extinction.
What about human-caused extinction isn't natural though?
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I think we let children die daily because of the mistakes we make. And I'm just not on your side of the fence with the whole "survival of a species" thing. Species go extinct. That's evolution...baby. If there was one female of a species left on earth. And humans transported that female to where there is a male so they could procreate, wouldn't that be an example of humans interfering with nature?
i thought we've moved past the legitimacy of the question ... the question, as it was perceived to me, is about the value of maintaining a species vs. the life of one child ... the semantics of the hypothetical were ignored ... obviously, if there is only one female left - the species is essentially extinct unless some males become females ... which i guess only happens in fish maybe ... in any case - my position is in the value of not allowing species to go extinct vs. the life of a child ...
do you understand the concepts of biodiversity? how ecosystems work? and/or tipping points? ... this is not meant to be facetious but simply a question to determine if you understand what it means for species to go extinct and it's consequences to everything else ... also, gorillas are endangered in this world because of one singular entity ... humans ... that's not evolution ...
lastly, we let children die because of our selfish choices and our ignorance ... it's not just mistakes ... it's about continuing to live in a world where it is acceptable to exploit childhood labour and kid soldiers ... it's easy to disassociate ourselves from that but the truth is that by supporting the global economy particularly here in north america as we do - we affect the lives of many children around the world ...
I don't understand why you're discounting humans as part of the natural selection process.
because it allows lazy people to simply say that everything is part of the evolutionary cycle ... that there is no accountability in our actions as humans and that everything we do good or bad is all part of something that is inevitable ...
we aren't killing off habitat and species because we need to survive ... we are doing it because we are greedy, selfish and stupid ...
Humans and everything humans do, for whatever the reason, are part of the evolutionary process. If gorillas could build homes, buildings, and had a concept of money, do you not think they'd do the same thing? Of course they would. Natural selection still applies.
you correlate natural selection with greed ... there is no literature to suggest any linkage ... surviving does not mean excess ... a whale will stop eating once it is full ... humans on the other hand ...
so, what's your position then? that because humans can control the fate of much life on the planet - that it is ok to continue to lose species and pollute/destroy habitat?
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I think we let children die daily because of the mistakes we make. And I'm just not on your side of the fence with the whole "survival of a species" thing. Species go extinct. That's evolution...baby. If there was one female of a species left on earth. And humans transported that female to where there is a male so they could procreate, wouldn't that be an example of humans interfering with nature?
i thought we've moved past the legitimacy of the question ... the question, as it was perceived to me, is about the value of maintaining a species vs. the life of one child ... the semantics of the hypothetical were ignored ... obviously, if there is only one female left - the species is essentially extinct unless some males become females ... which i guess only happens in fish maybe ... in any case - my position is in the value of not allowing species to go extinct vs. the life of a child ...
do you understand the concepts of biodiversity? how ecosystems work? and/or tipping points? ... this is not meant to be facetious but simply a question to determine if you understand what it means for species to go extinct and it's consequences to everything else ... also, gorillas are endangered in this world because of one singular entity ... humans ... that's not evolution ...
lastly, we let children die because of our selfish choices and our ignorance ... it's not just mistakes ... it's about continuing to live in a world where it is acceptable to exploit childhood labour and kid soldiers ... it's easy to disassociate ourselves from that but the truth is that by supporting the global economy particularly here in north america as we do - we affect the lives of many children around the world ...
I don't understand why you're discounting humans as part of the natural selection process.
because it allows lazy people to simply say that everything is part of the evolutionary cycle ... that there is no accountability in our actions as humans and that everything we do good or bad is all part of something that is inevitable ...
we aren't killing off habitat and species because we need to survive ... we are doing it because we are greedy, selfish and stupid ...
Humans and everything humans do, for whatever the reason, are part of the evolutionary process. If gorillas could build homes, buildings, and had a concept of money, do you not think they'd do the same thing? Of course they would. Natural selection still applies.
you correlate natural selection with greed ... there is no literature to suggest any linkage ... surviving does not mean excess ... a whale will stop eating once it is full ... humans on the other hand ...
so, what's your position then? that because humans can control the fate of much life on the planet - that it is ok to continue to lose species and pollute/destroy habitat?
i thought this thread was about animals in captivity?
I have no issue with a species going extinct as long as it wasn't human-caused. actually, I'd even go so far as to say we shouldn't interfere in natural extinction.
I'm of the opinion that even if humans are 100% the cause l, it's still natural selection.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I think we let children die daily because of the mistakes we make. And I'm just not on your side of the fence with the whole "survival of a species" thing. Species go extinct. That's evolution...baby. If there was one female of a species left on earth. And humans transported that female to where there is a male so they could procreate, wouldn't that be an example of humans interfering with nature?
i thought we've moved past the legitimacy of the question ... the question, as it was perceived to me, is about the value of maintaining a species vs. the life of one child ... the semantics of the hypothetical were ignored ... obviously, if there is only one female left - the species is essentially extinct unless some males become females ... which i guess only happens in fish maybe ... in any case - my position is in the value of not allowing species to go extinct vs. the life of a child ...
do you understand the concepts of biodiversity? how ecosystems work? and/or tipping points? ... this is not meant to be facetious but simply a question to determine if you understand what it means for species to go extinct and it's consequences to everything else ... also, gorillas are endangered in this world because of one singular entity ... humans ... that's not evolution ...
lastly, we let children die because of our selfish choices and our ignorance ... it's not just mistakes ... it's about continuing to live in a world where it is acceptable to exploit childhood labour and kid soldiers ... it's easy to disassociate ourselves from that but the truth is that by supporting the global economy particularly here in north america as we do - we affect the lives of many children around the world ...
I don't understand why you're discounting humans as part of the natural selection process.
because it allows lazy people to simply say that everything is part of the evolutionary cycle ... that there is no accountability in our actions as humans and that everything we do good or bad is all part of something that is inevitable ...
we aren't killing off habitat and species because we need to survive ... we are doing it because we are greedy, selfish and stupid ...
Humans and everything humans do, for whatever the reason, are part of the evolutionary process. If gorillas could build homes, buildings, and had a concept of money, do you not think they'd do the same thing? Of course they would. Natural selection still applies.
you correlate natural selection with greed ... there is no literature to suggest any linkage ... surviving does not mean excess ... a whale will stop eating once it is full ... humans on the other hand ...
so, what's your position then? that because humans can control the fate of much life on the planet - that it is ok to continue to lose species and pollute/destroy habitat?
Somebody earlier stated that human greed either caused or contributed to species extinction. I'm not correlating the 2.
It's irrelevant to me why a species goes extinct. It's all natural selection.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
I have no issue with a species going extinct as long as it wasn't human-caused. actually, I'd even go so far as to say we shouldn't interfere in natural extinction.
I'm of the opinion that even if humans are 100% the cause l, it's still natural selection.
I feel the exact same way. PJ_Soul said above "Actually most of the species that have gone extinct in the past couple hundred years would probably be absolutely thriving if not for humans interfering." Well, there were probably many species that went extinct because a smarter or stronger species came along and wiped them out.
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I think we let children die daily because of the mistakes we make. And I'm just not on your side of the fence with the whole "survival of a species" thing. Species go extinct. That's evolution...baby. If there was one female of a species left on earth. And humans transported that female to where there is a male so they could procreate, wouldn't that be an example of humans interfering with nature?
i thought we've moved past the legitimacy of the question ... the question, as it was perceived to me, is about the value of maintaining a species vs. the life of one child ... the semantics of the hypothetical were ignored ... obviously, if there is only one female left - the species is essentially extinct unless some males become females ... which i guess only happens in fish maybe ... in any case - my position is in the value of not allowing species to go extinct vs. the life of a child ...
do you understand the concepts of biodiversity? how ecosystems work? and/or tipping points? ... this is not meant to be facetious but simply a question to determine if you understand what it means for species to go extinct and it's consequences to everything else ... also, gorillas are endangered in this world because of one singular entity ... humans ... that's not evolution ...
lastly, we let children die because of our selfish choices and our ignorance ... it's not just mistakes ... it's about continuing to live in a world where it is acceptable to exploit childhood labour and kid soldiers ... it's easy to disassociate ourselves from that but the truth is that by supporting the global economy particularly here in north america as we do - we affect the lives of many children around the world ...
I don't understand why you're discounting humans as part of the natural selection process.
because it allows lazy people to simply say that everything is part of the evolutionary cycle ... that there is no accountability in our actions as humans and that everything we do good or bad is all part of something that is inevitable ...
we aren't killing off habitat and species because we need to survive ... we are doing it because we are greedy, selfish and stupid ...
Humans and everything humans do, for whatever the reason, are part of the evolutionary process. If gorillas could build homes, buildings, and had a concept of money, do you not think they'd do the same thing? Of course they would. Natural selection still applies.
you correlate natural selection with greed ... there is no literature to suggest any linkage ... surviving does not mean excess ... a whale will stop eating once it is full ... humans on the other hand ...
so, what's your position then? that because humans can control the fate of much life on the planet - that it is ok to continue to lose species and pollute/destroy habitat?
Somebody earlier stated that human greed either caused or contributed to species extinction. I'm not correlating the 2.
It's irrelevant to me why a species goes extinct. It's all natural selection.
why is it irrelevant? ... if i kill your mother because she has food i want to eat - that's natural selection no?
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I think we let children die daily because of the mistakes we make. And I'm just not on your side of the fence with the whole "survival of a species" thing. Species go extinct. That's evolution...baby. If there was one female of a species left on earth. And humans transported that female to where there is a male so they could procreate, wouldn't that be an example of humans interfering with nature?
i thought we've moved past the legitimacy of the question ... the question, as it was perceived to me, is about the value of maintaining a species vs. the life of one child ... the semantics of the hypothetical were ignored ... obviously, if there is only one female left - the species is essentially extinct unless some males become females ... which i guess only happens in fish maybe ... in any case - my position is in the value of not allowing species to go extinct vs. the life of a child ...
do you understand the concepts of biodiversity? how ecosystems work? and/or tipping points? ... this is not meant to be facetious but simply a question to determine if you understand what it means for species to go extinct and it's consequences to everything else ... also, gorillas are endangered in this world because of one singular entity ... humans ... that's not evolution ...
lastly, we let children die because of our selfish choices and our ignorance ... it's not just mistakes ... it's about continuing to live in a world where it is acceptable to exploit childhood labour and kid soldiers ... it's easy to disassociate ourselves from that but the truth is that by supporting the global economy particularly here in north america as we do - we affect the lives of many children around the world ...
I don't understand why you're discounting humans as part of the natural selection process.
because it allows lazy people to simply say that everything is part of the evolutionary cycle ... that there is no accountability in our actions as humans and that everything we do good or bad is all part of something that is inevitable ...
we aren't killing off habitat and species because we need to survive ... we are doing it because we are greedy, selfish and stupid ...
Humans and everything humans do, for whatever the reason, are part of the evolutionary process. If gorillas could build homes, buildings, and had a concept of money, do you not think they'd do the same thing? Of course they would. Natural selection still applies.
you correlate natural selection with greed ... there is no literature to suggest any linkage ... surviving does not mean excess ... a whale will stop eating once it is full ... humans on the other hand ...
so, what's your position then? that because humans can control the fate of much life on the planet - that it is ok to continue to lose species and pollute/destroy habitat?
Somebody earlier stated that human greed either caused or contributed to species extinction. I'm not correlating the 2.
It's irrelevant to me why a species goes extinct. It's all natural selection.
why is it irrelevant? ... if i kill your mother because she has food i want to eat - that's natural selection no?
What are the circumstances? Is the world under attack by some mutant disease that turns everyone into zombies and you are trying to survive?
If not, I'd say you murdered her because you didn't prepare yourself enough in life to acquire and retain a job.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
But most things that can make a species extinct is illegal. So if you killed someone for whatever reason, you're still a murderer. Same as people that kill elephants just for the ivory. It's illegal to poach, doesn't mean it isnt part of natural selection.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I think we let children die daily because of the mistakes we make. And I'm just not on your side of the fence with the whole "survival of a species" thing. Species go extinct. That's evolution...baby. If there was one female of a species left on earth. And humans transported that female to where there is a male so they could procreate, wouldn't that be an example of humans interfering with nature?
i thought we've moved past the legitimacy of the question ... the question, as it was perceived to me, is about the value of maintaining a species vs. the life of one child ... the semantics of the hypothetical were ignored ... obviously, if there is only one female left - the species is essentially extinct unless some males become females ... which i guess only happens in fish maybe ... in any case - my position is in the value of not allowing species to go extinct vs. the life of a child ...
do you understand the concepts of biodiversity? how ecosystems work? and/or tipping points? ... this is not meant to be facetious but simply a question to determine if you understand what it means for species to go extinct and it's consequences to everything else ... also, gorillas are endangered in this world because of one singular entity ... humans ... that's not evolution ...
lastly, we let children die because of our selfish choices and our ignorance ... it's not just mistakes ... it's about continuing to live in a world where it is acceptable to exploit childhood labour and kid soldiers ... it's easy to disassociate ourselves from that but the truth is that by supporting the global economy particularly here in north america as we do - we affect the lives of many children around the world ...
I don't understand why you're discounting humans as part of the natural selection process.
because it allows lazy people to simply say that everything is part of the evolutionary cycle ... that there is no accountability in our actions as humans and that everything we do good or bad is all part of something that is inevitable ...
we aren't killing off habitat and species because we need to survive ... we are doing it because we are greedy, selfish and stupid ...
Humans and everything humans do, for whatever the reason, are part of the evolutionary process. If gorillas could build homes, buildings, and had a concept of money, do you not think they'd do the same thing? Of course they would. Natural selection still applies.
you correlate natural selection with greed ... there is no literature to suggest any linkage ... surviving does not mean excess ... a whale will stop eating once it is full ... humans on the other hand ...
so, what's your position then? that because humans can control the fate of much life on the planet - that it is ok to continue to lose species and pollute/destroy habitat?
Somebody earlier stated that human greed either caused or contributed to species extinction. I'm not correlating the 2.
It's irrelevant to me why a species goes extinct. It's all natural selection.
why is it irrelevant? ... if i kill your mother because she has food i want to eat - that's natural selection no?
What are the circumstances? Is the world under attack by some mutant disease that turns everyone into zombies and you are trying to survive?
If not, I'd say you murdered her because you didn't prepare yourself enough in life to acquire and retain a job.
well ... the cause and the motivation is irrelevant to you ... if what humans do is part of the evolutionary cycle and it's all natural selection - then what does it matter that I murdered her or not?
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I think we let children die daily because of the mistakes we make. And I'm just not on your side of the fence with the whole "survival of a species" thing. Species go extinct. That's evolution...baby. If there was one female of a species left on earth. And humans transported that female to where there is a male so they could procreate, wouldn't that be an example of humans interfering with nature?
i thought we've moved past the legitimacy of the question ... the question, as it was perceived to me, is about the value of maintaining a species vs. the life of one child ... the semantics of the hypothetical were ignored ... obviously, if there is only one female left - the species is essentially extinct unless some males become females ... which i guess only happens in fish maybe ... in any case - my position is in the value of not allowing species to go extinct vs. the life of a child ...
do you understand the concepts of biodiversity? how ecosystems work? and/or tipping points? ... this is not meant to be facetious but simply a question to determine if you understand what it means for species to go extinct and it's consequences to everything else ... also, gorillas are endangered in this world because of one singular entity ... humans ... that's not evolution ...
lastly, we let children die because of our selfish choices and our ignorance ... it's not just mistakes ... it's about continuing to live in a world where it is acceptable to exploit childhood labour and kid soldiers ... it's easy to disassociate ourselves from that but the truth is that by supporting the global economy particularly here in north america as we do - we affect the lives of many children around the world ...
I don't understand why you're discounting humans as part of the natural selection process.
because it allows lazy people to simply say that everything is part of the evolutionary cycle ... that there is no accountability in our actions as humans and that everything we do good or bad is all part of something that is inevitable ...
we aren't killing off habitat and species because we need to survive ... we are doing it because we are greedy, selfish and stupid ...
Humans and everything humans do, for whatever the reason, are part of the evolutionary process. If gorillas could build homes, buildings, and had a concept of money, do you not think they'd do the same thing? Of course they would. Natural selection still applies.
you correlate natural selection with greed ... there is no literature to suggest any linkage ... surviving does not mean excess ... a whale will stop eating once it is full ... humans on the other hand ...
so, what's your position then? that because humans can control the fate of much life on the planet - that it is ok to continue to lose species and pollute/destroy habitat?
Somebody earlier stated that human greed either caused or contributed to species extinction. I'm not correlating the 2.
It's irrelevant to me why a species goes extinct. It's all natural selection.
why is it irrelevant? ... if i kill your mother because she has food i want to eat - that's natural selection no?
What are the circumstances? Is the world under attack by some mutant disease that turns everyone into zombies and you are trying to survive?
If not, I'd say you murdered her because you didn't prepare yourself enough in life to acquire and retain a job.
well ... the cause and the motivation is irrelevant to you ... if what humans do is part of the evolutionary cycle and it's all natural selection - then what does it matter that I murdered her or not?
Have at it, you just have to live with the consequences. Just as people do that contribute to the extinction of any species.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
I have no issue with a species going extinct as long as it wasn't human-caused. actually, I'd even go so far as to say we shouldn't interfere in natural extinction.
I'm of the opinion that even if humans are 100% the cause l, it's still natural selection.
I feel the exact same way. PJ_Soul said above "Actually most of the species that have gone extinct in the past couple hundred years would probably be absolutely thriving if not for humans interfering." Well, there were probably many species that went extinct because a smarter or stronger species came along and wiped them out.
there is an irony here in that you guys are interpreting darwin theory as an excuse for our impact on the planet yet fail to recognize that core to darwin's theory of evolution is that we are all interconnected ... and that if we fail to protect the balances that maintain life on this planet - we not only doom the life of those we consider expendable but of ourselves ...
I have no issue with a species going extinct as long as it wasn't human-caused. actually, I'd even go so far as to say we shouldn't interfere in natural extinction.
I'm of the opinion that even if humans are 100% the cause l, it's still natural selection.
I feel the exact same way. PJ_Soul said above "Actually most of the species that have gone extinct in the past couple hundred years would probably be absolutely thriving if not for humans interfering." Well, there were probably many species that went extinct because a smarter or stronger species came along and wiped them out.
there is an irony here in that you guys are interpreting darwin theory as an excuse for our impact on the planet yet fail to recognize that core to darwin's theory of evolution is that we are all interconnected ... and that if we fail to protect the balances that maintain life on this planet - we not only doom the life of those we consider expendable but of ourselves ...
I get what is being said, though, polaris. it's an interesting thought, though. how can anything we do NOT be considered natural? just because we consume more than we need, doesn't mean it's not natural. it's part of our UNFORTUNATE evolution into who we are.
there are many species of animal that doesn't use up every part of their kill. is that not considered selfish or wasteful if it was to be anthropomorphised? if that's even a word. but I think you get what I mean.
I don't think they are making excuses, I think they are just stating things are they currently are. they aren't saying "let's cut down more forests! it's in our nature to do so!". it's just stating a fact of what is currently going on.
I get what is being said, though, polaris. it's an interesting thought, though. how can anything we do NOT be considered natural? just because we consume more than we need, doesn't mean it's not natural. it's part of our UNFORTUNATE evolution into who we are.
there are many species of animal that doesn't use up every part of their kill. is that not considered selfish or wasteful if it was to be anthropomorphised? if that's even a word. but I think you get what I mean.
I don't think they are making excuses, I think they are just stating things are they currently are. they aren't saying "let's cut down more forests! it's in our nature to do so!". it's just stating a fact of what is currently going on.
i would hope we are not debating whether the tern natural is proper or not ... it's semantics that really has no bearing on the issue whatsoever ... i could care less if they want to call global warming part of evolution ...
the crux of the discussion for me has always been, for the most part, whether or not the survival of a species is more important than the life of a child ... what i'm getting from them is that species come and go and that losing gorillas is no big deal ...
as for your example of animals not using every part of the kill ... remember there are scavengers in the ecosystem too ... so, often a lion may leave a portion of a kill when it is full in order for scavengers to finish the rest ...
life on this planet is predicated on a balance of sorts ... the more we throw things out of whack - the more likely we are to cause major catastrophes (see global warming) ...
Comments
we will find a way, we will find our place
gets em every time.
www.headstonesband.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
everything is of course very hypothetical and it is likely that without gorillas - life would sustain itself in other ways ... however, my point from the beginning has always been that the preservation of species in general should be prioritized because once you let one go ... then another and then another ... eventually, the strains on the ecosytem not in balance can cause a collapse ... it's similar to the notion that the earth can withstand a level of warming but if we allow it to warm too much - systems in place that allow us to live in this place can be affected ...
www.headstonesband.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
(phones)
I'm only joking, I know what you mean
so, what's your position then? that because humans can control the fate of much life on the planet - that it is ok to continue to lose species and pollute/destroy habitat?
we will find a way, we will find our place
It's irrelevant to me why a species goes extinct. It's all natural selection.
we will find a way, we will find our place
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
If not, I'd say you murdered her because you didn't prepare yourself enough in life to acquire and retain a job.
we will find a way, we will find our place
we will find a way, we will find our place
we will find a way, we will find our place
pet dogs kill more people than gorillas. the facts are people are scared & miserable
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
there are many species of animal that doesn't use up every part of their kill. is that not considered selfish or wasteful if it was to be anthropomorphised? if that's even a word. but I think you get what I mean.
I don't think they are making excuses, I think they are just stating things are they currently are. they aren't saying "let's cut down more forests! it's in our nature to do so!". it's just stating a fact of what is currently going on.
www.headstonesband.com
the crux of the discussion for me has always been, for the most part, whether or not the survival of a species is more important than the life of a child ... what i'm getting from them is that species come and go and that losing gorillas is no big deal ...
as for your example of animals not using every part of the kill ... remember there are scavengers in the ecosystem too ... so, often a lion may leave a portion of a kill when it is full in order for scavengers to finish the rest ...
life on this planet is predicated on a balance of sorts ... the more we throw things out of whack - the more likely we are to cause major catastrophes (see global warming) ...