Animals in Captivity

1…89111314…16

Comments

  • Ledbetterman10
    Ledbetterman10 Posts: 16,994
    edited June 2016
    polaris_x said:

    Ledbetterman10 said:

    polaris_x said:

    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.
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    Ledbetterman10 said:

    polaris_x said:

    Ledbetterman10 said:

    polaris_x said:

    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.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • rustneversleeps
    rustneversleeps The Motel of Lost Companions Posts: 2,209
    Ledbetterman10 said:

    polaris_x said:

    Ledbetterman10 said:

    polaris_x said:

    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.
  • lukin2006
    lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    PJ_Soul said:

    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    lukin2006 said:

    HughFreakingDillon said:

    devil's advocate: EVERY species, if they were put in a position to choose their own or another, would choose their own EVERY SINGLE TIME. a gorilla wouldn't give a second thought to snapping the last human female in half if one of their babies was in danger.

    You're right ... The big difference is that kids mama was probably too hysterical to do anything, but reverse that role with the ape or most other animals and they immediately would jump into action and rescue their young.
    This is a mouthful.

    It's true. Outside of crocodiles, are there other animals outside of humans that will kill their own offspring?

    (Mom never sounded too hysterical... I'm not sure what the most accurate descriptor would be?)
    That are tons of animals that kill their own young actually. I personally once saw a cat eat the head off of her own kitten. Other species will happily fight to the death with their own offspring once they are adults and a threat to their position in a heard or pride or whatever. Others will simply reject their young for various reasons and abandon them soon after birth. This is fairly common among animals. So yeah, animals usually protect their own kids to the death, and humans are particularly protective of their own offspring (NOT of other people's offspring).
    I don't trust cats ... Too sneaky, now I know why.
    I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin

    "Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
  • lukin2006
    lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    polaris_x said:

    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 agree with you Polaris ... Are you talking economic choices? Do you have a solution?
    I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin

    "Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,473
    rustneversleeps said:

    Ledbetterman10 said:

    polaris_x said:

    Ledbetterman10 said:

    polaris_x said:

    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.
    By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.




  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    lukin2006 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    lukin2006 said:

    HughFreakingDillon said:

    devil's advocate: EVERY species, if they were put in a position to choose their own or another, would choose their own EVERY SINGLE TIME. a gorilla wouldn't give a second thought to snapping the last human female in half if one of their babies was in danger.

    You're right ... The big difference is that kids mama was probably too hysterical to do anything, but reverse that role with the ape or most other animals and they immediately would jump into action and rescue their young.
    This is a mouthful.

    It's true. Outside of crocodiles, are there other animals outside of humans that will kill their own offspring?

    (Mom never sounded too hysterical... I'm not sure what the most accurate descriptor would be?)
    That are tons of animals that kill their own young actually. I personally once saw a cat eat the head off of her own kitten. Other species will happily fight to the death with their own offspring once they are adults and a threat to their position in a heard or pride or whatever. Others will simply reject their young for various reasons and abandon them soon after birth. This is fairly common among animals. So yeah, animals usually protect their own kids to the death, and humans are particularly protective of their own offspring (NOT of other people's offspring).
    I don't trust cats ... Too sneaky, now I know why.
    I love big cats. Tigers especially. But yup... they're predators through and through.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZgklu52Rus
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    Degeneratefk said:

    polaris_x said:

    Ledbetterman10 said:

    polaris_x said:

    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 ...
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    Ledbetterman10 said:

    polaris_x said:

    Ledbetterman10 said:

    polaris_x said:

    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?
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    Ledbetterman10 said:

    polaris_x said:

    Ledbetterman10 said:

    polaris_x said:

    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 ...
  • Degeneratefk
    Degeneratefk Posts: 3,123
    polaris_x said:

    Degeneratefk said:

    polaris_x said:

    Ledbetterman10 said:

    polaris_x said:

    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
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    HughFreakingDillon said:

    rustneversleeps said:

    Ledbetterman10 said:

    polaris_x said:

    Ledbetterman10 said:

    polaris_x said:

    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!
  • rustneversleeps
    rustneversleeps The Motel of Lost Companions Posts: 2,209
    polaris_x said:

    HughFreakingDillon said:

    rustneversleeps said:

    Ledbetterman10 said:

    polaris_x said:

    Ledbetterman10 said:

    polaris_x said:

    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....
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    rustneversleeps said:

    polaris_x said:

    HughFreakingDillon said:

    rustneversleeps said:

    Ledbetterman10 said:

    polaris_x said:

    Ledbetterman10 said:

    polaris_x said:

    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 ...
  • rustneversleeps
    rustneversleeps The Motel of Lost Companions Posts: 2,209
    polaris_x said:

    rustneversleeps said:

    polaris_x said:

    HughFreakingDillon said:

    rustneversleeps said:

    Ledbetterman10 said:

    polaris_x said:

    Ledbetterman10 said:

    polaris_x said:

    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.
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,473
    ah, when someone gets called out on their behaviour, the good tired old "don't take yourself so seriously" retort.

    gets em every time.
    By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.




  • rustneversleeps
    rustneversleeps The Motel of Lost Companions Posts: 2,209
    HughFreakingDillon said:

    ah, when someone gets called out on their behaviour, the good tired old "don't take yourself so seriously" retort.

    gets em every time.

    got me, eh....
  • Ledbetterman10
    Ledbetterman10 Posts: 16,994
    polaris_x said:

    Ledbetterman10 said:

    polaris_x said:

    Ledbetterman10 said:

    polaris_x said:

    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?
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    Ledbetterman10 said:

    polaris_x said:

    Ledbetterman10 said:

    polaris_x said:

    Ledbetterman10 said:

    polaris_x said:

    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 ...
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,473
    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.
    By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.




Categories