Animals in Captivity

HughFreakingDillon said:

polaris_x said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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) ...

fair enough.

would you choose your child/parent/spouse over species survival?

polaris_x said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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) ...

PJ_Soul said:

Degeneratefk said:

polaris_x said:

Degeneratefk said:

polaris_x said:

Degeneratefk said:

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.

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.

According to your own theory, it doesn't matter why we murder someone. Whether we murder someone out of self-defense, hunger, to make ashtrays out of their hands, serving utensils out of their bones, vests out of their skin... It's still all just natural selection since all human behaviour is "natural".

Degeneratefk said:

polaris_x said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Degeneratefk said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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 most certainly am not failing to recognize it. I believe in evolution 100% and believe that everything is interconnected. I just also believe that regardless of the manner of extinction, it's still natural selection. The strong survive. Who knkws, maybe one day a species will find a way around out weapons and hunt us.

No, some kind of virus or bacteria will find its way around out medicine and wipe us out.... because doctors overprescribe antibiotics and people use disinfectants unnecessarily..... Penicillin and Lysol. So natural!

PJ_Soul said:

Seems like, under the premise of natural selection, they should have let the gorilla kill that kid rather than intervening and stopping nature from taking its course. If we shouldn't intervene to save a species, why should we intervene to save a kid who fell into a gorilla pit?

Degeneratefk said:

PJ_Soul said:

Degeneratefk said:

PJ_Soul said:

Seems like, under the premise of natural selection, they should have let the gorilla kill that kid rather than intervening and stopping nature from taking its course. If we shouldn't intervene to save a species, why should we intervene to save a kid who fell into a gorilla pit?

Because it's our species.

Haha. You speak as if humans always look out for the lives of other humans. Reality couldn't be farther from the truth. It's just that in your opinion, gorillas aren't as important as money, drugs, blood lust, or power.

That's quite a leap you just made. But that's the exact reason the gorilla was killed. Because it was a human child.

PJ_Soul said:

Degeneratefk said:

PJ_Soul said:

Seems like, under the premise of natural selection, they should have let the gorilla kill that kid rather than intervening and stopping nature from taking its course. If we shouldn't intervene to save a species, why should we intervene to save a kid who fell into a gorilla pit?

Because it's our species.

Haha. You speak as if humans always look out for the lives of other humans. Reality couldn't be farther from the truth. It's just that in your opinion, gorillas aren't as important as money, drugs, blood lust, or power.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

hedonist said:

rollings is a lovely chica, Thirty

(and she'd hang with - possibly rule - the slappers!)

Sooo...

We're essentially shaping up like the Scooby Doo/ Mystery Machine outfit?

If people start taking us not very serious... we'll have to reevaluate.

rgambs said:

lukin2006 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 agree with you Polaris ... Are you talking economic choices? Do you have a solution?

We all know answers to that question.
Stop voting for leaders who campaign on promises of foreign invasions, stop turning off analytical thought every time someone waves a flag and shouts about "the troops", work much harder on maintaining a cleaner and less wasteful lifestyle, blather on and care much less about having the freedom to do and have asinine unneeded things when there are millions of children without food, shoes, clean water...be less fucking greedy, etc etc.

There is a poster who rarely comes into the train who posted that they make all their political choices based off how the leaders will effect their own wallet.
Basically, become the antithesis of that, and we are headed in the right direction.