|
| Thread: Endangered Species rights vs human rights |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
posted June 14, 2013 10:23 PM |
|
|
This is absurd hyperbole and (probably externally taught) self-deprecation. Seriously, the percentage of animal killing that goes on strictly "for fun" is going to be some tiny number. Honestly, do you think the forests are littered with the rotting corpses of deer with legions of bored hunters combing the wilds just desperately looking for something to shoot?
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Galileo
Known Hero
|
|
posted June 14, 2013 10:49 PM |
|
|
|
People are not hunting animals only for fun- they are also doing it for money. For example, rhinos are hunted for their valuable horns, elephants have tusks, wolves have fur etc., and that is the reason some animals came close to extinction.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted June 14, 2013 11:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
They pretty much do what we do; kick everything's ass.
Actually no. They're killing some other animals to survive. We, apart from that, are killing too many animals for no apparent reason, in many cases - just for fun.
There are many cases where predators kill their victims for fun. One of the most famous animal criminals are Dolphins and Orca Whales. At least, they are the ones I have read do that. Apes do it all the time.
Sensless killing? it is usual motto in the animal kingdom to kill whelps and younglings. Predators do it all the time.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 14, 2013 11:12 PM |
|
|
Sal:
Things are only useful to a being with desires. Humans are generally useful to each other. If they aren't useful to wolves, that may be true, but why should we care? We care about what's useful to us, not necessarily useful to all beings.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 14, 2013 11:32 PM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 23:33, 14 Jun 2013.
|
Quote:
Honestly, do you think the forests are littered with the rotting corpses of deer with legions of bored hunters combing the wilds just desperately looking for something to shoot?
Of course not, it's you who is hyperboling at the moment. There are pretty often, however, some news about beating up or killing animals with no explanation. And these are just those loud news - we can't be sure how many animals really are killed because of such dumbs.
Quote:
People are not hunting animals only for fun- they are also doing it for money.
That's what I'm talking about also when it comes to "fun" - it's not really necessary for humans to do since they don't get most of the money or food from it anyway. And if people do it on the large scale as they do now, then it won't do much good.
Not that I'm against hunting, don't get me wrong. I just think that many of us are not even trying to live among other animals in our world, but are just "scared" of them or, not sure what is worse, try to take control over them. Why won't we just, like, live with them and take benefits from such neighbours, but also treat them as our neighbours? 
Quote:
There are many cases where predators kill their victims for fun. One of the most famous animal criminals are Dolphins and Orca Whales. [...] Apes do it all the time.
Dolphins are killing only one specie (porpoises) for no EXPLAINED reason. They're not, however, having fun with anything else.
I don't know where does your knowledge about orca whales come from - I only heard about captive whales injuring their owners. Same goes for apes.
Quote:
Sensless killing? it is usual motto in the animal kingdom to kill whelps and younglings. Predators do it all the time.
Infanticide is not senseless - the reasons include sexual conflict, resource competition and struggle for food, death of mother and many other. In any cases - it's not for fun.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 14, 2013 11:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
why should we care?
Because we are able to care. Because we have the ability to preserve and as well to destroy everything around but we can make a choice. Because we have a conscience. Because life isn't a corporation system where the unproductive element is simply eliminated for a tiny profit but an ecosystem where each element obviously has its placed. Also because it is arrogant to affirm within our very limited knowledge that we may know what is good or not good to life while we don't even know from where it comes or what is our purpose.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted June 14, 2013 11:51 PM |
|
|
Not sure how relevant of a point it is, but animals do kill for fun because they're driven for a desire for tasty food and it relieves them of hunger. There's an underlying practical purpose to it (survival) but that's not something an animal would be consciously aware of, except for perhaps a select few higher animals that may be able to understand that on some level.
And the media reinforces my point, since media is generally not driven by a desire to cover all aspects of information, but that information which is of interest to the public (or of interest to the journalist / editorial team), and bizarre animal cruelty seems to attract a lot of attention. This is why events that overall are of minimal consequence can end up floating to the top of public attention in the media (for example in the US, I have to skip past uninteresting articles about the Jodi Arias trial, because apparently a lot of people give a ****).
Anyway, there are laws to criminalize killing protected animals or for the mass poaching of animals for ivory or some other good, and there are ways of regulating wildlife populations by keep hunting within controlled seasons. That still doesn't answer why any given species must be protected from extinction within certain areas, i.e. allowing gray wolves to repopulate among agricultural territories in Montana instead of just shooting them in the head, or why these dumbass over-sized condors are allowed to tear up people's roofs because they're an endangered species.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 14, 2013 11:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Seriously, the percentage of animal killing that goes on strictly "for fun" is going to be some tiny number.
Yes, but that is the result of a developed sensitivity you are getting sarcastic about. Just check the safari kill-lists of early 20th century aristocrats, generals, businessmen etc etc. The numbers they "exhibit" are mind-blowing. Also, at this point, this sensitivity is not just about nut-jobs with too much free time on their hands, it's part of a larger sensitivity (that also includes the rain forests) about not turning the planet into some pale, toxic, concrete s**t hole. This concern evolved because what we are capable of right now both technologically and by sheer numbers (7 billion) is very different than 18th century or before.
Quote:
Things are only useful to a being with desires. Humans are generally useful to each other. If they aren't useful to wolves, that may be true, but why should we care? We care about what's useful to us, not necessarily useful to all beings.
This level of shallow pragmatism is especially interesting coming from you, since in the morality thread it was you who tried to convince us all how wonderful and universal our moral values of compassion, sharing are.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted June 15, 2013 12:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, but that is the result of a developed sensitivity you are getting sarcastic about.
Okay, I concede that's true. But this sensitivity can sometimes be phony or misused. I have to point again to gray wolves repopulating agricultural areas of Montana because it's a good example. There are already plenty of wolves living in uninhabited regions of Siberia and Alaska/Canada, which covers an immense amount of territory. They're not going anywhere. Ecologically, the function of a high-tier predator like a gray wolf is to control other animal populations, which really serves no purpose in areas with sufficient human hunters. So if people insist that gray wolves be allowed to repopulate areas outside of national park territories, they're basically saying that the people living there (many of them with agricultural/livestock occupations), have to cover the financial hazards for it so that it can appease their own aesthetic desire of having the wilderness closer to the way it used to be. That doesn't impress me.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 15, 2013 12:57 AM |
|
|
Sal:
"We should because we can" is not a good argument. I'm capable of going to the store and buying ten thousand toothpicks, but that doesn't mean I should do that.
artu:
Quote:
This level of shallow pragmatism is especially interesting coming from you, since in the morality thread it was you who tried to convince us all how wonderful and universal our moral values of compassion, sharing are.
I see no contradiction.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 15, 2013 01:26 AM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 01:31, 15 Jun 2013.
|
economists talking about animals?
Quote:
The question is more: should the human be allowed to expand into other species natural habitat, remove forests and terraform mountains?
that's exactly what I was thinking, but the problem is the harm is already done. we invade animals' territories, and then call them the parasites. (we do the same thing with tribes in South America too it seems)
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 15, 2013 01:44 AM |
bonus applied by Corribus on 09 Jul 2013. |
|
Quote:
"We should because we can" is not a good argument.
Mvas, I have no OSM-like arguments, the way you guys turn them around for hours just to sharpen your knives. I am not talking neither about your choice of buying toothpicks, but rather of our misunderstanding of the life triggers, which is quantified in the varieties of species surrounding us.
The biggest miracle in the universe, life, is born 4 billions years ago. Humans only 200 000 years ago. At start, our planet was no more than an agglutinated dust of particles, like so many similar clusters in the universe. Yet this is where the miracle of life occurred. Today, life is just a link in a chain of innumerable living beings that have succeeded one another on Earth over nearly 4 billion years. The Earth cooled. The water vapor condensed and fell in torrential downpours. At the right distance from the sun, not too far, not too near, the Earth's perfect balance enabled it to conserve water in liquid form. The water cut channels. They are like the veins of a body, the branches of a tree, the vessels of the sap that the water gave to the Earth. The rivers tore minerals from rocks, adding them to the oceans freshwater. And the oceans became heavy with salt.
Where do we come from? Where did life first spark into being? A miracle of time, primitive life forms still exist in the globe's hot springs. They give them their colors. They're called archeobacteria. They all feed on the Earth's heat. They alone have the capacity to turn to the sun to capture its energy. They are a vital ancestor of all yesterday's and today's plant species. These tiny bacteria and their billions of descendants changed the destiny of our planet. They transformed its atmosphere.
What do we know about life on Earth? How many species are we aware of? A tenth of them? A hundredth perhaps? What do we know about the bonds that link them? Much nothing.
The Earth is a miracle. Life remains a mystery. Families of animals form, united by customs and rituals that are handed down through the generations. Some adapt to the nature of their pasture and their pasture adapts to them. And both gain. The animal sates its hunger and the tree can blossom again. In the great adventure of life on Earth, every species has a role to play, every species has its place. None is futile or harmful. They all balance out. Eliminating species is irreversible and shows a total misunderstanding and disrespect of the life's miracle. We are only a tiny wheel in this complex gearing, and we don't know yet what the whole is supposed to do. No wonder that, by prudence or valid arguments, the majority of scientists today agree that species should be protected from extinction. Until we are not capable of creating new ones or even a simple living cell from "nothing", as the nature does, we should not even talk so lightly about species having the right to live or not, just because one defecated between your house fences. They have it certainly more than us, we are just a 23:59 precious guest in a much populated house. Let's enjoy the staying and protect the others, because we have the ability, the resources and the intelligence to do so. That was my point when I said "because we can".
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 15, 2013 01:59 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 02:07, 15 Jun 2013.
|
@bb
I see what you mean. In some cases there may be creative solutions, like in Africa, farmers were fed up with cheetah killing their livestock, somebody came up with the solution of importing Sivas Kangal dogs, these huge Anatolian shepherd dogs now protect African cattle, the cheetah stay away and everyone is happy. Other than that, once something becomes a law, it automatically turns into a generalization, so misuse of it or situations that the principle wont fit into the enormous level of detail in practical life will always occur. I don't think there is a magical answer that covers every single case, all should be singularly studied and solved (or tried to be solved) by experts who are potent about the details of the situation and that specific environment.
Quote:
I see no contradiction.
Unfortunately.
Quote:
we invade animals' territories, and then call them the parasites
The problem here is, there are no red lines and borders in nature. Where is who's territory? Paris or London or Berlin was once a forest too. What about air pollution, that especially turns borders into meaningless, abstract lines on maps. There can't be a general policy that determines which part of the world is wilderness and which part is civilization. At this point in history, we should reevaluate and be prudent about our habit of rapidly occupying and transforming the earth though.
Quote:
The animal sates its hunger and the tree can blossom again. In the great adventure of life on Earth, every species has a role to play, every species has its place. None is futile or harmful. They all balance out. Eliminating species is irreversible and shows a total misunderstanding and disrespect of the life's miracle.
If you theorize the policy of protecting natural habitat on an idealistic stance of balance you would be building castles of sand. Such balance does not exist. 99 percent of species from that 3.5 billion years are extinct and wiped out. Here, thinking smaller is a merit.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 15, 2013 02:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
"We should because we can" is not a good argument.
Mvas, I have no OSM-like arguments, the way you guys turn them around for hours just to sharpen your knives. I am not talking neither about your choice of buying toothpicks, but rather of our misunderstanding of the life triggers, which is quantified in the varieties of species surrounding us.
The biggest miracle in the universe, life, is born 4 billions years ago. Humans only 200 000 years ago. At start, our planet was no more than an agglutinated dust of particles, like so many similar clusters in the universe. Yet this is where the miracle of life occurred. Today, life is just a link in a chain of innumerable living beings that have succeeded one another on Earth over nearly 4 billion years. The Earth cooled. The water vapor condensed and fell in torrential downpours. At the right distance from the sun, not too far, not too near, the Earth's perfect balance enabled it to conserve water in liquid form. The water cut channels. They are like the veins of a body, the branches of a tree, the vessels of the sap that the water gave to the Earth. The rivers tore minerals from rocks, adding them to the oceans freshwater. And the oceans became heavy with salt.
Where do we come from? Where did life first spark into being? A miracle of time, primitive life forms still exist in the globe's hot springs. They give them their colors. They're called archeobacteria. They all feed on the Earth's heat. They alone have the capacity to turn to the sun to capture its energy. They are a vital ancestor of all yesterday's and today's plant species. These tiny bacteria and their billions of descendants changed the destiny of our planet. They transformed its atmosphere.
What do we know about life on Earth? How many species are we aware of? A tenth of them? A hundredth perhaps? What do we know about the bonds that link them? Much nothing.
The Earth is a miracle. Life remains a mystery. Families of animals form, united by customs and rituals that are handed down through the generations. Some adapt to the nature of their pasture and their pasture adapts to them. And both gain. The animal sates its hunger and the tree can blossom again. In the great adventure of life on Earth, every species has a role to play, every species has its place. None is futile or harmful. They all balance out. Eliminating species is irreversible and shows a total misunderstanding and disrespect of the life's miracle. We are only a tiny wheel in this complex gearing, and we don't know yet what the whole is supposed to do. No wonder that, by prudence or valid arguments, the majority of scientists today agree that species should be protected from extinction. Until we are not capable of creating new ones or even a simple living cell from "nothing", as the nature does, we should not even talk so lightly about species having the right to live or not, just because one defecated between your house fences. They have it certainly more than us, we are just a 23:59 precious guest in a much populated house. Let's enjoy the staying and protect the others, because we have the ability, the resources and the intelligence to do so. That was my point when I said "because we can".
since the osm feedback thread is locked, i have to post this here.
salamandre deserves a qp for this post.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 15, 2013 02:31 AM |
|
|
Artu, many species are extinct and gone for ever. However, can you affirm for sure that this isn't some superior design which decides what must the balance look alike after trials and fails? What about letting them extinct by natural reasons and not give a big hand thus change it to slaughter caused by us?
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 15, 2013 02:42 AM |
|
|
Sal:
Quote:
Eliminating species is irreversible and shows a total misunderstanding and disrespect of the life's miracle.
What, is nature going to be offended if we kill things? Not at all. Nature is an abstraction, it doesn't feel emotions - only individual beings are capable of that. And just because something unlikely happened doesn't mean we should respect it. If I roll a million-sided die and guess that it's going to land on 1534, and it lands on 1534, it's a very unlikely outcome, but it doesn't mean anything special.
Quote:
we should not even talk so lightly about species having the right to live or not, just because one defecated between your house fences. They have it certainly more than us
Rights are determined by being capable of respecting them (but see the morals topic for that). How does it benefit humans to say that animals have rights? (Unsurprisingly, there's already a topic about that too.) So rather than say more here, I'll say that this is hardly a settled issue.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 15, 2013 02:56 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 03:39, 15 Jun 2013.
|
Quote:
Artu, many species are extinct and gone for ever. However, can you affirm for sure that this isn't some superior design which decides what must the balance look alike after trials and fails? What about letting them extinct by natural reasons and not give a big hand thus change it to slaughter caused by us?
As you can read from my posts, I'm all for protecting the natural habitat. However, if you construct that policy on a definition of balance which does not exist or if you try to defend some kind of unfalsifiable theological ideal of a balance (which is just like saying can you prove God didn't create all that evolution to produce man) you would be
a) Refuted in legal courts when you try to actually achieve things.
b) Your argument would easily be used against you, a factory owner polluting the river can easily come up to you and say can you affirm for sure that me producing these goods, all this progress isn't my fate and the result of a superior design?
I get why you object to mvass, since instead of something solid to say, he's trying to get you on technicalities (and as usual doing that without any contextual embodiment but shallow logical hit and runs, even at that he is not very convincing or accurate). However, that doesn't mean that good and valid intentions should bypass all logic. Because than it will all turn into a chaotic mess of "according to who." More importantly, it is the very idea of super design that got us here in the first place, because it eventually leads to contemplating humans as the king of the throne, the hierarchical end of that design. Contemplating ourselves as just another specie who actually feels quite happier when there are also other relatives living around is a much more realistic and better road to take to arrive where you arrive at.
Also, "the balance after trials and fails" implies, you think the change is finally over, it is not. Nobody knows what it will turn out to be, but the biological variety will again be different 5 million years from now. What we try to preserve is a relatively temporary situation, not the final status. We are not that strong.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 15, 2013 03:32 AM |
|
|
By superior design, some will conclude God, others like me just that the nature itself tries to find a way to move along using algorithms we can't yet understand. Anyway, my point is that we know little about, usually you don't mess with constructions you don't understand. And recently, the human specie is playing poker with the nature without having any good hands.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 15, 2013 03:50 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 05:55, 15 Jun 2013.
|
Well, when you treat nature as a subject that tries to do things, what you're saying is nature is God. It just becomes a different choice of word for God then. Nature has no intentions, it only exists. But we have enough threads for that already. My point is, we don't need to personify or idealize it to appreciate it.
Also notice I always say natural habitat, not nature. Implying forests, wild life, rivers etc etc... The reason I do that is we are not important or strong enough to protect or not protect nature itself anyway. We'll probably be long gone before nature itself does (as in end of the universe).
That's what I mean by thinking small is a merit here. There is this famous story by Stefan Zweig. Two guys are walking along the shore, waves bring swarm of starfish to dry out in the sun. One of them keeps picking up starfish of the sand and throws them back into the ocean. The other guy says, why bother, there are hundreds of them and the waves will keep on bringing them back, it makes no difference. The guy picks up another starfish, throws it into the ocean again and says
- It sure made a difference for that one.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 15, 2013 03:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The problem here is, there are no red lines and borders in nature. Where is who's territory? Paris or London or Berlin was once a forest too. What about air pollution, that especially turns borders into meaningless, abstract lines on maps. There can't be a general policy that determines which part of the world is wilderness and which part is civilization. At this point in history, we should reevaluate and be prudent about our habit of rapidly occupying and transforming the earth though.
no borders. but that doesn't prevent us to get some information on local species before we settle somewhere, to make sure it won't cause troubles.
|
| |
|
|
