|
| Thread: Endangered Species rights vs human rights |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted June 15, 2013 06:27 PM |
|
|
I think human rights trump all. It is nice to try to keep animals alive in their "native habitat" but if there is choice between "oppression of human life" and "oppression of animals" the animals must be the ones who suffer.
Animals can be moved to new areas and see if they can adapt there. They can be preserved in zoos and designated parks/preserves.
But the government should not tell citizens that they can't protect their property. If the government wishes to protect a species, that is fine. But they should not do so by simply telling the citizens they can't protect their property. The government should be responsible for any and all property damage caused by such protected species and should move them out of the area if possible.
In the end, people have the right to protect their property and their lives against the actions of other humans and against animals.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 16, 2013 06:21 PM |
|
|
Human oppression, aren't you exaggerating? We move uncalled into their habitat, and we are oppressed by their presence? Greedy humans...
Let's assume that you may be right, so where it stops? The human specie will obviously expand until the last free cm, when can we finally state that it is enough? When there are only 10 other species still alive? 5? The governments act on scientists advices and recommendations, if you feel they shouldn't take any action, who is gonna to take it when need? So far individuals are rather clueless about environment.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 16, 2013 06:43 PM |
|
|
|
"oppression of human life" = "birds pooping on your roof" Oh the tragedy.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 16, 2013 07:25 PM |
|
|
Where did I say animals oppressed human rights? I'm talking about the government oppressing the right of people to own and control/protect/enjoy their property. If the government wants to protect animals it should be responsible for any damage the animals cause and it should be responsible for trans-locating the animals to a more suitable location.
Some animals are quite dangerous. It is illegal to kill rattlesnakes in Texas. But everyone I know who lives in rural areas kills every rattlesnake they encounter because the rattlesnakes are deadly. Likewise, ranchers kill the wolves and coyotes because those animals kill their livestock.
I don't think the government should just say, "Wolves killing your livestock? Sucks to be you. Rattlesnake bit your kid and your kid died? Sucks to be you. Condors tearing the shingles off your roof and scratching the paint off your car? Sucks to be you." That is oppression of human rights.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 16, 2013 07:38 PM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 22:15, 16 Jun 2013.
|
Elodin, is killing animals the only way to stop them do **** to you? Think about it. It's like saying it's good to murder someone with knife walking nearby because maybe he's going to attack us.
There's no excuse for killing wolves if your livestock isn't protected enough. It's you who lives near them and you should be aware of that.
MOD EDIT:
Please do not bypass the language filters.
2) NO bad language, profanity, vulgarity or swearing.
Correctly censored vulgar words may be used, but not for insults, abuse, racism, sexism, provocation or aggravation.
Correct censoring means replacing all letters in the vulgar words with asterisks by holding the SHIFT key and pressing the number 8 key (US keyboards). For example: when **** hit the fan. Any other method of censoring vulgar words partially or entirely will be considered incorrect censoring and may be penalized. Actual or misspelled vulgar words will be penalized immediately.
Our aim is to keep Heroes Community children and family friendly. Instead of blurting out vulgarity, take it as a creative challenge to find alternative words to express strong emotions.
Ok, sorry for that. I've seen many times people posting in such manner as I did, so I thought it's the proper way. I apologise.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted June 16, 2013 07:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Where did I say animals oppressed human rights? I'm talking about the government oppressing the right of people to own and control/protect/enjoy their property. If the government wants to protect animals it should be responsible for any damage the animals cause and it should be responsible for trans-locating the animals to a more suitable location.
What do you consider worse, some farmer's damaged property, or destruction of an entire species?
There are animals you can't kill for a good reason: if you keep killing them, they will disappear entirely from the planet. This disturbs the ecosystem and in the end it will hurt humans as a whole, as they are a part of the ecosystem.
So in the end, you have to pick "humanity long-term" or "farmer short-term", and in that case, I vote for the former. Sorry. Sucks to be a guy who got a sheep killed, but it also sucks to be a dying kid in Somalia. Life is hard and random, live with it.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 16, 2013 08:08 PM |
|
|
Some farmer's damaged property is obviously worse. If a species is endangered, it's usually not playing a very important role in the ecosystem already. Many species have gone extinct, and it seems implausible that we'd be better off if they were still here. It's important to have a balanced ecosystem, but endangered species usually aren't necessary for that.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 16, 2013 08:45 PM |
|
|
|
The human is the most dangerous specie, both for himself and for others, this does not need anymore proof. Once he desires something, despite the marvelous brain he was gifted with, he is unable to act rationally and will go berserk until he fulfills his goal. This is why I fear that such free card to kill anything which threats "your property" will escalate and lead to irreversible effects. Hopefully governments are there to design laws based on the common rational and prevent such disasters. You wouldn't like the chaos resulted from indifferent executives, trust me.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 16, 2013 08:50 PM |
|
|
People, get real: a species that hunts, feeds or breeds within the habitat of a superior species is bound to become extinct. That's just natural selection, because it' silly. If you are of the species "wolf", and you do not learn to keep off prey that's someone else's prey - don't learn to respect objects like fences, you die. You go extinct.
IOf you are a rattlesnake and you go nar a species that can kill you from a distance, youi have to learn that you are inferior and keep away from that species.
Now, you CAN obviously forbid legally to make a profit with endangered species: pelts/hides and so on.
That leaves the question what happens when a species is living in a habitat that offers valuable resources, the species dying if you go exploiting the rexopurces - escpecially when the land with the habitat is owned.
There is a very interesting aspect with all this:
You would expect atheists and materialists to say, to hell with them animals, saving them is just silly sentimentalism; if they survive, fine, if not - natural selection.
Conversely, wou'd expect a little more respect from religious people for God's creation.
Now I know about Genesis 1:26:
Quote:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
But "dominion" doesn't mean you should kill them any which way you like. What about the monarchs of old? They had dominion over their subjects, but that didn't mean it was considered good rulership when they killed them just because they could make a buck out of it.
So this is, in the end, a moral question: how do we rule over the earth? How do we interpret our superiority and dominion? Not that we would have it, if we consider the very small species. Do we care for other species or not? Will we go out of our way to save those threatened to become extinct? Can it be an act of superstition - to have a point in favor in case humanity one day is threatened to become extinct?
I think, WE kame the rules, and our rules should be defensive: if we are attacked - we have to be able to protect ourselves. Killing species for the sheer profit that may be in it? Well, would you want to be friends with people who eradicated a harmless species because they can make a buck with it?
Right.
So find the right compromise.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 16, 2013 09:13 PM |
|
|
Sal:
Quote:
Once he desires something, despite the marvelous brain he was gifted with, he is unable to act rationally and will go berserk until he fulfills his goal. This is why I fear that such free card to kill anything which threats "your property" will escalate and lead to irreversible effects. Hopefully governments are there to design laws based on the common rational and prevent such disasters.
You don't trust people, but you trust government, which is made up of people?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 16, 2013 09:20 PM |
|
|
Mvas, not sure why you like so much to turn discussions into some semantic or technical debates. Governments are made of people, sure, but they are made from the "elite" people (as it should), and those people have the funds to trigger researches, hire scientist, listen to opinions, consider the facts, then decide for a law. Which the common citizen can't. Now if you consider that people being in the government are common people, work hard then try to achieve same things. When I am cold, I go to my street corner doctor, when I have a broken leg I go to a specialist, when I have cancer I go to the best from all specialist. All three are doctors, this doesn't mean all three have same potential.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 16, 2013 10:39 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 22:40, 16 Jun 2013.
|
Quote:
People, get real: a species that hunts, feeds or breeds within the habitat of a superior species is bound to become extinct. That's just natural selection, because it' silly. If you are of the species "wolf", and you do not learn to keep off prey that's someone else's prey - don't learn to respect objects like fences, you die. You go extinct.
Well, the thing is, at this point of technology and dominance over natural habitat, there are usually better solutions (like the one with the cheetah I gave as an example). Farmers or villagers usually don't kill those animals because it is the only solution, they kill them because wild animals are traditionally considered enemies and just about 100 years ago, it wasn't even considered something embarrassing (put aside shameful) to kill wildlife. So people's traditional mindset is to "shoot the damn thing." In many cases, creative solutions and a little bit of education may just be enough to handle things differently.
Of course that should be done with respect to the farmers or villagers, or else they'll go what do these city snobs know about our way of living anyhow! and break the rules every chance they get. Also, they really do have a right to protect their livestock and income. So their concern should be considered too, as Elodin says, the government can cover the expenses in some cases, although I'm not sure how that won't turn into people cheating like in insurance fraud. Anyway, if it's about a specie being wiped out, your rooftop shouldn't be the priority.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted June 18, 2013 07:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Some farmer's damaged property is obviously worse. If a species is endangered, it's usually not playing a very important role in the ecosystem already. Many species have gone extinct, and it seems implausible that we'd be better off if they were still here. It's important to have a balanced ecosystem, but endangered species usually aren't necessary for that.
Yup, 10 species, not a problem, 100 species, then its 1000 species. And suddenly you're left on a planet with only people, sheep, pigs, dogs and cows. Everything else is dead and forgotten.
Sad vision if you ask me.
|
|
GunFred
Supreme Hero
Sexy Manticore
|
|
posted June 20, 2013 01:00 PM |
|
|
I would call myself an animal friend but I sure would sign a spider-extermination-petition anytime anywhere. Even if my life was saved by a cute friendly spider, I would sign that petition.
____________
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted June 20, 2013 03:09 PM |
|
|
@JJ
Quote:
How do we interpret our superiority and dominion?
As evidenced by many posts in this thread, I think the interpretation is incredibly modern; cold and calculating and manifests in a prevalent attitude of "we're the "baddest beast on the block". <imo> We have vastly superior intelligence (usually) and are not animals in truth because we are not limited to surviving a habitat, we are governing/impacting all habitats; therefore we are responsible for all life on this planet. Because this is a dying belief, things do not bode well for any living thing in this planet, including man.
I owned about 20 acres of dense forest for 15 years and I can tell you from many experiences with the human species that most people are dumber than a box a rocks and Mankind is totally dependent on a couple of fine minds and it should not be that way.
People from the city constantly invaded mine and many other properties because they decided to buy a gun and needed to kill something. It didn't matter a mouse-butt that there are hunting-laws (deer-seasons etc.) and that lands were posted No-Hunting or No Trespassing, it seems it was their self-given-right to do anything they pleased, whenever they pleased. Hunting seasons?..."Nah, doesn't matter" Laws on takes & check-stations? "Just red-tape". Someone else's land? "Who cares!"
It wasn't just coyotes or deer they had to shoot illegally; it was also free-mushrooms, needing "some target practice" or just simply "a place to fire their new guns".
I had encounters with all of these sorts and more but the worst encounter happened one day just before the deer season; I noticed on down on the side of the gravel-road, a car was parked near the end of my property. I went to investigate, thinking...what now?
Two young men had come up from the big-city, looked for a spot to shoot their guns. What were these fine specimens of man's mental superiority doing? Standing on the side of the road and shooting down it length-wise.
For once I was patient with these two and asked; have you been down this road? "No sir" (they were very nervous) So then I said; so you're shooting down this road and do not know that a house sits right behind those trees? They turned white.
I told them nicely; boys these things kill, so you have to know exactly what your shot "could" hit...period No chances, you must plan your line-of-sight and never take a chance. And another thing, people use this road, so I don't care if you think you'll hear crunching gravel from cars, never gamble like this...ever.
Finally I told them; if you're going to do this, do it correctly. If you have no access to wide-open land then 1st get permission from a land owner and then remember what I said about where and how you shoot.
Besides lots of city-people being unlawful; quite often they think that the land-owners are a bunch of nasty uppity-ups; of course not realizing few of them were given their lands but had earned the property.
However, more importantly, there is another perspective that is lost on these people that do not care about other rights: The reality was; I was sort of a Sheriff of a wild-west town, because by my actions a couple of times I prevented accidental-shootings. When a pair of buddies does not know another pair of pals are just across the woods from them? It is "a death waiting to happen."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 20, 2013 05:01 PM |
|
|
|
So city people are more trigger-happy than the country people over there? Man, US is weird.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 20, 2013 06:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So city people are more trigger-happy than the country people over there? Man, US is weird.
Not necessarily, artu. It's just that they have no place to shoot, and therefore, cannot be properly trained(physically) in firearms responsibility, or safety.
On the average, I'd say country people are more inclined to shoot, because they have the space needed to do it. And, country people generally(but obviously not always), teach their young 'uns how to shoot properly.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 20, 2013 08:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Where did I say animals oppressed human rights? I'm talking about the government oppressing the right of people to own and control/protect/enjoy their property. If the government wants to protect animals it should be responsible for any damage the animals cause and it should be responsible for trans-locating the animals to a more suitable location.
What do you consider worse, some farmer's damaged property, or destruction of an entire species?
There are animals you can't kill for a good reason: if you keep killing them, they will disappear entirely from the planet. This disturbs the ecosystem and in the end it will hurt humans as a whole, as they are a part of the ecosystem.
So in the end, you have to pick "humanity long-term" or "farmer short-term", and in that case, I vote for the former. Sorry. Sucks to be a guy who got a sheep killed, but it also sucks to be a dying kid in Somalia. Life is hard and random, live with it.
I consider some farmer's damaged property to be worse. His damaged property may result in his inability to feed his family. He could wind up destitute and homeless.
Oh, and the odds are the species that is destroying his farm does not only live on his farm. But if the government wants to protect every member of that species the government needs to move the creatures off the ram to another remote location, pay the farmer to locate, to a suitable location which the farmer agrees to, and which the government compensates him generously for (at an agreed upon sum of money.)
What I ca't agree with is that the speckled dung beetle should be protected by the government and Farmer Brown and his family suffer for it.
____________
Revelation
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted June 20, 2013 08:43 PM |
|
|
Yeah, even though there are in-door ranges, they cost money like everything else, so they're looking for a free alternative.
Fred's correct there is a serious lack of education within families these days, since many have now been city-dwellers for generations. I have no idea if the gun-education-laws have had a positive effect on what I described earlier but I do hope so.
<imo> I think it is important to teach people how to shoot so if the need ever arises they can feed their family etc. But after I became very good, I quit hunting because my pantry was already full and there was no sport in it for me. It only felt good to be confidant of the skill if it were ever needed.
Experiencing the people engaged in the "sport" of killing animals, definitely pushed me away from guns. Nowadays, I think the best idea for all reasons, is to own a Bow and no how to use it.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 20, 2013 08:52 PM |
|
|
DF:
Sad, perhaps. But just because you find it sad does not mean that you can impose that preference on others. More important is the effect on ecosystems - but if an animal is endangered, it's not having much of an impact on the ecosystem already.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
