They're untapped resources awaiting the time that we figure out a use for them, or for the land they're occupying.
Is it right to put people first?
- Thread starter MetaKron
- Start date
The bans on captive breeding have hurt numerous species. The cheetah is a good example. So are the ocelot and the rhinoceros.
No, of course not.
There would be no need for laws or law enforcement if everybody always acted morally.
I agree that guns are necessary for certain types of law enforcement.
No. Policing is only one small part of the legal system. There are also courts and other tribunals, community programmes, education, families, etc. etc.
I say they are acting immorally.
Do you say "Well, it's just fine for them to kill at will, because they have the guns."
Hmmm??
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Possibly. But what comes after it might be even better for the human race. You act like you can predict the future ...and we all know that isn't true.
The human race has been evolving since the first ape walked upright on the African plains. He's still evolving. And part of that evolutionary process is fucking up the Earth if he wants to or can.
Oh, sure, we can complain, ...but that's what humans do best, better even than fucking up the Earth.
Baron Max
This is all true. But now that we evolved this celebrated intellect of ours we can think about the consequences and stop destroying the Earths environments.
As you are so big on evolution. Wouldn't you say it would be better to force ourselves to evolve in harmony with the environment from now on in stead of as an adversary to it ?
I am sure you agree that the easy way is not always the best way.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Is this trolling or your honest opinion ? I thought more of you man.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
We should do everything the way that you dictate? Might as well set off the cobalt bomb now.
Ahh, but you're failing to consider that some of those "celebrated intellects" are the very ones who are cutting down all the trees in the Amazon! You seem to think that "we" are all alike, and think alike, and act alike.
Humans don't all think alike. And lest you forget, some of those humans are the ones who are using the environment for their own needs. Right? Wrong? That's pretty subjective, ain't it?
That depends on many things ...sometimes the easy way IS the best way.
I would really like you to think of the people in the world as ...well, as people, instead of this thing you keep calling "we". Remember, some of those "we" are the ones doing what you call damage to the environment.
Baron Max
Easy, actually. Once some of those animals are living in captivity in zoos, etc, people begin to lose interest in protecting them in their natural environment. "Gee, we have some in the zoo, they're protected now. Why worry about the ones on the African plains anymore?"
Baron Max
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Where do I dictate anything in that post ?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I was implying that people should use their intellect in a constructive way, not in a destructive way.
Anyway, since you seem to be opposed to my ideas, how do you suggest things should be done with regard to the environment ?
Please don't dissemble.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
What do you think I am dictating, or trying to dictate ?
And you consistently fail to realize that SOME of those "intellects" are the very ones who are causing the "damage" to the envirnonment.
It's interesting, too, that you feel that you're way is the right way. As if only you can see into the future, and know what's going to happen. Perhaps, just perhaps, cutting all the trees in the Amazon will change mankind for the better in 1,000 years or so. How do you know?
Get enough people and guns behind you, and you can control the actions of everyone on the planet. Short of that, you're dealing with humans ...which are decidedly the most destructive force ever produced on the Earth.
Baron Max
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I am referring to all people, not just the very intelligent ones.
I am using this argument because some people here claim that humanity superior to everything else in every way. If humans really are that superior how come they are destroying their own home ?
Why they quotes around the word damage ? Are you denying that massive damage is done to the environment right now ?
I cannot see into the future, nor can anyone. But some predictions are easily made.
Should we just do whatever we like to the environment so that we can be nice and cozy for a while, because we don't precisely know what effect it will have in the future ?
So making things a little better for mankind justifies destroying entire ecosystems housing many unique species that have been around for millions of years, that survived countless natural catastrophes, only to be wiped out by mankind in a few decades time ? Really ?
It seems you should agree with me.
What constitutes "constructive" versus "destructive." That covers just about everything.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
:bugeye: Have you forgotten what we were debating about ?
And, please, answer my question.
One often has to tear a home down in order to build a better one. Even the birds sometimes tear up their old nest to build a new one. Superior? What's that have to do with it?
No, I'm not denying it. But remember, it's from a limited perspective. It just might be that "we" will build a better nest from all the destruction. See? You can't know what the future might bring, yet you call it "damage". Why? Only because of your limited perspective?
But only from your limited perspective. You say or claim that you're right, but the other guys are saying that they're right. Who knows for sure?
Humans killed off the dodo bird ...and it had little or no effect on anything. Changing, or destroying, one entire ecosystem doesn't mean that another one won't take it's place. You, however, are assuming that the new ecosystem will be bad or worse. Why not think that it could be better?
I do. But that doesn't mean that I don't recognize a differing point of view. As an architect before I retired, I often tore down old, useless buildings to make way for newer, better, more useful buildings. Perhaps the old ecosystems are the same as old buildings?
See? It's really all a matter of perspective.
Baron Max
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Ask the likes of Metakron and Pronatalist why they think we are superior.
You see, you call my perspective limited. But in reality it's the ones that only have eyes for human expansion etc that have a limited perspective.
My view is that we should make things better for humans and nature, not just for the humans. By ensuring a healthy environment we are ensuring a better future.
It would be foolish to only have your own short term interests at heart without looking at the possible consequences in the future.
See above.
Better in what sense ? For humans ?
It's true that wiping out some ecosystems might benefit humans in the short term. In fact, there is no doubt about it.
I'm concerned about the damage that is being done to virtually all environments right now, and the possible future impacts of that.
I'm not just talking about cutting down a forest. What about global warming, over-fishing, general pollution etc. ?
If you agree with like you say you do, then you also know that what you just said is nonsense.
If you agree with me you should be helping me to talk some sense into people like Metakron and Pronatalist.
Humans perform tasks in the ecosystem that are similar to those performed by animals. We just have superior means. As I mentioned earlier we are able to transport nutrients in quantities of billions of tons from any part of the Earth to another part. We can create soil where there was none before. The alleged environmentalists refuse to see the good that humans do and can do.