Another one bites the dust

[CptStern]

yes because I clearly meant individuals ...lets all just chuck out common sense and cling to the rediculous by jumping to every goddam idiotic conclusion imaginable :upstare:

you're directly responsible, yes you! you're guilty of dolphicide and should pay the ultimate price ..lets string him up boys

 

[PvtRyan]

no, I didn't want an answer, I meant so what if we killed the fresh water dolphin? I'm not a fresh water dolphin, you're not a fresh water dolphin. In fact I'm pretty sure I've never met a fresh water dolphin or even seen one on tv for that matter. I was only made aware of them after they no longer existed.

One word: ecosystem.

Look it up in a dictionary.

 

[<RJMC>]

people will not care about animals they will go "but dude they are animals" and will not care,and then when all the life of the world extinct and the ecosistem get screw up they will be still so dumb to dont realize it

 

[ComradeBadger]

whoa whoa, he is completely right you know, humans are a part of nature. By my definition and understanding nature is essentially everything. It has no "intentions" it is not a game developer that wants us to play a specific way. And by the way atoms do spontaneously split themselves to release energy. Look at what happened in Hiroshima. Consciousness is just an emergent propery of a complex system. We start with the big bang 15 billion years ago as the input to an isolated system. 1945 you get nuclear explosion in a small planet in the corner of one galazy. That sounds pretty spontaneous to me. If you do a controlled experiment where you can completely isolate a system. IE the system is defined as everything that exists, and a specific input reacts to produce a specific output then it is spontaneous no matter what happens inbetween.

Maybe the problem is that you need to come up with a different definition for your nature. How do you define "nature" and "ecosystem" and what constitutes damage to it. Is any change to the biological network of the Earth to be considered "damage". Life didn't exist 5 billion years ago, was it therefore bad that there was no ecosystem or nature? I mean humans are by far not the worst impact either even by that convoluted logic. 200 some million years ago there was a mass extinction that wiped out almost everything bigger than a rat. Was the asteroid or whatever caused it therefore evil? Was the environment considered "damaged" after that because it didn't have as many species? What is wrong with not having as many species? Environment doesn't care, nature doesn't care. They are just following the physical laws of nature.

So don't try to pony it up to being good for nature. Nature doesn't care. The only valid justification for any arguments about human action is whether or not it is good for humanity. Even if you want to sugar coat it in nice sounding words, the bottom line is evolution, and systems that tend to continue themselves are the systems that we see around us. Look, here I am.

This is, I feel, a very interesting point.

 

[depth9000]

This is, I feel, a very interesting point.

Let us not forget that I was the one who brought it up. Dan dumbed it down for all of you to understand. And a damn good job he did.

 

[Tyguy]

Species go extint everyday, let nature run its course

 

[depth9000]

Species go extint everyday, let nature run its course

ComrageBadger, Dan, you and I possess superior intelligence. Welcome to the club :cheese:

 

[Ravioli]

people that say "so what" has probably failed any class that teaches about echosystem and nature etc. There is a chain linked between almost every living thing on earth, each dependant on each other. If one race goes...so does the one that relied on the first race...and when that one goes, the next one goes. Sooner or later they all go till it finally reaches a race that will effect us. Some might say that the animal is in the sea and fish isnt really a vital part of humanitys survival. Look at it this way, why do the sea life die? As the article said their habitat is getting smaller and pullution is growing. When pollution grows, the plants and all vegitation in the sea die. And if THEY die...we are ****ed. Why? Take biology for christ sake, read the book, pay attention. The vegitation in the sea produces more oxygen than the surface vegitation. If these plants die we will die because the plants on land wont be enough, plus their also getting killed by every second.

As i said...its a chain, if we are at the end of the chain it doesnt matter, it WILL effect us one day. "so what, il be dead by then" yes maybe so but the ****ing entire human race died because of your arroganse. **** tard

 

[PvtRyan]

Let us not forget that I was the one who brought it up. Dan dumbed it down for all of you to understand. And a damn good job he did.

So, you want a cookie?

Besides, the argument is void. Species go extinct everyday, yes, but there's a difference between active destruction of a species, or the inability of a species to survive in an environment. Actively destroying a species happens rapidly, too fast for other elements in the ecosystem that depend on that species, to adapt to the change. However, if a species slowly fades away, then that means it apparently wasn't needed any more or couldn't perform well, because if it was needed for something, it would thrive.

For example, vultures are in a bad position at the moment, because of humans. But they're vital to the ecosystem because they're the garbage collectors (there's other scavengers, but in the environments where they live, they're important ones). If they quickly die out, and carcasses don't get cleaned up, diseases will spread. And no other species could take over their work because vulture's are highly specialized in it.

If they however died out because of natural causes, there would be no problem, because it would mean there's either not enough food to go around (so no carcasses to clean up which means no extra risk of disease outbreaks) or they're bad at reproducing which would make them unfit for their task. So there's a huge difference in destruction by man or extinction by natural causes (and don't give me the shit that humans are a natural cause, because nature is non-sentient and completely indifferent).

 

[depth9000]

As i said...its a chain, if we are at the end of the chain it doesnt matter, it WILL effect us one day. "so what, il be dead by then" yes maybe so but the ****ing entire human race died because of your arroganse. **** tard

The entire human race cannot die because of my arrogance, for everyone else's arrogance does not depend on mine. But the human race won't exist forever. Sooner or later we will go extict due to "internal" causes or there will be a cataclysmic event that will put an end to the world as we know it. It's a mathematical probability. "We will have emigrated to another planets by then." Rhetorical question for comic effect: Will those persons who don't even exist yet (and in fact, might never exist) take dolphins and other creatures with them to those planets or will they clone them once they get there?

So there's a huge difference in destruction by man or extinction by natural causes (and don't give me the shit that humans are a natural cause, because nature is non-sentient and completely indifferent).

I hate to quote the "infallible" dictionary, but:

na?ture
n
1. physical world: the physical world including all natural phenomena and living things.

Are sentient beings neither living things nor natural phenomena and therefore not part of nature?

 

[PvtRyan]

I'm talking about their motives. Humans have a motive as they're sentient and have a self-interest. Nature in general doesn't care about anything, it's completely indifferent.

Nature works in a logical fashion, "There's carcasses that spread diseases? Then a species of birds will specialize to clean them up. No new carcasses are formed or some other organism does it better? Then the species will disappear.".

Extinction happens with a logical reason, that they're not longer needed in the ecosystem. Extinction by man doesn't happen for a logical reason, and the species might still be very much needed in the ecosystem, like vultures are.

Besides, I believe my post consisted of more than just that last line, why did you ignore the rest?

 

[depth9000]

So, you want a cookie?

I'll never say no to a good cookie :naughty:

Besides, the argument is void.

The argument is logically sound.

Species go extinct everyday, yes, but there's a difference between active destruction of a species, or the inability of a species to survive in an environment...blah blah blah

I did not say we should go around killing animals, did I? But if animals go extinct as a result of our progress, then nature is taking its course.

 

[PvtRyan]

I did not say we should go around killing animals, did I?

I never said you said so.

But if animals go extinct as a result of our progress, then nature is taking its course.

No, because it does not work by nature's mechanics. The mechanics of simple logic as I explained above as opposed to humans who make conscious decisions. When you kill a species that was functioning fine in its environment then you are disturbing nature's course. It will suddenly go in a way it wasn't going in previously. You can shrug that off by saying "if we *are* nature, then everything we do *is* nature", but that's denying responsbility for things. Once you use that argument, you enter a dangerous position. Nothing matters and anything goes, right? We can make a conscious decision to unnecessarily destroy a species or not, and when you choose to destroy a species, you can't justify it by merely saying "well, we are nature".

And that's what the difference is, nature doesn't *choose* to let a species go extinct, it *happens*. We, fully knowing, *choose* to wipe out a species.

 

[depth9000]

You can shrug that off by saying "if we *are* nature, then everything we do *is* nature", but that's denying responsbility for things.....Once you use that argument, you enter a dangerous position. Nothing matters and anything goes, right? We can make a conscious decision to unnecessarily destroy a species or not, and when you choose to destroy a species, you can't justify it by merely saying "well, we are nature".

If the species dies because of the effects of say, human caused global warming, then nature is taking its course.

And that's what the difference is, nature doesn't *choose* to let a species go extinct, it *happens*. We, fully knowing, *choose* to wipe out a species.

You can be philosophical or you can be a romanticist in regards to this issue, but the bottom line is that conscious beings are also part of nature. If "humans" wipe out a species, that's nature at work; we have not violated the laws of nature, it's just nature functioning according to its own rules. Conscious beings influencing their environment is also part of the mechanics of nature. Just because our consciousness arose from the very nature we are now influencing, it doesn't mean we have transcended "nature." Unless, of course, you are a creationist and you don't believe a thing of what I have said.

 

[Stigmata]

I agree with depth9000.

But saying "humans are a part of nature" doesn't mean that we should continue being ignorant, greedy, short-sighted planet-rapers. We have our brains for a reason, and I'm pretty sure the reason isn't "let's use it to destroy ourselves."

 

[Absinthe]

ComrageBadger, Dan, you and I possess superior intelligence. Welcome to the club :cheese:

Shut the **** up.

 

[depth9000]

I agree with depth9000.

But saying "humans are a part of nature" doesn't mean that we should continue being ignorant, greedy, short-sighted planet-rapers. We have our brains for a reason, and I'm pretty sure the reason isn't "let's use it to destroy ourselves."

Sure. We should take care of our planet because doing so is good for humanity.

 

[Jintor]

It's also good for my conscience.

 

[Instinct]

*Watches thread dissolve into insults*

Survival of the fittest. Whatever will be will be. And of course that means if we change our actions that is what will be. I'm neutral.

 

[jondy]

Survival of the fittest. Whatever will be will be. And of course that means if we change our actions that is what will be.

After we've dissolved the ecosystems that keep us alive, I'm assuming that doctrine applies to us as well?

 

[Ome_Vince]

Here's an interesting way of looking at it :
I think many fail to realize humanity, although a part of nature has exceeded its role and no longer fits the regular ecosystem.
Otherwize, please explain where "we fit in the chain" these days, other than as Agent Smith puts it; being a cancer to this planet
(and no, this is no self-hatred, but its distastefull to rationalize exterminating species).
Throwing it on "survival of the fittest" is simple-minded as it undermines our concious mind as we've found out our effects and destruction of nature eventually will bring down our own species, which is what all species tries to avoid aye?

Our self-consciousness gives us the choice to act outside of "the chain" and we've been doing this for some time now for our own survival; We've chosen not to exterminate all species on earth for reasons based on not only tree-hugging attitude, but the knowledge that sooner or later it will come right back at us.
Funny enough, we know we've unbalanced the world, so we need to act as sheppards to keep things in balance in order for us to survive ourselves, perhaps long enough to "clone dolphins on other planets" aye?. Or perhaps preserve rain forrests that produce 90% of the air we breath?
So, in the name of self-preservation which all species have, we need to sheppard the earth or else our own vulnerable out-of-balance species will perish.
Hows that for survival of the fittest; in order for us to be "the fittest" so even our own species survives, we need to preserve and create a balance in this world.

I think thats the only way "we" fit into the "chain" these days

o, and before the "who cares", "let it be" and "let nature ride its course" (refering to our own species) pops up to dismiss this, please realize that thats the most un-natural thought to have, since in nature each species tries to ensure its own survival, with self-preservation as its highest goal.

 

[Instinct]

After we've dissolved the ecosystems that keep us alive, I'm assuming that doctrine applies to us as well?

We're not that much of a threat to the eco systems.

 

[Stigmata]

We're not that much of a threat to the eco systems.

Except for those times we cut down swaths of forest, raped and pillaged the lands, ate species to extinction, and dumped ungodly amounts of toxins into the atmosphere and oceans

 

[Instinct]

Except for those times we cut down swaths of forest, raped and pillaged the lands, ate species to extinction, and dumped ungodly amounts of toxins into the atmosphere and oceans

Yeah, but we'll eventually break even again, withut t much trouble. There are only so many trees to cut down. And We have tocut down, because our local councils make us.

So we're fiiine

 

[Smoke]

Yeah, but we'll eventually break even again, withut t much trouble. There are only so many trees to cut down. And We have tocut down, because our local councils make us.

So we're fiiine

Break even? Do you seriously think that modern society with rectify it`s mistakes so suddenly?

 

[CptStern]

We're not that much of a threat to the eco systems.

no not at all

 

[delusional]

Or perhaps preserve rain forrests that produce 90% of the air we breath?

Actually 50% of our oxygen comes from phytoplankton in the ocean, and the rest is from plants on land; so it is safe to say that rainforests only provide a minority of our oxygen.

 

[DaMaN]

Actually 50% of our oxygen comes from phytoplankton in the ocean, and the rest is from plants on land; so it is safe to say that rainforests only provide a minority of our oxygen.

[sarcasm]
Oh good, let's just chop them all down then! Bah, we don't need any of the millions of species living in them! They'll never do anything like important like cure cancer. Don't worry about the fact that logging them will aid in global warming that could kill a majority of plankton life. Heck, I mean, we don't need all this oxygen! I'm sure I could go without oxygen altogeth-

 

[delusional]

[sarcasm]
Oh good, let's just chop them all down then! Bah, we don't need any of the millions of species living in them! They'll never do anything like important like cure cancer. Don't worry about the fact that logging them will aid in global warming that could kill a majority of plankton life. Heck, I mean, we don't need all this oxygen! I'm sure I could go without oxygen altogeth-

i never even advocated cutting down rainforests, its just funny that people think they get most of their oxygen from trees. i also dont think logging trees would kill plankton.

 

[DaMaN]

i never even advocated cutting down rainforests, its just funny that people think they get most of their oxygen from trees. i also dont think logging trees would kill plankton.

Didn't mean to imply you advocated cutting down rainforests, just trying to be funny. Heh, yea, it is quite humorous that people think oxygen only comes from rainforests, but even though the rainforests only contribute a minority, it's still quite a bit of oxygen. Minorities are important; just think, if it weren't for less than 50% of American voters, GW wouldn't be elected!

Oh, and though there is not an immediate, direct threat to plankton, logging large amounts of trees can have very serious effects everywhere, plankton included. Forests are built on soil, and soil is made from dead trees and stuff, and soil is held together largely by live tree roots. Log the trees, and there's nothing to keep the soil from spilling out all over the place, erroding into the sea. The stuff in soil, while great for trees and plants, isn't that great for plankton when it erodes into the sea, because it can block out light. Plankton survives on light, if the light is blocked, planktons are killed.

But really, that won't damage too much plankton, but since forests are excellent CO2 absorbers (despite being a minority in that field), CO2 can stick around just a little bit longer, help warm the earth a little more, and assist with global warming, melting the icecaps and stopping the gulf stream, which in turn could turn the oceans too warm to comfortably support the species of plankton currently thriving, without enough time for new species to evolve.

So yea, cutting down forests kills plankton. Save teh planktonz. Don't cut down trees.

 

[Raziaar]

Yeah, but we'll eventually break even again, withut t much trouble. There are only so many trees to cut down. And We have tocut down, because our local councils make us.

So we're fiiine

It's hard to believe how much stupidity is in this world at times. The natural forests of the world will only last so long, this is a fact, and if we continue to chop them down... they will cease to exist. Oh sure, the trees themselves might exist as we plant wood farms to later chop down, but they will be a far stretch from natural forests. And the innumerate number of species that lived in them will die out, because they lost the place that they can survive best. And all that change happened so fast, that no creature will be able to adapt.

Not exactly a proud legacy to leave behind for your species... caring not about the enviroment in which you live, and expediting your doom.

 

[Kadayi]

99.99% of all species that have graced this planet have died out through the process of evolution, subject to changes in climate and situation. I think that we as the dominant species owe it to the rest to do our best to move towards a sustainable way of living, and one that does not impact as heavily as it presently does upon the world (to tread lightly as the Indians would put it). However one has to accept that is also natures way for species that can't adapt to ultimately die out. Pandas are an endangered species, not because they've been hunted to death or anything, but because the males just aren't that damn interested in breeding.

 

[99.vikram]

Pandas are an endangered species, not because they've been hunted to death or anything, but because the males just aren't that damn interested in breeding.

If we hadn't destroyed much of the pandas' natural habitat their numbers would have been larger and the low reproductive rate would have been offset.

 

[Kadayi]

You've got a species that's picky about it's food and it's males are pretty much impotent, it's a biological dead end. Sure they look all cute and cuddly, but they were going down the shitter way before we came on the scene.