42 replies to this topic

[Khaleid]

Three words: Human birth control!

[Lava_Lady]

Spid3rCyd3, on 12 September 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

Fleas. They have zero right to exist. In fact, we should engineer their genocide.

Yeah!  Fleas suck!  Hehe...

[Hartmut]

Obviously we can not save all species, but every species has an absolute right to exist, and we, as just another animal, have no right to deny them a life, let alone wantonly kill them for "sport" nor should we do medical experiments/tests on them which are solely for OUR benefit.

[Hartmut]

Hilander, on 11 September 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

I guess in a perfect world we could save them all but in reality I don't think we can or possibly should.  Lets say if the mosquito was on that list, I would say let it die.

Yes, but who would, should, or could decide which animal/insect has be saved and which  has to die?
We simply do not have the knowledge to foresee the potentially negative results of disrupting the
delicately balance of nature.

[Alienated Being]

DieChecker, on 13 September 2012 - 03:30 AM, said:

I'd disagree that we do not have the right to eradicate a species. If there is a creature that clearly endangers humans, it is those humans right to defend themselves.

Yes, and this is what I agree with.

Quote

And what I really meant anyway is that we have the right to control animals.... all of them. Almost every single animals exists on human sufferance and most of their populations are tightly controlled. If too many bears are living in Tennessee, something will be done about them. If there are too many elk, or mountain goat, or moose, then hunting is encouraged. We control almost all animal populations. And that naturally would include those that are going extinct. They very likely would go extinct anyway without human aid, whether in 10 years, or 10,000. Both 10 years or 10,000 is a evolutionary blink of an eye.

We do not have the right to control animals. We are animals, ourselves, and our existence is really of no merit to the universe, in the grand scheme of things. If our planet was to blow up tomorrow, the universe would continue to actively tread along until its inevitable cessation billions of years into the future... We may be "the most intelligent", but intelligence does not equate to the right to control what animals live, and what animals die. We haven't even sorted our own issues out.

Quote

Do you think that one species of butterfly that exists in only one meadow and eats off only one plant would survive for 10,000 years? Would that plant exist only in that meadow for 10,000 years? Not naturally. If it does it is at human sufferance.

Hence "evolution".

Quote

Some species are simply going to die out and Science recognizes this and we should let those species go extinct. Others that are fully viable, yet were almost wiped out by man, should be encouraged to be reestablished, as they were damaged only by man, and not nature. Yet, even those that are reintroduced and working toward recovery, like the Bison, are tightly controlled and are totally at our (humans) mercy at all times.

Humans are eventually going to die off, and a new, more intelligent species will take our place. That is inevitable. We are merely another stepping stone, like the neanderthal, australopithecus afarensis, etc. We will live, and we will die. Using your logic, the next "species" would have the right to eradicate us, considering that we've done nothing but hinder our own existence.

Quote

Not all species need/must be protected. Many are a waste of time/effort. Collect... Record... Allow to pass away.

We really do not deserve to survive, either - especially considering the state of this world.

[lightly]

Each creature fills a niche... each is part of the whole.  Extinction of one affects life of others.    The current human caused extinctions , from a myriad of causes,  are like a disease of the entirety of Life on Earth.  Take enough parts from the whole and and the whole ceases to function.  

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,  Humpty Dumpty had a great fall,  all the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.  

[Capt Amerika]

Hartmut, on 13 September 2012 - 07:47 AM, said:

Obviously we can not save all species, but every species has an absolute right to exist, and we, as just another animal, have no right to deny them a life, let alone wantonly kill them for "sport" nor should we do medical experiments/tests on them which are solely for OUR benefit.

I just took the first step towards making flies extinct.
I did it out of hate and for sport and i did it with a fly swatter.
If i see another one buzzing me while i work today it too will die.
and so on.....

Edited by Capt Amerika, 14 September 2012 - 03:02 PM.

[Hartmut]

Capt Amerika, on 14 September 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

I just took the first step towards making flies extinct.
I did it out of hate and for sport and i did it with a fly swatter.
If i see another one buzzing me while i work today it too will die.
and so on.....

Insects do not need humans to survive, but humans needs insects to survive!
(probably miss-quoted, but in essence what David Attenborough said)

[lightly]

hmm  ya,  it seems that creatures at the top of the chain are the most vulnerable?

[camogator]

every creature has a right to compete. But creatures die out, thats evolution!

[Sundew]

Unless you want to put endangered animals and plants in zoos and botanic gardens, then we also need to preserve, as best we can, their habitats. These sanctuaries like zoos have their place, but habitat is shrinking and as it unravels more and more living pieces of the mosaic are lost. We think of the "creepy" forms of life as less desirable and I personally would like to eliminate many diseases and parasites, but we don't know what removing these pressures would ultimately do to plant and animal species and it may not be beneficial as there is some evidence that low levels of parasites can benefit an organism by stimulating the immune system.

My question about the rarity of life is; have we recently found rare animals and assume they were once more common, or are we talking about animals we knew were once common and now have declined in number? If the latter we should find out what is causing the decline if possible and we should use breeding programs and any other measures we can to save them, especially if man has contributed to the decline. Through thoughtless hunting we killed off the Passenger Pigeon and the Carolina Parakeet in N.A. and the Thylacine in Australia. If it becomes possible one day to bring back an extinct animal, then perhaps we should, because again, it is a missing piece of the puzzle we have lost. For instance, when we removed the wolf from the lower 48 States in America, in places like Yellowstone, coyotes became the top predator and large animals like elk and bison threatened to overpopulate, as did the coyote, which certainly put more pressure on smaller prey. When the wolf was reintroduced, the wolves systematically reduced the coyote population and began preying on weak and sick elk and bison, restoring the balance to a more historic proportion. But again the problem is habitat lose; bison, and wolves for that matter, originally had huge ranges, now they are confined to relatively small national parks and are subject to being hunted if they leave park boundaries. If we are able to resurrect the Thylacine should we consign it to zoos forever? It would be nice to see a Wooly Mammoth, but is it the best thing for the Mammoth to spend its life, for generations to come, in zoos? These are things we need to consider.

[MontanaGramma]

all species have a right to live, except spiders..they should all die

[glorybebe]

hhhmmmm......this reminds me of a Futurama episode.

IMO, if they are animals that are going extinct because of man's modern actions and destruction of the world, yes, we should try to preserve them.  But, if we look at animals that have been extinct for thousands if not millions of years, no, they went extinct for a reason.