Are human beings any different then animals? Do they deserve special treatment? Are they above the rest of the animals, in that their right to exist overrides other species of earth? Should we make an effort to limit the damage humans do to the earth?

Some would say that Humans are above other species in that they can think logically and act on those ideas to make there surrounding a more livable environment? If humans can make decisions that affect the rest of the species of earth, should we limit our population to preserve the status quo of the rest of animal species? Which one of you are willing to sacrifice yourself for the greater good?

If the human species is simply the end result of evolution of the most advanced species on earth, when will we decide to limit our existence for the benefit of others?

I'm following you scoobysnack. I've always thought like this. We're nothing more than a logical animal. Not really sure this is in the right forum though.

Yeah I know...

I didn't know what forum to put this in. I thought this was the best forum. If there is no god, we are just another species on earth, skeptisism of spirituality is the best place for this to be.

Top Scientist Advocates Mass Culling 90% Of Human Population
Fellow professors and scientists applause and roar approval at elite's twisted and genocidal population control agenda

A top scientist gave a speech to the Texas Academy of Science last month in which he advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the population through the airborne ebola virus. Dr. Eric R. Pianka's chilling comments, and their enthusiastic reception again underscore the elite's agenda to enact horrifying measures of population control.

Pianka's speech was ordered to be kept off the record before it began as cameras were turned away and hundreds of students, scientists and professors sat in attendance.

Saying the public was not ready to hear the information presented, Pianka began by exclaiming, “We're no better than bacteria!”, as he jumped into a doomsday malthusian rant about overpopulation destroying the earth.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april...massculling.htm

Well, you know, a good old fashioned nuclear war would solve so many problems...over-population, starvation, global warming to name a few.

I like my dogs...but I wouldn't risk my life to save theirs if push came to shove. Humans aren't just another animal ScoobyDooby....

Consider:

A sand storm in the Sahara encompassing hundreds of miles............

.............freeze frame.............

....walk into the sand storm and with a pair of tweezers pick out one grain of sand...that one grain of sand does not represent our Earth in the Universe. That one grain of sand represents an entire galaxy in the sandstorm of the Universe which contains trillions and trillions of Galaxies.

In our one Galaxy...we are the only planet that possesses life that we know of...in fact...in the extent of our knowledge of the Universe at large, we are the only planet containing life that we know of.

So....in the context of all that....what are the incredible odds that you would happen to be a life form...any life form...on this planet? What are the odds of you being an animal life form on this planet? What are the odds of you being a Human life form on this planet?
Now consider also of all the places on this planet you could be a human life form, what are the odds that you would be one in the United States of America?

I love animals...but Humans are different. If you aren't really sure how...just look around...maybe it will come to you.


I wonder if the good scientist considers himself in that 90 percentile......doubtful...of course he isn't the problem...it's everyone else...

Yes, in a lot of ways, but also similar. Also, we're not the only animal that is unique in some way.



Yes.



I'd have to answer "yes," though not without hesitation.



We shouldn't damage the Earth or other species where it can possibly be avoided.



Some would say cheetahs are above humans in that cheetahs can run faster.



Yes, and for many other reasons.



Huh?



I don't agree with this.



Humans decrease or increase their reproduction according to perceived self-interest. They decrease reproduction when children become economic liabilities rather than assets, i.e., when economic development is the sort that gives rise to a large middle class. If we want to decrease human population growth and save the planet, we will see to it that poor nations have the opportunity to use their own resources for economic development rather than serving as plantations for the rich countries. Sadly, it isn't going that way.

I can see how this bears tangentially on spirituality, but is there a direct connection?

I'm not overly fond of humans in the first place. So I can say if it came down to a hundred random humans and the spotted owl, I'd pick the spotted owl for survival. If it was between my cats and 100 random people, I'd pick my cats.

So before someone says "blah blah blah someone you know" let me point this out:

If it was between boorite and my cats, I'd pick boorite without even thinking.

My God, I thought the stuff scoobysnack posted about Dr. Pianka was pure BS, judging from the hysterical tone of the copy. But the info actually comes from Dr. Forrest Mims, who is a member of the Texas Academy of Science and chairs its Environmental Science Section. Mims was in attendance at the lecture.

Here's the writeup in Citizen Scientist.

I wouldn't have believed that a large portion of his audience actually applauded if... well, if a lot of things. Read the link. It's hard to believe, but I think it's true.

I think the biggest problem I have with it is his choice in plagues. Ebola is a bit much. Isn't there something less...agonizing we could use?

Looking at our society, I would say most people think humans are more important. Put it this way - kill an animal for food, that's ok. Kill a human for food, jail and psychiatric treatment. I do not however believe humans have the right to abuse the Earth, strip its natural resources and destroy countless species of animal life. That is wrong, imo.

Regards, PA

I agree. I think humans are different then animals to, but there are people in charge of our lives who think differently. Have you heard of the plan to "rewild" America? It's funded by the United Nations. The United Nations already own all of our major national parks through the biosphere project.

The rewilding of America is a very well funded effort to lock up as much as 50 percent of the United States into wilderness or wildlands protection reserves and corridors known as the Wildlands Project. Although preposterous to most Americans, federal, state and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are gradually implementing the strategy by calling it a host of innocent sounding names; gap analysis, open space, conservation areas, conservation easements, linkages, greenways and many more. It has already harmed, even threatened communities and thousands of American families. Since its long-range goals are to withdraw up to 50 percent of the land area in the U.S. from human use, it will eventually have huge consequences on agriculture and other natural resource industries in America. In doing so it will destroy the standard of living in the United States.

The Wildlands Project is designed to set aside wilderness core reserves and interconnecting wilderness corridors to protect biodiversity. The wilderness reserves and corridors are surrounded by buffer zones designed to protect the wilderness attributes of the reserves and corridors.

In order to be successful, however, these same organizations, agencies and NGOs must have control over all property―including yours. No longer will Americans have unalienable property rights as guaranteed in the U.S. and state constitutions. Historical property rights are being converted to "usufructory" property rights whereby the state or federal governments assume the right to be the final authority on how all private property is used. This has already happened, or is happening to hundreds of thousands of land owners in America. In order to protect yourself, you need to understand this unbelievable agenda and why it is dangerous to you, your family and your community.

The Wildlands Project is the foundation of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. The treaty was stopped using this map an hour before the U.S. Senate was scheduled to ratify it in 1994. However, millions of dollars are being spent annually to implement it anyway and is a threat to every American.

http://www.discerningtoday.org/ALF/rewilding_amer.htm

Here's a map of the proposed rewilding of America. The only land the American people will be allowed to use and live on is the areas in light green. Everything else will be given to the United Nations who will then give it back to the animals.



Of course we have to many people to fit in those areas, so population must also be drastically reduced. Like I said before, who is willing to sacrafise themselves for the new earth.

I believe they are. Humans will always "sin" or do something wrong. Personally, I would rather see a child die then a dog die, in most cases.

No, no, NO!

I'm sorry, scoobysnack, but that trash is nothing more than a scare tactic introduced by extremist Republicans to scare the American public into thinking the United Nations now has control of the United States. It was introduced in the mid 1990's as the Man and the Biosphere Project. It was designed to recognize key areas that were culturally and ecologically unique on the planet. The only thing that Man and the Biosphere does is regocnize that the area is unique and then you get a plaque on the wall stating so.

The crap perpetuated by the scaremongers included "zones" that were to be devoid of human habitation surrounded by other zones of "limited human accessibility." These zones were then handed over to the United Nations for control to start a New World Order. Back then, people were saying that meant Saddam Hussein could have control over the United States, which scared the crap out of everyone, Republican, Democrat, and independant alike. A huge backlash ensued, and the project was scrapped.

All it did, was recognize that those areas were culturally and ecologically unique. And this was to be done around the world, not just in the United States. And most of the places recognized were national parks. Look at the above map. Look at those stupid red zones. Most of those correlate to national parks. The upper left hand corner of Wyoming is all red. You know what's there? Yellowstone National Park. Yes, the entire upper left hand corner of Wyoming is Yellowstone.

I bet if you actually bother to compare this BS map to a map of land ownership in the United States, you'll find that most of those red zones are nothing more than land already owned by the government: BLM, NPS, etc, and even state-owned lands. These lands have been under government ownership for longer than any of us here have been born. There is no inaccessibility to humans in any of these places. In fact, BLM lands allow humans to use them as they need. Grazing for livestock, hunting, digging for minerals and fossils, harvesting plants, etc.

I can't believe this trash is being perpetuated on the net. As if the moon landing hoax nonsense wasn't bad enough, this complete junk is resurfacing, freaking people out that there's some giant conspiracy to turn the United States over to a New World Order at the hands of the United Nations.

I had to work on the front lines with this crap and deal with the fallout from this nonsense. I worked with many patriotic and wonderful people in an area that was designated unique by MAB. This crap caused us more headaches than the annual budget. I can tell you, from a firsthand perspective that this new version of MAB is nothing more than a ridiculous hoax. It's trash. Nothing more. Please stop perpetuating this nonsense.

I'm sorry but you are wrong. Of course the plan has not been fully implemented yet, which is maybe why you can't see it.

So you think there is no plan to create a new world order? You don't know about the agenda being carried out for decades to create a world government?

"It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance."
President George Bush addressing the General Assembly of the U.N., February 1, 1992

You think Bush cares about the United Nations? After what he did to invade Iraq?

And no, I am not wrong about this. Like I said, I have firsthand knowledge and experience about this crap. This is a stupid trash hoax. I'm just sorry that someone with too much time on their hands decided to revive it when they could be helping other people improve this world in real ways. There's animal and homeless shelters that could use volunteers who have that much time to kill.

For sake of clarity, what do you think is a hoax. World government or the plan to rewild America? If you think the plan for world government is a hoax, I have first hand knowledge that it's a reality in the making.

Bush is playing the part of world government right now. he is the bad cop, and when people get fed up with the US policing the world, the only alternative solution will be to have a world ruling body and create a international police force to maintain order.

"For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are."
-- Niccolo Machiavelli Italian Statesman and Political Philosopher

"There are two views of history: (1) History happens by accident or (2) It is planned. The general public is taught that history happens by accident. However, the upper echelons... know that history is planned."
-- R.E. McMaster The Power of Total Perspective

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happened, you can bet it was planned that way."
-- Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945), 32nd US President

State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era

In the age of globalization, states should give up some sovereignty to world bodies in order to protect their own interests
By Richard Haass, President of CFR

Tuesday, Feb 21, 2006,Page 9

For 350 years, sovereignty -- the notion that states are the central actors on the world stage and that governments are essentially free to do what they want within their own territory but not within the territory of other states -- has provided the organizing principle of international relations. The time has come to rethink this notion.

The world's 190-plus states now co-exist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely) independent actors, ranging from corporations to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), from terrorist groups to drug cartels, from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds. The sovereign state is influenced by them (for better and for worse) as much as it is able to influence them. The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded.

As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than states. This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the UN General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organizations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met.
Less is more

Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function. This is already taking place in the trade realm. Governments agree to accept the rulings of the WTO because on balance they benefit from an international trading order even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.

Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change. Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the US, China, and India, accept emissions limits or adopt common standards because they recognize that they would be worse off if no country did.

All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization. At its core, globalization entails the increasing volume, velocity, and importance of flows -- within and across borders -- of people, ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, e-mails, weapons and a good deal else, challenging one of sovereignty's fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction. Sovereign states increasingly measure their vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond their control.

Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.

This was demonstrated by the American and world reaction to terrorism. Afghanistan's Taliban government, which provided access and support to al-Qaeda, was removed from power. Similarly, the US' preventive war against an Iraq that ignored the UN and was thought to possess weapons of mass destruction showed that sovereignty no longer provides absolute protection.

Imagine how the world would react if some government were known to be planning to use or transfer a nuclear device or had already done so. Many would argue -- correctly -- that sovereignty provides no protection for that state.

Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens. This reflects not simply scruples, but a view that state failure and genocide can lead to destabilizing refugee flows and create openings for terrorists to take root.

The NATO intervention in Kosovo was an example where a number of governments chose to violate the sovereignty of another government (Serbia) to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide. By contrast, the mass killing in Rwanda a decade ago and now in Darfur, Sudan, demonstrate the high price of judging sovereignty to be supreme and thus doing little to prevent the slaughter of innocents.

Conditions needed

Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute. If a state fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring terrorism, either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction, or conducting genocide, then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and opens itself up to attack, removal or occupation.
The diplomatic challenge for this era is to gain widespread support for principles of state conduct and a procedure for determining remedies when these principles are violated.
The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.

The basic idea of sovereignty, which still provides a useful constraint on violence between states, needs to be preserved. But the concept needs to be adapted to a world in which the main challenges to order come from what global forces do to states and what governments do to their citizens rather than from what states do to one another.
Richard Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of The Opportunity: America's Moment to Alter History's Course.

I'm glad that the conservation easment my family has been maintaining for decades now is nothing more than a front for the New World Order. I definitely missed that memo when I was at the meeting for the annual overview. They must have all been communicating telepathically so I wouldn't hear about their Evil Plans for World Domination.

My family had more to worry about from developers. The wilderness surrounding the family estate is now a city. The forested areas we once owned is now a crowded neighborhood and the house just has a back yard. If it wasn't for the easement on the last bit of forested land left, it would be built up with more houses and gas stations. Property taxes were artificially inflated by developers so high, that we had to keep selling off the land or lose the house. To keep that last bit of forested area, we started a conservation easement on it. No one can develop anything on it, no tax fines are held against us, and we actually own the property.

My family had friends who lived in Buffalo National Park. They had been living there since long before the park was formed. When the park was first being planned out, people living in that area were told that a park was in the works and that yes, it did affect their land. They could choose to sell their land to the government for many more times what it was worth, which would insure they could get whatever property they wanted elsewhere and send their grandkids to college, or continue living in the park on a lifetime conservation easement. That means the property they already had would be theirs to use as they want for life. Upon their death, the property would revert to the park, with a settlement left for their kids. They chose the easement. I talked to them many times about it before they died and both Al and Sue said they were grateful for the easement because it meant they could keep living in a wooded, secluded area that was guaranteed never to become developed in their lifetime. And they were happy that after they died, the land would go on in its natural state, rather than being developed.

This whole "Simulated Wildlands Project" is just more crap whose originators didn't even bother to look anything up before they made wild claims. Like the moon landing hoax people. I wonder why they even changed the name from Man and the Biosphere. Maybe because people back then realized it was a crock and wouldn't listen to it so it has a new name to look all shiny and pressing.

It also occurred to me just how stupid it would be for the New World Order to make agriculture in the United States so heavily penalized. How would it make sense to all but wipe out agriculture in the United States? Grain production alone in the United States just about equals world grain production (minus China).

The "Simulated Wildlands Project" is a hoax. It's crap. There's nothing there. Like I said, it's just Man and the Biosphere repackaged. I don't care about the New World Order crap and if there is a planned world government, let them have it. But the wildlands nonsense is nothing more than nonsense.

Tossing out random vague quotes does not indicate that a world governement is being implemented. Verifiable paper trails that aren't taken out of context would.

I guess I don't understand why you think this is a hoax. The rewilding of America would have been implemented if it was not stopped. How long was the plan for a united nations in planning? Roosevelt failed to create it after WWI. Did the idea die? No, it was changed slightly so the masses would accept it when it was offered again. The point is that there are people who want to achieve this (rewilding of America). Maybe not the masses, but the elite do. From there perspective, people against this, are standing in the way of progress. You say why would we take away all the land from the farmers. You don't under stand that a large percentage of humanity will also be exterminated. There will be no need for that amount of food.

"One-fourth of humanity must be eliminated from the social body. We are in charge of God's selection process for planet earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death."
-- Psychologist Barbara Marx Hubbard - member of Task Force Delta; a United States Army think tank

The goal of the Wildlands Project is to set aside approximately fifty (50) percent of the North American continent (Turtle Island) as "wild land" for the preservation of biological diversity.

The project seeks to do this by creating "reserve networks" across the continent. Reserves are made up of the following:

Cores, created from public lands such as National Forest and Parks
Buffers, often created from private land adjoining the cores to provide additional protection

Corridors, a mix of public and private lands usually following along rivers and wildlife migration routes

The primary characteristics of core areas are that they are large (100,000 to 25 million acres), and allow for little, if any, human use.

The primary characteristics of buffers are that they allow for limited human use so long as they are "managed with native biodiversity as a preeminent concern."

Moral and ethical guidelines for the Wildlands Project are based on the philosophy of Deep Ecology.

The eight point platform of Deep Ecology can be summarized as follows:

All life (human and non-human) has equal value.

Resource consumption above what is needed to supply "vital" human needs is immoral.

Human population must be reduced

Western civilization must radically change present economic, technological, and ideological structures.

Believers have an obligation to try to implement the necessary changes.
The Wildlands Project itself is supported by hundreds of groups working towards its long-term implementation. Implementation may take 100 years or more.

The Wildlands Project has received millions of dollars in support from wealthy private and corporate foundations such as the Turner Foundation, Patagonia, W. Alton Jones Foundation, Lyndhurst Foundation, etc.

Conclusion:

The Wildlands Project exist within legal boundaries, however that should not prevent us from being concerned. At the very least, it advocates an extreme manifestation of environmental and public policy. Therefore, any claim the Wildlands Project makes toward public policy must be debated, and ultimately decided, in the public arena. Yet to date it has existed almost anonymously; beyond the knowledge of the wider public. It must be examined out from behind the cover of more general environmental concerns, held up for public scrutiny, and either accepted or rejected by a public fully aware of its implications. Failing to do so could have dire consequences, for as John Adams once wrote, "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge by the people."

http://www.wildlandsprojectrevealed.org/htm/summary.htm

For a moment there when I entered this thread I thought I was on a different board..................................I double checked and NOPE I am still on spirituality V's Skeptisim boards.....now its all politics...LOL pretty much like religion...POLITICS!!!

Everything is interconnected.

The reason I put this here is because I assume that people who don't believe in a higher power would view humans as simply the most advanced animal on earth. People who believe in a higher power I assume would place humans above animals.

At the top of the social order, the masses are viewed as animals. Instead of hunting seasons, Wars are used to maintain human population levels.

Scooby...I love animals...but an animal can kill and not get the same punishment as a human....some animals get treated a lot worse

Dogs are put to sleep the sec the bite someone

Ahuman being bites someone and there is a fight and the worst that can happen is...they get fined in a court of law


Go figure

yeah humans are animals. perhaps more intelligent (through curiousity, and the fact we evolved to be able to stand on our hind legs). we are and will always be animals, though we are the most social animal - as social as ants are (though they are insects).

Even if the UN had some convention on something-or-other that some hysterical internet loon interprets in such a way as to produce the map scoobysnack posted, it means nothing. The US is a charter signatory to many UN declarations, and it ignores them at will. The most significant example is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is a dead letter as far as Washington is concerned.

To spin this back to spirituality: If "faith" is anything, it is belief in certain principles in advance of any evidence. As Americans, then, "we hold these truths to be self-evident..." or so we say. To make a long story short, if America is in spiritual trouble, it is not because we are overcommitted to fulfilling our solemn obligations to the UN and international law. You'll find quite the opposite case if you look at the facts.

Scoobysnack, there are real conspiracies out there. The rewilding of America is not one of them.

OK, you are making me defend my position. This thread is not meant to be about the "rewilding of America" My point in posting that was to show that the establishment wants to give the land back to nature, and not to humans for development.

You think some crazy nut on the internet made this stuff up, including the map?

This was conceived by a think tank from Oxford University. It's all in this book:

The entire plan is published in a report entitled, "Our Global Neighborhood: The Report of the Commission On Global Governance", Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-827997-3, 410 pages long

http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/s...i=9780198279976


This is not a hoax. Sure it may not be being implemented at this date under that name, but the idea still exists. All that has to happen is for the nation states to give up their sovereignty to a world body of ruling elites. Then and only then will this become reality. Bye Bye constitutional rights. Not in the new AmeriKan century. Why is it not common knowledge that the establishment is trying to create a world government? Here's your answer.

"We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world. All the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands."
-- Arnold Toynbee, "The Trend of International Affairs Since the War", International Affairs, November 1931, p. 809

In other words whenever the establishment says there is no plan for a world government, they are deliberately lying to your face. How do you feel about that?

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."
-- Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.

Then that is an "establishment" that is about as unestablished as it can possibly get. Scoobysnack, look at actual policy. Look at those who are in a position to influence policy. Look where their money comes from and where it is going. That is the real "establishment." Does it look anything like what you have proposed? I don't think so. What you have proposed is a fantasy.



I think some crazy nut on the internet took some fact and extrapolated that map via some dubious methodology for the purpose of creating hysteria over a fantasy.



Please answer this question yes or no: Are you saying that map came from this report published by Oxford UP?

Or is it the case that someone else interpreted the report and came up with that map?



This is already being done, but not by some UN Commission.

To me it's simple. Just as in war they must sometimes sacrifice a few men, I say sacrifice the one species (homo sapiens) so the rest survive. Humanity has not done any good except to themselves. More often than not they don't do any good to each other either. At the current rate, this planet will be as lifeless as all the others we know in a few hundred years. Life over humanity.

I'm just being brief here. Would take too long to post all the reasons. Suffice to say I've given it a lot of thought. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, so don't hesitate to disagree However, I am also entitled to my own opinion, so please don't flame me.

Life on Earth has survived worse catastrophes than the coming of homo sapiens. I think calling for humanity's extinction is a bit hasty.

I'm sorry, scoobysnack, but I can tell you the rewilding of America is indeed a hoax. It is exactly like the MAB project, which had nothing to do with giving American soil to the UN. It was merely a recognition of unique cultural and ecological areas. It was no more sinister than getting a participation ribbon in a 5th grade science fair. All it did was say "this area has ecological importance in the world!"

The "rewilding of America" project is EXACTLY the same as MAB, but with a different name.

This hoax took in Democrats with the sinister "New World Order" and took in the Republicans with the loss of individual and state rights. The Republicans are the current majority in our government. Republicans, by basic principles, do whatever it takes to uphold states rights (and to some extent individual rights) so do you think for one minute they would let the United Nations, an organization they tell to bugger off on a daily basis, have control of 50% of American soil? No way in hell would they do that. Not even if it was corporate interest would the current American government allow that. And if Democrats take over, they sure as hell won't do it either.

And, I am telling you, from firsthand knowledge, that rewilding of America is a hoax. I cannot stress that enough. I know from firsthand experience that this is complete and utter crap. There is no conspiracy to turn 50% of American property over to this program.

Though I have a feeling you might qualify as a person who is so suspicious of politicians and so convinced that they are constantly lying and trying to hurt the American people, that if a politician said "the sky is blue," you would spend lots of time looking for information to prove that it was red.

Rewilding of America is a hoax. It is not real. It is not part of a conspiracy.

I don't know enough about the "rewilding of America" to answer your question about the map. Sorry. Like I said, it was just an example in the big scheme of things.

I didn't mean to get off topic.

Back on topic.

Humans are the only species that are able to control their destiny, and the destiny of the planet to a certain extent.

I think it's dangerous to consider humans as animals. People in charge view us as animals though.

CATTLE

Those who will not use their brains are no better off than those who have no brains, and so this mindless school of jelly-fish, father, mother, son, and daughter, become useful beasts of burden or trainers of the same.

OK, maybe it's not real. I don't believe that 100%, but I have nothing to stand on. This is new to me.

Isn't Bush a republican? How does he fit the deffinition of a republican? What has he done to preseve state rights?

"There ought to be limits to freedom."
-- Governor George W Bush, May 21, 1999

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
-- President George W. Bush on CNN

President Bush is not in charge. The republicans are not in charge. THey are in place to give you the illusion that we live in a working democracy.

"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."
-- Benjamin Disraeli, (first Prime Minister of England), in a novel he published in 1844 called Coningsby, the New Generation

"The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes."
-- Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1952


First of all the United Nations is just the beginning. The UN was created early in this century in order to help overcome one of the biggest barriers to a one-world government ...That barrier is the one of nationalism, or pride in one's country. The UN is a preparation, but it is not the real power in the world, and will be relatively unimportant when the NWO comes into being. The real councils will then step forward. But as a means of getting the general public to accept the idea of a "global community" and the "one world community" the UN is a stepping stone in their working towards the NWO.

Once we give up our sovernty to the world government, you wont be able to stop them.

"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas."
--Brock Adams, Director UN Health Organization

"We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent."
--James Warburg (Council on Foreign Relations), Statement to The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17th, l950


This was written this year.

State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era
In the age of globalization, states should give up some sovereignty to world bodies in order to protect their own interests
By Richard Haass, President of CFR

Tuesday, Feb 21, 2006,Page 9

For 350 years, sovereignty -- the notion that states are the central actors on the world stage and that governments are essentially free to do what they want within their own territory but not within the territory of other states -- has provided the organizing principle of international relations. The time has come to rethink this notion.

The world's 190-plus states now co-exist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely) independent actors, ranging from corporations to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), from terrorist groups to drug cartels, from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds. The sovereign state is influenced by them (for better and for worse) as much as it is able to influence them. The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded.

As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than states. This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the UN General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organizations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met.
Less is more

Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function. This is already taking place in the trade realm. Governments agree to accept the rulings of the WTO because on balance they benefit from an international trading order even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.

Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change. Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the US, China, and India, accept emissions limits or adopt common standards because they recognize that they would be worse off if no country did.

All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization. At its core, globalization entails the increasing volume, velocity, and importance of flows -- within and across borders -- of people, ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, e-mails, weapons and a good deal else, challenging one of sovereignty's fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction. Sovereign states increasingly measure their vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond their control.

Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.

This was demonstrated by the American and world reaction to terrorism. Afghanistan's Taliban government, which provided access and support to al-Qaeda, was removed from power. Similarly, the US' preventive war against an Iraq that ignored the UN and was thought to possess weapons of mass destruction showed that sovereignty no longer provides absolute protection.

Imagine how the world would react if some government were known to be planning to use or transfer a nuclear device or had already done so. Many would argue -- correctly -- that sovereignty provides no protection for that state.

Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens. This reflects not simply scruples, but a view that state failure and genocide can lead to destabilizing refugee flows and create openings for terrorists to take root.

The NATO intervention in Kosovo was an example where a number of governments chose to violate the sovereignty of another government (Serbia) to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide. By contrast, the mass killing in Rwanda a decade ago and now in Darfur, Sudan, demonstrate the high price of judging sovereignty to be supreme and thus doing little to prevent the slaughter of innocents.

Conditions needed

Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute. If a state fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring terrorism, either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction, or conducting genocide, then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and opens itself up to attack, removal or occupation.
The diplomatic challenge for this era is to gain widespread support for principles of state conduct and a procedure for determining remedies when these principles are violated.
The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.

The basic idea of sovereignty, which still provides a useful constraint on violence between states, needs to be preserved. But the concept needs to be adapted to a world in which the main challenges to order come from what global forces do to states and what governments do to their citizens rather than from what states do to one another.
Richard Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of The Opportunity: America's Moment to Alter History's Course.

The problem is, if your big scheme of things is built of examples like that map and this theory that "the establishment" is about to turn the US into an eco-tyranny for the benefit of wild animals, then you might want to reconsider it.



Dangerous-- to humans. Does that matter? I'd say yes, since I am a human.



Oh, is that all you're saying? Well, yeah, and so it's always been. It has never been a good idea to trust the people in charge to value your life! This is why our Founders provided forms by which every one of "the people" could look out for himself.

Sadly, those forms are not functioning very well today.

But it ain't because the people in charge want to give land to wild animals!

This has gotten seriously off-topic. As interesting as it is, can we get back to the topic - Are human beings any different then animals? Do they deserve special treatment?

So boring, though. I mean the answer is yes, isn't it?

@boorite

I agree life has survived worse than the coming of homo sapiens, but those events were:
1. Not constant
2. Singular

Not only is homo sapien's destruction upon the planet been fairly consistent over the past few hundred years, it's degree of destructiveness has increased since it started. Judging from the pattern over the past 100 years to now, it shows little sign of ceasing and I think it's fair to say if it comes down to it, the extinction of humanity so that the continuation of life is possible, is preferable to wiping out all life as we know it including us.

That is not one of my examples that I'm basing my statement on. It was just an example to show that there are people who think that way. You may not believe it, and think the whole thing is a hoax, but there are people who believe they need to kill off one half the worlds population to rebalance humans and nature.

Right they don't want to give the land to the animals, they want to take the land away from the people. The only ones left will be the animals. That's not even my point though.

The point I was getting at in starting this thread is to say that since not all people treat all other people as human beings, we are staying attached to our lower selves, and not getting in touch with our higher selves. I'm not saying we can become Gods, but the world would be a better place.

A major problem is that those towards the top of the pyramid of power treat the people below them like animals. Someone takes charge assigns people a yoke, and leads them, and tells them what to do and how to behave. Just like running a farm. Earth has become a global plantation, with those at the top abusing poor.

People in general who think humans are just animals, are being misled, and brainwashed so that they adjust to the world being prepared for them. Hitler wanted to create the new world order and start the 1,000 year reich, (1,000 years of "peace"), but the idea to rebuild the new garden of Eden still exists. And it's being created around us.

The people creating this new world order view us as animals. Useless eaters, and useful beasts of burden.

7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!
-- Nine Satanic Statements


“Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” - Henry Kissinger, quoted in “Kiss the Boys Goodbye: How the United States Betrayed Its Own POW’s in Vietnam”

They justify starting wars and killling innocent people, because we are just animals. We all have a certain value determined by the human value system. Some people are worth more dead then they are alive. It's not up to you to decide as much as it is up to them to determine the world's future.

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
-- Hermann Goering Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag

I wouldn't have believed that any reputable, working scientist thought so, or much less that he would receive a standing ovation from the Texas Academy of Science, until you pointed out Dr. Pianka's marvelous speech.



Yes. Looks like you and I are the token Marxists here.



Kissinger's a monster.

So are we saying that spirituality can head off WW3?

specism is wrong. just like nationalism, and racism

in order to be peaceful, to have a peaceful life... you cannot set yourself apart from other things... you have to realize that 'like the sandstorm mentioned on page 1' you arent even a speck of sand... you are however, connected to a sand storm, the same wind that is moving you is moving every other piece of sand....

the thing that makes YOU alive... makes OTHER animals alive... im not saying that you can't argue that humans are more ingenious with making things like cars, and computers, and nuclear bombs and things.... but perhaps, the need to create, to change the world around us isn't a mark of our ingenuity, but rather our fatal flaw... our inability to adapt, to accept.... to be part of the world and not set ourselves above all other life forms, above each other.

i think its arguable to say that 'humans are better ' - you know, that depends a lot by your definition of 'better'

if 'better' is global warming. and war. and religion, and genocide, and obesiety, and material indulgance and capitalism and government - then yeah... i guess we are better

We're also better at fingerpainting than birds are.

There is nothing you can do to stop the coming World War. All you can do is save your own soul. Our material possesions will only last so long. Besides you might end up in a relocation camp, surrounded by barb wire fence.

Anyone remember the London Zoo exibit in August 2005, where they had Humans on display?

The mammals were chosen from dozens of hopefuls in an Internet competition.

(AP) At London Zoo, you can talk to the animals — and now some of them talk back.

Caged and barely clothed within a rocky enclosure, eight British men and women monkeyed around Friday for an amused, bemused crowd behind a sign reading "Warning: Humans in their Natural Environment."

"Seeing people in a different environment, among other animals ... teaches members of the public that the human is just another primate,"

"A lot of people think humans are above other animals," he said. "When they see humans as animals, here, it kind of reminds us that we're not that special."

cbsnews

"We have set up this exhibit to highlight the spread of man as a plague species and to communicate the importance of man's place in the planet's ecosystem," London Zoo said.

usatoday


If humans are animals do they deserve human rights? Most of us would think so, but if we our status is downgraded, our rights will be to. Sacrafices are going to have to be made. Who will be the one who have to go first. Who's to decide?

Those currently in charge can't let the public decide. They will make it appear through the United Nations or some world communal body that we live in a democracy, but in the end, it will be a dictatorship.

democracy: "a government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meetings or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude towards property is communistic-negative property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. It results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."
--U.S. Army Training Manual 1928

Which is why America is a republic, not a democracy. And why the new world order is spreading more fake democracy world wide. World wide dictatorship, where the people think they are free.

Watch this funny (topic un-related) video about George Bush the decider

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/fior...05/decider.html

I know that humans are animals, and that we're no "better" than other animals, whatever that means, and that to other organisms on the planet and perhaps even to each other, we may be a "plague species." I understand all this. And yet I can't help thinking people who speak out for equal rights for animals and against "species-ism" are just kidding themselves. One question: Am I guilty of the same crime if I stalk and shoot a deer as if I stalk and shoot a person? Anyone who says "no," which should be anyone, is a "speciesist."

Yes. Unless you shot the deer for food and shot the person for no reason. Only if the circumstances are different, would I say no.

Anyway, all this talk of humans being a plague species reminds me of 'The Matrix'. Anyone here remembers the scene when Agent Smith is talking to... Morpheus? I dunno. He compares humans to viruses. I'm inclined to agree with him with one obvious exception... Viruses don't kid themselves (self-deceit. Humans are very good at that. Doesn't get them anywhere either)

So if I shot a deer for sport, I'm committing the same crime as if I shot a human for sport? Are you joking?

So hitting a deer on the road and driving off is the same as hitting a 5 year-old child on the street and driving off?

Where I live in Wisconsin, we have deer hunting season every winter. This is done so the population does not get to big that there is not enough food to go around. Every winter, hunters kill hundreds if not thousands of deer.

Should we apply that same process to the starving people in Africa. Is it not cheaper and make more buisiness sence to kill off a certain percentage then to continue giving aid.

Of course we can't make it obvious so they probably get them to fight eachother, and keep the balance.

Let me see Ivy. . . You hit a living thing with a car. . . that thing was a mammal. . .Yeah its the same. The way you react to it is the only differance. That child was a being like you, you could have talked with him/her and loved it as you love another person. But you cant really say the same for the deer. . . so you wouldn't feel as bad. . .unless your a person thats sensative to the pain of other animals.

And shooting a deer is just wrong unlist you are doing it out of protection for your, or someone elses, well being. That means that its O.K if the deer was attacking you or someone you loved OR if it's for food. But if you could buy the gun,bullits, truck, deer pee, hunting blade and all the other things needed to kill deer for food did thats also wrong IMO cause you could have used that money to buy food.

But on topic. I think that humans are just animals that have, like other animals, grown to be good at what we do best. . . which is useing tools. We are just the result of primates that have become dependent on tools and, just like a wolf with out a pack, we would die with out our tools.
So what makes us different then other animals kids?!?!

(Kids) Our dependance on tools!!!

Thats right kids, with out tools were just super computers without the net. . . could be the smartest thing around but cant do ditily.
(Just a lil fun way to end my post. () )

That is on topic.

You aren't understanding what we're saying. You're saying that a hit and run accident with a kid is the same thing as hitting an animal.

So the next time a ground squirrel runs in front of my car, I should turn myself in for homicide?

Or the next time I hit some guy crossing the street, should I just drive off? After all, I merely hit an animal.

No.



WHAT aid?

No, I know what your saying you just don't understand what Im saying. I said that it's the samething, same action, but the differance is in how you (And others as in other people) feel about it. . . But to make it more clear (I thought people would assume this but I guess I was wrong.) the differance also lies in how the world sees it as well. They are going to see it just as you did. . . If it's a deer then thats too bad, but a kid and you should go to jail.
And why this you might ask. . . Because of this.
"That child was a being like you, you could have talked with him/her and loved it as you love another person. But you cant really say the same for the deer. . . so you wouldn't feel as bad."

And that realy wasn't on topic because it was not talking about "If humans were different to animals" it was talking about how people would or should react to an event. My second part talked about "If shootting deer is wrong." which was not the topic that was started.

The main thing I was aiming at in my post was my last statment. . . which talked about "If humens are different then animals."

And to that I said this. . ."But on topic. I think that humans are just animals that have, like other animals, grown to be good at what we do best. . . which is useing tools. We are just the result of primates that have become dependent on tools and, just like a wolf with out a pack, we would die with out our tools.
So what makes us different then other animals kids?!?!

(Kids) Our dependance on tools!!!

Thats right kids, with out tools were just super computers without the net. . . could be the smartest thing around but cant do ditily.
(Just a lil fun way to end my post. () )

kinda jumped in here late but id like to add my 2 cents... i dont think we are better than animals if anything some animals are better than us, stronger, faster. the only thing we got going for us is our noggins which some humans act like insects.... jk but i think its wrong to say we are superior.

So should we hold animals to our same morality then? The next time a bear mauls a human we should bring it to court and have it tried for murder? The next time an elephant steps on an anthill, it should be charged with negligent homicide?

And then there's the plant kingdom. Everyone's all "save the animals, they're so helpless." No, animals are NOT helpless. They have teeth, claws, hooves, faster running ability, more strength, more agility, better vision, better hearing, better sense of smell, etc.

Plants have none of that and yet we slaughter billions of plants every day. We yank so-called "weeds" from the ground, we dig up and kill native plants to put in buildings, parks, roadways. We cut down trees to make thousands of products which aren't essential for survival. We kill cannabis and tobacco plants to smoke them of all things.

Plants can't run away. They don't have the locomotion abilities. They can poison us, but we've learned how to deal with them so we can still kill them without killing ourselves. They are living, breathing, reproducing creatures. Yes, they are alien to us so we just ignore them, but if you're going to make blanket statements and say hitting a squirrel is the same as hitting someone's grandmother, then you need to incorporate everything into the equation.

And which are we going to do? Are we going to forgive all human against human violence because we don't prosecute the animal kingdom in the same way, or are we going to prosecute the animal (and plant) kingdom using human morality?