Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

a wee bit of fallacy, neh?

Expand Messages
  • rookraven_31415
    You say, even on your web site, that its wrong to kill even one species and yet if we kill each other off, you admit that we will kill off species. So by your
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 2, 2002
      You say, even on your web site, that its wrong to kill even one
      species and yet if we kill each other off, you admit that we will
      kill off species. So by your logic its immoral for us to exist and
      for us to not exist. Also, It is egotistical indeed for you to think
      we can harm the planet. Oh, we'll change it, we may completely alter
      the ecosystem, but life will go on, in some form. I, for one, eat
      red bloody meat. Y'know why? I enjoy it, and I follow what is
      natural for me to do; I have an omnivore's teeth, so that's how I
      eat. We're no different than any other species, we're jus the best
      at it. No other species aares about any other species except as far
      as it effects them. We confronted the animals as animals ourselves,
      and we won. Not to be rude, but get over it. If you don't want to
      breed, that's fine, but don't try and make a movement out of it.
      After all, nature's way is every species trying to exploit EVERYTHING
      around them to the fullest extent. We are the embodiment of that
      principle, and its no surprise that we stand where we do in the
      animal kindgdom. Do you think sharks are telling each other in
      between tearing swimmers to pieces and eating whole schools of
      fish "gee bob, I'm real worried that our constant eating may be
      depleting the stocks of fish in the area, destabilizing the ecosystem
      of the entire area." No. They're too busy EATING. But I applaud
      your willingness to throw something away rather than try to fix it;
      its really admirable. Maybe if, with your values, you HAD a kid,
      that kid could find the one special way to make us live in 'harmony'
      with nature and not 'destroy the ecostystem' as you think we do. Or
      maybe he'd just run around killing people who did anything he didn't
      like, rather than talking to them about it. Who knows.
    • Les U. Knight
      rookraven, thanks for giving your perspective on our relationship with the rest of life on Earth. ... species and yet if we kill each other off, you admit that
      Message 2 of 3 , Dec 11, 2002
        rookraven, thanks for giving your perspective on our relationship
        with the rest of life on Earth.

        >You say, even on your web site, that its wrong to kill even one
        species and yet if we kill each other off, you admit that we will
        kill off species. So by your logic its immoral for us to exist and
        for us to not exist. <

        Indeed, this is a paradox. There's a trade-off: our species goes
        extinct so that millions of others have a chance to survive.

        Our extinction too will be tragic. In fact, as we go extinct, about
        two dozen species which live on and in us will also go. We would be
        denying the right of life to generations of unborn Demodex
        folliculorum, mites, bacterium, and so on. Kiss that crab louse
        good-bye forever.

        In the past, hunting was a major cause, and for many rare animals,
        poaching is still their biggest threat. Today, however, most species
        are driven to extinction through a lack of habitat and introduction
        of exotic species rather than being killed off. We have to live
        somewhere, and wherever we live, not much else lives. We are the
        ultimate exotic invader.

        >Also, It is egotistical indeed for you to think
        we can harm the planet. Oh, we'll change it, we may completely alter
        the ecosystem, but life will go on, in some form. <

        I think you're right that life will go on in some form. There are
        bacteria in the ground that would remain even if we wiped out all
        life on the surface. I can't understand how this makes it alright. If
        you came upon a group of people vandalizing your car, would it make
        you feel okay about it if they assured you it would still run in some
        form?

        >We're no different than any other species, we're jus the best
        at it. No other species aares about any other species except as far
        as it effects them. We confronted the animals as animals ourselves,
        and we won. Not to be rude, but get over it. <

        One of the reason our species is incompatible with the biosphere is
        that we tend to see the world as winners and losers rather than a
        dynamic interaction among life forms. It would be like the whales
        thinking they've won after eating all the krill. They would of course
        be dead from starvation shortly after their victory celebration.

        We, too are endangering ourselves by eliminating our food supplies.
        Industrial agriculture has made up for our exploitation of natural
        resources, but it's based on oil, a finite resource. We eliminate
        strands from the web of life at our own peril.

        > If you don't want to breed, that's fine, but don't try and make a
        >movement out of it. <

        Too late. ;-)

        >After all, nature's way is every species trying to exploit EVERYTHING
        around them to the fullest extent. We are the embodiment of that
        principle, and its no surprise that we stand where we do in the
        animal kindgdom. <

        Where *do* we stand in the animal kingdom? A mosquito can kill us and
        a bear could ruin our whole day with a casual swipe of its paw. With
        our clever tools, we have an advantage over the bear, but if we truly
        were like every other species, we'd be red bloody meat in carnivores'
        teeth about as often as the other way around.

        > Do you think sharks are telling each other in
        between tearing swimmers to pieces and eating whole schools of
        fish "gee bob, I'm real worried that our constant eating may be
        depleting the stocks of fish in the area, destabilizing the ecosystem
        of the entire area." No. They're too busy EATING. <

        The difference is that they don't deplete their food supplies through
        over-breeding. Sharks wouldn't have lasted hundreds of millions of
        years if they behaved as we are.

        >But I applaud your willingness to throw something away rather than
        >try to fix it;
        its really admirable. <

        Phasing out a species is not the same as throwing it away, but I see
        what you mean. Although we are a hopelessly flawed species, simply
        "throwing us away" won't be enough to prevent an ecological collapse.
        We do need to "fix" ourselves as well. Snip, snip.

        > Maybe if, with your values, you HAD a kid, that kid could find the
        >one special way to make us live in 'harmony' with nature and not
        >'destroy the ecostystem' as you think we do. <

        It's impossible to live in harmony with nature when there are so many
        of us, and we don't need to wait for some whizz kid to figure out a
        way to improve this situation. Even when we were few in number, we
        had significant detrimental impacts on the ecosystems we invaded.

        > Or maybe he'd just run around killing people who did anything he didn't
        like, rather than talking to them about it. Who knows. <

        Very true, no one ever knows what their offspring will turn out like.
        Yet another reason to not take a chance by breeding.

        For a better world,
        Les

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • c77po <c77po@yahoo.co.uk>
        Some whizzkid already came up with ways to live in harmony with nature - hydrogen powered vehicles, space-based solar power stations, nanotechnology etc. The
        Message 3 of 3 , Dec 12, 2002
          'Some whizzkid' already came up with ways to live in harmony with
          nature - hydrogen powered vehicles, space-based solar power stations,
          nanotechnology etc. The first two will pretty much solve pollution
          problems.. and we have those capabilities now. Nanotech could help
          protect against disease for both humans and animals, but we don't
          have that yet.
          If you would prefer to take yourselves and your genes down the easy
          road out of the situation humanity's in now then do so. Just don't
          pretend that your's is the ultimate moral position, because it's not.
          I don't think mine is either, but I at least try to think long term,
          which a lot of people here don't seem capable of.
          Believe it or not, it's quite hard to be sentient and have the
          ability to use tools. You get carried away with the natural instinct
          to provide for yourself and your family to such an extent that you
          ignore everything else. We could stop that all if only we found non-
          polluting technologies, which we have now done. Unfortunately, they
          aren't politically acceptable (can you say 'oil barons'?)
          If we shrank in numbers, stopped polluting the environment, stopped
          worshipping stupid invisible deities who told us we were better than
          everything else, and most importantly of all stopped letting greedy
          minorities get rich by abusing Earth then we would be okay.

          The VHEMT goal is worse than pointless in the long run anyway.
          Unless species like ourselves continue to exist then nothing will
          survive the inevitable heat death of the universe. At least we have a
          chance, and so other animals have to.

          77
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.