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
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
>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,
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]