Killinig animals

Ivan Seeking

I completely agree.

Mk

I would at first sight. But then I again inquire: "Why not?"

If one species of rhinocerous disappeared tomorrow how would that affect the Earth? I'm not totally against anybody, and I do not have a very strong opinion.

Tell me why not, thanks.

Mk

Now I didn't say that, I just said that I hold the happiness of people higher than the hornyness of a rhinocerous (pun intended).

Daminc

On the emotional side:
All life is precious and deserves to play it's part in nature.

On the scientific side:
All species of flora and fauna are interconnected in some way. Whether it be fertilisation, food or a myriad of other possibilities. Species are going extinct as we speak: "Levin's column noted that on average, a distinct species of plant or animal becomes extinct every 20 minutes."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0109074801.htm

That, combined with global warming, makes the possibility of a catastrophic breakdown in the global food chain resulting in a LOT of bad things happening.

We may not care much about what we do to this planet but it's our future generations that will curse us for our short-sightedness.

arildno

Nor would it affect the Earth much if you disappeared.

And it wouldn't affect the Universe a lot if the Milky Way got swallowed up by a humungous black hole, either..

Averagesupernova

So they whacked all three pieces off?

Mk

You obviously didn't read my post well. I said a whole species of rhinocerous. If all of us poofed away, that would affect the Earth quite a bit.

What about the protozoan Malaria parasite, Plasmodium? Or polio, smallpox, influenza? I think the world did just fine without polio and smallpox.

Extinction is a natural phenomenon; it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Through the laws of evolution, new species are created by speciation — where new organisms arise and thrive when they are able to find and exploit an ecological niche. Species become extinct when are no longer able to survive in changing conditions or against superior competition. Conditions on the Earth are always changing, and dramatically is not rare. It is not something new, caused by humans. Termite mounds, beaver dams, and coral reefs all change their environment dramatically, affecting many other creatures. Are they interferring with nature?
I would love to argue global warming, but that may be too far getting off topic.

Yellowstone Park, the first wilderness to be set aside as a natural preserve anywhere in the world, was called a National Park in 1872, by Ulysses Grant. No one had ever tried to preserve wilderness before, they assumed it would be much easier than it proved to be.

When Theodore Roosevelt visited the park in 1903, he saw a landscape teeming with game. There were thousands of elk, buffalo, black bear, deer, mountain lions, grizzlies, coyotes, wolves, and bighorn sheep. By that time there were rules in place to keep things the way they were. The Park Service was formed, a new bureaucracy whose sole purpose was the maintain the park in its original condition.

Within 10 years, the teeming landscape that Roosevelt saw was gone forever. The reason for this was because of the Park rangers, they were supposed to be keeping the park in pristine condition, and had taken a series of steps that they thought were in the best interest of preserving the park.

The Park Service mistankenly believed that elk were becoming extinct, they tried to increase the elk herds within the park by eliminating predators. To that end, they shot and poisoned all the wolves in the park, of course not intending to kill all of them. They also prohibited local Native Americans from hunting there, even though Yellowstone was a traditional hunting ground.

Totally protected now, the elk herd population exploded and they ate so much of certain trees and grasses, that the ecology of the park began to change. The elk ate defoliated trees that the beavers used to make dams, so the beavers vanished. That was when manages found out that beavers were vital to the overall management of the region. When the beavers vanished, meadows dried up, trout and otter populations receded, soil erosion increased, park ecology changed even further.

By the 1920s, it was clear there were way too many elk, os the rangers shot them by the thousands. The change in plant ecology seemed permanent; the old mix of trees and grasses did not return.

It also became clear that Native American hunters had exerted a valueable ecological influence on the park lands by keeping down the numbers of elk, moose, and bison. This recognition came as a part of a general understanding that the Native Americans strongly shaped the untouched wilderness white men thought they saw.

North American humans had exerted a huge influencee on the environment for thousands of years, by burning palins grasses, modifying forests, thinning out specific animal populations, and hunting others to extinction - capitulation to a superior species.

The rule forbidding Native Americans from hunting was seen as a mistake, but it was just one of many that continued to be made by the Park Service. Grizzlies were protected, then killed off, Wolves were killed off, then brought back. Radio collars research was halted, then resumed. Fire prevention policies were instituted, with no understanding of the regenerative effects of fire. When the policy was reversed, thousands of acres were burned so hotly to the ground that it was sterilized, and forests did not grow back without reseeding. Rainbow trout were introduced in the 70s, that species killed off the native cutthroat species. And on and on and on and on.

It is a history of ignorant, incompetent, intrusive interveintion, followed by disastrous attempts to repair, followed by attempts to repair damage caused by repairs. Just as dramatic as any oil spill or toxic waste dump, but in these ones there are no evil awful big corporations, or fossil fuel economy to blame. These are disasters caused by environmentalists, the very people who wanted to protect the environement, who made one mistake after another.

Passive protection, leaving things alone, doesn't preserve the status quo within a wilderness any more than it does in your backyard. The world is alive, things are constantly in flux. Species are winning, losing, rising, falling, exploding, bottlenecking, taking over, being pushed back. Merely leaving it alone doesn't put it in a state of supsended animation. Its like locking your son or daughter in their bedroom and expecting them not to grow up.

Humans do care what happens to the environment in the future, and try hard. Humans just don't know what they are doing, period. We haven't made an action that only had postive consequences yet - banning DDT, Solar panels, Water recycling systems for homes, abolishing CFCs.

Why are we interferring with the course of nature? Why do some try to keep it the way it is? Why do some blame humans for changing it? It will change for better or for worse, if we are here are not here. If humans were in this state of development before the last ice age, we would blame each other for causing it.

fileen

I have heard that elk horns contain a sexual stimulant.
http://www.wapiti.net/news/default2.cfm?articleID=37
http://www.911healthshop.com/virinex.html

Mk

Antlers are bony outgrowths from the head with no covering of keratin as is found in true horns. While an antler is growing it is covered with highly vascular skin called velvet, which supplies oxygen and nutrients to the growing bone; once the antler has achieved its proper size, the velvet is lost and the antler's bone dies. This dead bone structure is the mature antler. (Wikipedia)

I did a Google search, and found no reputable evidence.

kaos

So, the value of an animal is just how it affects the earth??? ( or your lifestyle) ???

Mk

Sir or madam, I was asking a question, not writing a statement. Don't jump to conclusions here, I never said anything about the value of an animal.

Notice what the term value means: "The amount of money, goods, or services that is considered to be a fair equivalent for something else."

It seems you have contradicted yourself in saying that how important animals are to humans, is how it affects the Earth, humans, or my lifestyle.

Daminc

You made a good reply Mk except there would be one or two things I would comment on.
I have an unsubstatated theory that it's natures way of population control :)
The rate of extinction occuring today is highly accelerated due to human interference.

I've no doubt that the Earth will carry on and new species will repopulate the planet if we just left it alone however I have grave doubts the mankind will not suffer for their lack of foresight and their willingness (as a species) to do whatever they like without fear of consequence.

Skyhunter

Value is that which a person deems to be important. The definition you give is purely material. By your definition of value, life has no value other than it's equivalent in money, goods, and services.

Now I understand your position.

Mk

Nice going with your post. You did a very good job.

This is definitely a different kind of value. This seems to be a better suited definition: The quality (positive or negative) that renders something desirable. Ehh?

You caught me there, I used a definition from Wiktionary, located at en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Main_Page. And I had not given much thought to the definition, though I was thinking about it walking in Waikiki yesterday.

I wanted to make a decision on how I think, and understand why I think it, and what backs it up. So far I've only decided their is no clear cut line between life and inanimate.

First I thought, life has value right? Of course it does! But why? Because life is desirable. We prefer a dog to a rock, a houseplant to a rock. But would we prefer mold growing on bread instead of a rock? I might prefer a rock. Right now I've got to go, but I'll be thinking, how I spend most of my day. Post with your thoughts, especially you Skyhunter.


Mk

Skyhunter

Glad to see you thinking outside of the dictionary MK.

I thought you might be interested in the thoughts of some great thinkers from histiory.

Pythagorus was the father of vegetarianism, in fact until about 120 years ago vegetarians were often referred to as pythagrians. Here is what he had to say about killing animals.

"As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower beings, he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seeds of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love" -Pythagorus

Buddha also had an opinion on this subject.

"All beings tremble before violence. All fear death, all love life. See yourself in others. Then whom can you hurt? What harm can you do?" -Buddha

To become vegetarian is to step into the stream which leads to nirvana. - Buddha

There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.
Buddha

GCT

I used to donate to an animal activist group, the name I forgot. As for the killing of animals and whatnot is due to sheer ignorance, stupidity, and other pathetic problems of inadequacy. Saw the news the other day, a man got a huge ego boost from catching a shark with the rod and reel...you would think that any honor should go to the shark, fighting for its life. Same thing with wild game hunting such as shooting and killing lions for the sheer fun of it or momentary adrenaline. So many things about the way we treat animals that is just not right.

Anyone ever heard of vivisection?

Mk

Who's Pythagorus? He doesn't know what he's talking about!

But seriously, I knew him in high school, he's a great guy and all, but I think he's pretty wrong in the quote.

As long as men massacre animals, they will massacre each other? Meat is a vital part of every man's diet, and it is very tough to supplement it with vegetables and pills, this is out of the question.

He who sows the seeds of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love? I have caused murder and pain, but still can experience happiness. I can still love.

We all sow and reap.