Archon said:
So in your opinion, certain bacteria don't have a right to exist simply because they kill large numbers of humans. This brings us back to the point: why do humans have any more right to be alive than animals? Why is it ok for a human to exterminate a species of animal, but not for bacteria to kill a few thousand/million humans?
Not just they kill large numbers of humans, they kill large numbers of all sorts of things (not bacteria in general, just the evil ones), and I also said ticks (and added a few viruses if you think viruses are alive). From your general view, you think every creature is totally innocent, the bacteria have the same right to live as humans. You also say that everything is interconnected, and if something dies, that will be bad for some other animal or plant or something, and that would make it die off, and since that died off 100 other species would, and so on and so on. But if ticks died no organism would give a crap, but the bacteria they harbor. If they had the brain capacity at most they would be glad.
I used polio and lyme disease - largely human affecting diseases - to get the point across, because I thought you would care more about your fellow human - your girlfriend, your wife, your kids, your neighbor, more than you would your houseplant, or dog. I guess you don't. And once again, I am sorry for you.
No, but that's exactly the point: these are purely natural processes, and have purely natural implications. Other animals and plants must adapt to their new environments, but this takes time. Termites, Beavers, and coral reafs don't usually spread across vast areas before other species of animals are able to adapt to their presence: the same is not true of humans.
Adapt to their presence? That's how natural selection goes! If they can't adapt they'll have to die off. Survival of the fittest. Some organisms like how the humans deal.
Pueria montana is also known as kudzo, a plant native to Asia, is growing in epic proportions in the southeastern states of the USA. Like many "invasive species" it was once loved and cherished. American gardeners of the late 1800s embraced its fragrant blossoms. The common dandelioin was introduced to North America from Eurasia for its medicinal and culinary properties, it is now growing out of control. The
Mnemiopsis leidyi type of comb jelly, native to American waters, discovered a paradise for it. In the 1980s it ate quite literally everything in the Black Sea. Since then, even though it destroyed almost everything, the Black Sea is not a dead wasteland.
Bos taurus, your everyday cow is doing very finely after being introduced to North America. Dogs and cats, are doing well because of humans.
Mental Gridlock said:
Even if you disagree with this idea, the response to the scenario you describe need be no different than the original response: you push the deer because pushing the human would have legal consequences. Nowhere in the post you cited do I see the implication that the poster would push the human rather than the deer. So what's your point?
You push kill the deer because killing the man has legal consequences? Tell me you don't think that. I hope you are arguing just to argue.
My point is, the value of the human is much more than the value of the deer. Even the deer would agree if he could.
Why the hell do you think those laws were made? To keep the ****ing
insane people that
think it is perfectly ok to kill other people for not much of a reason.
While scrolling down to see who said this, I was hoping it wasn't Skyhunter, because he knows better than that, and I like him. (btw sorry if you didn't see my post)
