I am just saying that PETA is wasting their time. (that's if their trying to acomplish their 'goal' not just live on profits)
I think that your opinion may be unduly influenced by anti-PETA propoganda. If perhaps you could provide me with some information to support your position I would be willing to look it over.
Bacteria have no intent to harm humans. and any other animal couldn't care less if humans were gone or not
To me the answer is obvious. Humans have no more right to live than any other life form. However because we can think and foresee the consequences of our actions we have an obligation to act in such a way as to minimize or eliminate the destructive consequences of our actions.
yomamma said:I am just saying that PETA is wasting their time. (that's if their trying to acomplish their 'goal' not just live on profits)
Entropy said:No PETA please..
Entropy said:I actually don't believe anyone has an inalienable right to life, or a right to anything. Life and all things are given to people, and animals alike, through undeserved kindness from God. Though we are certainly held above animals by God, he never intended for man to kill animals because in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve didn't eat meat and lived in harmony with all animals.
Absolutely, it has been my experience that most people, including myself are motivated by selfish reasons.loseyourname said:Come on. Don't let this thread become the eightieth PETA debate. This doesn't have to be about valuing the lives of non-humans. There are plenty of selfish reasons for humans to value biodiversity.
Entropy said:So well that most humans didn't live over 30 and the human race was brought to the brink of extinction (hint: read up on the population bottle neck that occured in prehistory, it supported by the fact that our midicondrial (sp?) DNA is very similiar to one another's).
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.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?
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.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.
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.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?
Smasherman said:What is your evidence for humans living until only 30? I searched online for several hours and I found only 3 sites (out of dozens) that didn't assume life was rough for early humans.
The human population is NOT bottlenecking, if someone is complaining about population problems, its that there are too many people, which is also completely false.As for the bottlenecking, I looked that up too. The bottlenecking of humanity is theorized to have occured due to global environmental change. have you read on the theorized effects of global warming? Same basic principle.