How far should we go to protect endangered species?

[Dr_House_4ever]

I've got a science assignment to write a short essay based on this question. I'm supposed to interview people around me for their opinions, and to include different stances in the essay. So, jump in! With any luck, you'll be helping me get an A.:D

[Jessica]

CHEATTTERRRR
Do your own damn work.
:)

[Dr_House_4ever]

Did you not read the above post? I'm supposed to interview other people for their opinions, and that's what this thread is for.:P

[Shaun]

How far should we go?

We should stop when it becomes apparent that our actions are detrimental to the safety of our own species. This means we have to be selective in what species we decide to keep around. It is inevitable that species are going to die. This is the natural course of nature and evolution. Species die, others live on. We can't save them all and shouldn't. That actually defies the laws of nature and while we are certainly a factor in the extinction of species, that is still a part of nature. What humans create through the use of the mind is still a natural progression in evolution. We were born to become intelligent, and so we have. In that age of growing intelligence we created things that hurt other species and those species could not adapt. There is only so much we can do to help a species before such action begins to hurt us, and the ultimate goal for every human being is one of survival.

Survival of the fittest.

A note, that does not mean I don't want to save pretty critters and what not, I just know there is a limitation to what we can do. We can't save them all.

[Zaphkiel]

I think it's a good idea to try and preserve endangered animals and plants. However, I think endanger plants would be much more worht protecting than endangered animals. Plants are still used in todays medicine, so preserving them could benefit the human race. Still, there are limits to how far we can go with things like this.

[Rafael Domination]

I also think ramming boats into whaling ships (yes, I'm looking at you, Greanpeace) might be taking things too far. While I'm not for the extinction of anything, I do have to choose - who gets to live...

Will it be me, or my dog?

Only a moron would choose his/her dog over his/her life. There are a lot of people out there like that. The thing with 'saving' the animals, is that it sometimes gives us a false sense of being some kind of messiah. Do you think those birds actually care if you hugged their tree for two hours straight?

On the other hand, what kind of testimony would we hold. We're supposed to be smarter and more superior, yet we can build a friggin' house without obliterating a large chunk of land. Also, money and effort wasted on stupid things (like the porn industry. I hope all of you in it eat yourselves, defecate, and eat the wastes) could have been spent developing newer and more efficient tech to preserve our unique planet. One trillion goes a longer way than one billion.

Overall, I care, but I have a limit on how much. I wouldn't go hunting (well, unless I'm going to blow a couple of holes into terrorist heads) but I wouldn't pop a vein the next time I see some deer's head decorating a wall...

[Jessica]

Did you not read the above post? I'm supposed to interview other people for their opinions, and that's what this thread is for.:P
Ohh, ha-ha. No, apparently I didn't XD

[Shaun]

Raf, just so you know, the porn industry actually gives a lot of money to science and good causes. You just don't hear about it because, gasp, it's the porn industry :P

[Dr_House_4ever]

Well I started this thread, so I guess I should get in here --

I'm all for helping endangered species, but, as seems to be the general consensus around here, I don't go nuts with it. I'm not even a hundred percent against hunting -- if the people doing the hunting will actually use the meat, fur, etc, of whatever they hunt that's fine with me. It's hunting purely for sport that I hate (can't they just go bowling or something?!:rolleyes:)

That's why I never get too close to organizations like Greenpeace, etc. They always seem to go overboard. It's such a shame that so many people aren't able to deal with the issue in a sensible way -- it seems that they either don't care at all or go completely insane with it.

[Shaun]

Plus, Greenpeace are terrorists and anti-humanists...

[Dr_House_4ever]

Precisely -- I'm not going to annihilate the human race to save some whales.

[Shaun]

Basically here is the logical stance on this subject:

Should we take steps to save endangered species? Yes
Should we take steps to save ALL endangered species? If it's possible, yes, but because it's not possible without really screwing us, then no.
How selective should we be? As selective as is necessary. We should save those species that are most crucial to the survival of mankind and the planet first, and then any we can save that are of the most interest.

It's obvious we can't save them all, otherwise there'd never be any extinctions. We humans just have to be careful on how we treat the planet and the animals on it because we do cause extinctions and sometimes it's due to our carelessness rather than the animal's inability to adapt. Any animal that is endangered to due to hunting, poaching, or related activities, should be saved because that is human idiocy.

[jordanisonfire]

Well, putting bans on things like hunting doesn't really help so much. The government is actually stupid enough to believe that farmers still don't hunt foxes even after the ban has been imposed. If anything, it gives young, rebellious farmers more reason to hunt foxes. By actually trying to help something, you can hurt it.

I for one, am against killing other animals for sport or just to have their heads hang on the wall. That's just sick. I'm also against animals being used for stuff like leather, but not if they were also used for meat etc. Even though I'm vegetarian, I've no problem with other people eating meat, it's a natural thing, as humans are omnivores (by the way, I wasn't trying to sound smart using the word "omnivores", just about everyone in high school knows that word :D).

[Shaun]

Yes, but imposing extremely heavy fines and punishments does send a message. Whether it works or not is irrelevant. We should do what we can for the animals threatened by human selfishness and stupidity.

[jordanisonfire]

Well, the ban has been stated, by the police, as one of their low concerns. People who are for the ban almost fanatically have taken to monitoring parties that look like hunting groups and have actually caught more people than the police, but if the police actually put a good amount of effort into enforcing the ban, then they would do much, much better than those vigilantes.

[Rafael Domination]

Raf, just so you know, the porn industry actually gives a lot of money to science and good causes. You just don't hear about it because, gasp, it's the porn industry :P


So do all the philantrophists out there ^^

*DIE WHORES! DIE I just think they're also a waste, like the tobacco and drug industries*

[Shaun]

Say what you will about pornography, it has served a very important purpose in society. Countries that condone it have lower rates or rape and sexual abuse from men to women.

[Rafael Domination]

proof? ^^

[Zombified]

They have a cereal out now that has cute little animals on the cover of the boxes and the proceeds go to helping Animal Planet save animals from going extinct.

It also helps maintain their environments and what not.

Either way, the boxes are just too damn cute to not buy.

Anyway, I am doing my part by eating vanilla flavored sugar bites to help the animals!

Hoorah!

[Shaun]

http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/?nav=ais
http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/Adobefiles/porn.pdf

That should get you started Raf :). That's not to say that porn has ridden us of rape, but it certainly has had an effect on it.

On a side note: This doesn't represent rapes of children under 12. Just so you know. There's some weird law where those aren't considered on the same level or something. I think, in all honesty, that while the older-age rapes are declining, those rapes of especially young children is likely increasing. This has a lot to do with the fact that child pornography is illegal. And before anyone asks, NO I AM NOT FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. And I never will be. Period. It's gross, filthy, and terrible and people should be shot for doing it.

[Crocolyle]

I think it should be based on deliciousness factor.

If the species is incredibly delicious, we eat it. If not, we protect it. Like whales. But they're annoying, so I'm pro-nuking them.

Nuke the whales!

[jordanisonfire]

How can people actually like child pornography or even want to rape children? They must have some kind of mental condition or they're some kind of strange hybrid, 'cos they're definately not normal. I don't like pornography altogether, I think people are just weird if they watch over people have sex, but if it helps the community, then I'll say it's a good thing. But, can I say this, does pornography actually minimise teenage pregnancies, 'cos a lot of people are having sex in their teens and pornography may be provoking that.

[Shaun]

Pornography is not provoking teenage pregnancy. There's no connection whatsoever. What's provoking teenage pregnancy is parents not doing their jobs to educate their children and schools not being able to do the job that parents refuse to do. There are entire school systems that ban teaching about condoms because they believe it leads to sex. Perhaps it does, but if they're going to have sex I'd rather they do it safe that stupid. There are enough unwanted children in the world and enough abortions going around. If we can keep them from happening, great. And if parents would do their damned jobs we wouldn't have as many teens running around boinking everywhere...

[jordanisonfire]

we wouldn't have as many teens running around boinking everywhere...

Hahaha, that made me laugh. That sounded SO unlike you, Shaun. :D
End spam.

[Shaun]

I'm a lot sillier than I put off :P. You'd be surprised how many pointless things I do for my own enjoyment :D, including debating :P.

But the statement is still true.


As for the animal subject, since I'd like us to not get off topic...I'm prone to doing that in a lot of politically based thread: I love whales and it is HUMAN intervention that has reduced many of them to endangered status. We have a duty to protect them for that very reason. It's not just human development and ships, it's reckless human hunting. That's when I feel we are obligated to do something: when our selfish actions threaten a species' survival. European greed (I'm talking from before America was really America and basically European meant "western world") is a huge factor in the destruction of species. We can blame the Europeans for the near extinction of various species of elephant and rhino, crocs, gorillas, etc. We can also blame them for making the Tasmanian Tiger go extinct, since it was their reckless hunting that reduced them to nothing. We're lucky the poor Komodo Dragon isn't extinct. European greed led to the destruction of buffalo as a wild, natural animal in America. The western world is remarkably destructive, but the western world also manages to learn from its mistakes. Many of the species we nearly wiped out are now protected by us, because we realize that our greed and thrill for the hunt and for money is primarily responsible. The problem with European greed is that when it feeds over into indigenous cultures and third world countries it is hard to get rid of. That's why many of the poachers in the world are actually native to the lands which they are poaching.

[jordanisonfire]

Yep, we Europeans suck, I can agree with you there.

[Shaun]

We don't suck, we just make stupid, short-sighted mistakes. We're not a bad people by a long shot. Everyone makes mistakes, we just have to fix them when we make them.

[Dr_House_4ever]

Man, I'm gone for one day and suddenly it's turned into a porn thread!O_o

[GeorgeMichael]

Once again to add some slight comical relief to debates I present to you a solution to hunting issues!

What you need to do is not prohibit hunting, but make sure all hunters are as dumb as this guy!

http://www.maniacworld.com/worst-hunter-vs-dumbest-deer.html

deer's dumb too :P

[Rafael Domination]

I think the guy just paused the film for a while :P

[Shaun]

My god...that's all I have to say...my god.

[White Lion]

Thanks for posting this debate topic, it's one that I'm extremely passionate about!!!!

Okay... I know, extinction happens. The dinosaurs died out, and, quite frankly, we're lucky they did, and I know that it's the course of nature - sure, we couldn't fit everything on earth at the same time! But the extinction that we are talking about, the extinctions that are happening today, this is not natural.

Scientists accept, as do I, that species have to die out. But the natural level is about one species per year, okay, and a new species replaces this at around the same pace, but now, humans have pushed this level up to several species becoming extinct per day! Can't you see that this is definitely, not right? They say that around half the world's species will be extinct by the end of this century if human activity does not change!

Over 10,000 scientists in the World Conservation Union have compiled data showing that currently 51 per cent of known reptiles, 52 per cent of known insects, and 73 per cent of known flowering plants are in danger along with many mammals, birds and amphibians. It is probable that many species will die out before we even know of them, that means that future cancer cures might be being flushed down the toilet this very second!

Since animals and plants exist in symbiotic relationships to one another, extinction of one species is likely to cause ”co-extinctions”. Some species directly affect the health of hundreds of other species. There is always some kind of domino effect. So, if you're saying that "we'll save some of them - the important ones - but let's leave the rest, we don't need them" you'll recieve a nasty shock when your "very, very, very special ones" all die because you annhilated that species of possum.

I'd say, that with all these new (utterly terrifying) statistics that are coming in, people should be starting to save these creatures with whole-hearted zeal, since that could be a future child's life source who's lying in a hospital bed, dying of cancer, that you have just sprayed with chemicals.

That's my say in this, again, thanks for the topic, and, take what you can from it... :)

This is a website I got my info from: http://www.nhne.org/news/NewsArticlesArchive/tabid/400/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/5676/language/en-US/The-Earths-6th-Great-Mass-Extinction-Very-Disturbing-Statistics.aspx

[Bowie20049]

The post before you was dated: 4/28/2008

Today is: 11/14/2009

The topic has been dead.