Splinter: Hunting, people, and populations

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Enmos, Aug 13, 2008.

  1. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Well then we both are.. problem.

    As I said, I'm done.

    This is all sidetracking.

    The original topic was about reintroducing the natural predators.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    Fine, dodge the question. Moving on..

    Why can't you accept that humans are now the natural predators?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I don't. I just say it's not necessary.
    Maybe I should have said "the original predators" ?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    But why? For what purpose? And how far back do you want the original predators to go? Species have been killing and replacing eachother long before we took the lead.
     
  8. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    We Humans?
    Have you ever been out of Canada or whatever other Western nation you live in? Something like one fifth of humanity lives below the poverty line. There are a great deal of people subjected to "such hardships" that you can't really grok. I'm guessing you couldn't even imagine it, as you make such an ignorant claim.

    Furthermore, who cares if we can withstand these hardships? We can no longer eat grass or breathe underwater, and our whiskers aren't very good at detecting much of anything. But all that's pretty irrelevant, isn't it?
     
  9. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    So you think it's perfectly alright to kill off species just because we can ?
    I'm sorry, but that's essentially what you're saying.
     
  10. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    No it's not.
    If you had an option to live a better life at the expense of something you don't care about, would you do it?
     
  11. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    So you say Ashura doesn't care about life ?

    To answer the question, no not if I think it's wrong.
    I may not care about my neighbor, but that doesn't mean I will kill him if I get better because of it.
     
  12. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    That's because you're equating success of the species with "just because we can." The more control over the environment humans have, the more likely it is we can use it to our species' advantage. If that means maintaining certain species levels, fine. If that means destroying certain habitats, fine. Of course I'm speaking in terms of over long periods of time, and there are limits to what we should do, but generally speaking when it comes to the most basic things like replacing older predators so that we can take full advantage of their prey? Yes we should do it, and we don't do it "just because we can."

    More strawmen.
     
  13. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    So you don't see the difference between a person and an animal.

    As to caring-
    Let's say I care about deer. They're nice. But I also care about my SUV- I need somewhere to park it. If I like my SUV more than deer, then I will be ok with that parking lot that takes out the deers' woods. See how that works? It's called a utility function.
     
  14. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Don't you think we are hurting ourselves in the long run as well ?
     
  15. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I call that arrogant.

    And no, I don't see a whole lot of difference.
     
  16. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I'm off to bed now.
     
  17. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    That's unfortunate.
    And you expect throwing fits is going to somehow help your cause any?

    I find this the most disappointing aspect of greenies- they're practically religious zealots in their beliefs. This unyielding, inability to compromise or think rationally does more harm than good.

    As an environmentalist, I value wild places and green places. I also recognize, however, that in order to preserve anything, it must have value. This means, unfortunately, that the environment has to be commoditized. If hunters are willing to set aside wetlands for bird hunting, isn't that better than nothing?
     
  18. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Some environmentalist you are..
     
  19. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    pred·a·tor - 1. Zoology. any organism that exists by preying upon other organisms.
    We use everything about an animal. Even if we don't kill them we drink their milk and eat their unborn children. We are highly evolved predators. We are the predators other animals wish they could be.

    What exactly is a predator built like? A snake? A shark?

    I can wait. I will keep asking til you get that info at hand. You didn't just say it for the hell of it. I'm sure you know of an animal that ate itself to extinction. The dodo bird perhaps? :shrug:
     
  20. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Yes, humans can act as predators. It's not a important point in this discussion though.

    You have a habit of focusing on sidetracks. I could simply say that you are right and it never happened. It wouldn't even matter to the discussion :shrug:
    All you have to do is realize that it's possible. That I can't remember the particular species and can't find any references online does not mean it is not possible.
    Are you saying predators cannot hunt their food source into extinction ?
     
  21. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Do you value life ?
    Do you think it's ok to kill lifeforms for anything other than direct self-defense or immediate need for food ?

    I am not saying that killing animals for food is wrong, I'm saying that it has become problematic because of our sheer numbers.
    Because of our huge numbers and the huge space we require to sustain our species, nature gets pushed back more and more.
    Entire woods get cut down and disappear, taking all the inhabitant lifeforms with it including countless lifeforms still unknown to us.
    Human expansion, pollution of air, ground and water and climate change are all acting to destroy nature.
    In places where the balance is upset and animals come out into or near human territory, they are identified as threat or annoyance and are killed off to the point that they no longer are a harassment to us. This is 'treating the symptoms', not addressing the underlying cause.
     
  22. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    Wha?? Not important? Humans being predators is a main topic in this thread. You have repeatedly said 'natural predator' and I have repeatedly stated that we are a natural predator.


    I have a habit of focusing on sidetracks?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No, I have a habit of focusing on what you say. I would agree that what you say is a sidetrack. If it doesn't matter to the discussion, why do you throw those things out there?


    yes, that's what I'm saying. Wolves hunt the hell out of deer and rabbits. When they do, their food source declines. They in turn decline. When their numbers go down, the deer/rabbit populations increase. When their numbers increase, so do the wolves. I have already been over this with you. There is a natural feast/famine rhythm in nature.

    I have an open mind. You show me an animal that hunted itself to extinction, and I will rethink my position. Til then, you're a sad little man lamely sidetracking.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    :wave:
     

Share This Page