It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump administration wants to roll back the Endangered Species Act

page: 9
26
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Artlogic

Some people have no cognitive ability to see a bigger picture, beyond their back yard, 5 minutes ahead..etc
No simple understanding of how the cycle works, and no desire to learn.

Yup, and it scares the s@&t outa me




posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Obviously you haven't figured out wild animals don't have a fridge or grocery stores for their needs, they need some amount of foraging space


I didn't say "wild animals". I said "animals". Try chickens in cages.



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


Our world ego-system is vast - - and we are still learning.

Keeping it simple (using a plant as an example): the strawberry guava, was introduced to Hawaii in the early 19th century as an edible fruit. However, it now poses a major threat to Hawaii's rare endemic flora and fauna by forming shade-casting thickets with dense mats of surface feeder roots.

When something invades or dies off - - it creates an imbalance.

Man is often the one responsible for creating the off-balance of the ego-system.

It might take years to recognize the damage an imbalance causes.

Man has to take responsibility for this - - try to prevent it and/or fix it.

Man created hunting laws. Because of these laws, wild game can reproduce and flourish.

Now, why must an animal be of use to man? That's pretty egocentric.

BTW - - my ex-hubby's grandma says: "Animals were put here by God to serve man". Is that what you think?







edit on 29-7-2018 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Ahh, my bad, fair enough, nothing good about battery chicken farms..I agree.
Still it's frustrating many people cannot see the bigger picture, what comes when the balance of nature is ruined for greed/profit.



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Artlogic

Me too, glad I have no children.
I'm very concerned about the mess we are leaving future generations.



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

But if we strip mine every parcel of land then politicians and multinational corporatists can bank billions. And just think of all the private islands the banksters can buy making money off all that interest.



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 11:43 PM
link   
No doubt rolling back the act is a bad idea. Especially in the situation in some areas with endangered species. In the Puget sound the endangered southern resident orcas(while overall the orca is not endangered this pod is) are having a lot of of issues, declining numbers each year.

Heartbreaking, orca mother has been carrying her deceased calf(with not uncommon with the species) for for six days now. Three quarters of the calves have died in the last two decades. The said cause ranges from toxins to salmon decline(their main food) and more water traffic. This shows as a prime example that there are some animals that do need help to continue their existence.


Mourning orca mom won't let baby whale go
edit on 29-7-2018 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Oh ya,true.. forgive my ignorance


I hope those wonderful human beings can eat money, I'm sure they will be taken care of though, big stores of food.
But eventually it will be just kings remaining and no serfs



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: dreamingawake

I saw the story of the Orca..so sad, you know there is so much more going on in the mind of these animals.
It's all good though..as long as some a@#hole is making money, nothing else matters.



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: dreamingawake

Man that's depressing, on the up side we humans will become endangered on our current course, the sooner the better for pretty much the rest of the planet.



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

Well at least we can count on they'll surely stripmine the surfaces of their private islands before they build their manors and resorts on top of them. Then all surfaces of earth will end up "in balance".



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Progress



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

Oh just you wait. "Pure Progress" will be when cities physically 'eat mine' other cities (for physical resources, technology, food and babies), and their little mobile utopias are composed of all cosmopolitan obsessed -technology & silicone augmented- immortalists whom have a complete total lack of taboos, and an ideology of pure holier than thou yet brutally hypocritical supremacism.


edit on 30-7-2018 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Trippy, I will check that out later..thankfully I wont be around when things really start to deteriorate..arguably they are deteriorating pretty fast right now.



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee


I am not a vegetarian.

Annee, I really am curious as to how you resolve that in your mind, considering you just stated that "humans are animals too." I place humans above other animals, animal bodies but with a superior intelligence and spirit (although admittedly that belief in our intelligence gets shaken quite often). As such, we have an obligation to find some sort of balance between protecting ourselves and protecting other species.

What I see too often in threads like this is a burning desire to protect other wildlife at the expense of people. Some of these species we are discussing are dangerous to people... lions come to mind. A lion has no issue at all with eating a human and are physically stronger than we are. Tigers fit that category even better. That's not to say we should wipe them from the face of the earth, but we do have an obligation to ourselves to limit their range to areas we aren't in.

Yet, I see people who apparently want to see lions walking the streets of our cities, just grabbing whatever human they happen to see whenever they are hungry. That makes absolutely no sense; it is literally a suicidal outlook on life. Even a rabbit will try to protect itself from a wolf; no other species on earth would feel pity for something that has the ability and desire to kill it.

Indeed, in many cases, we go farther... we have developed a society that requires money in order to survive, for better or worse. Then we decide that a certain person or group is to be denied the thing we require them to have to survive in order to protect a species that isn't really a separate species at all. That essentially places the well-being of other species above our own well-being with us becoming a predatory stand-in for the other species. We are eating our own.

So again, if there is no difference between ourselves and other animals, with some actually placing other animals above us, how can one not be a vegetarian? That is inherently self-contradictory on the surface.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee


my ex-hubby's grandma says: "Animals were put here by God to serve man". Is that what you think?

Yes, Annee, it is what I believe.

There's more to it than that, though. If one believes that the other species are here to serve man, as a gift from God, does it not follow that it would be wrong to destroy that gift? There is a difference between using other animals and abusing other animals. It is just as wrong to destroy a species as it is to let that species harm us.

I'm going back to the deer example. Do you realize how easy it would be to wipe the white-tail deer from existence? We could do it. The result would be, in my opinion, a catastrophe. On the other hand, as you insinuate, we have changed the ecology by decreasing the number of wolves, coyotes, and cougars. That was necessary for our survival, but now we have an obligation to balance that by becoming deer predators ourselves. If a hunter shoots a deer and then eats it, the hunter is filling the role of the species we decreased the number of, and is maintaining balance. As long as we take some care to maintain balance, hunting deer is beneficial to the deer as a species. It prevents them from becoming so populous they destroy their own habitat.

Ever seen deer when that happens? They grow weak and even malformed in extreme cases, and die of starvation and disease in agony. The few that survive are damaged and their offspring can be physically damaged... if they become sterile, the deer in that area die off. That is not a good solution, and is itself an abomination toward nature, but many people would happily force it to happen through their willful ignorance of nature.

Nature is not Bambi and Thumper frolicking around in a pretty glade... nature is a circle of life and death, growth and rot, with each death being life to something else. It's all in balance. I see myself as being responsible for maintaining that balance when something happens to throw it off, and that can mean killing some animals for the benefit of the species. The real disgrace is when laws become so strict that we no longer have the ability to maintain that balance. And that is what the ESA has become.

I repeat, good for Trump. We needed some more common sense and the ability to act when action is needed.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 08:54 AM
link   
It would be nice to see what types of species are around once we've killed off what we can and then go extinct ourselves. The time machine wouldn't have to take us too far either, Maybe 500 years.



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
It would be nice to see what types of species are around once we've killed off what we can and then go extinct ourselves. The time machine wouldn't have to take us too far either, Maybe 500 years.


500 years.. I could see that. I've noticed how everything is repeating, like they've run out of ideas. They repeat clothing style eras, tv/movie eras, it's like one big repetitive crap hole. Nothing is original anymore.

Perhaps the next life is waiting for us all, and we're at the end of a much deserved human era.



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: howtonhawky


Your are not thinking much...

AAAAAGGGGHHHHHTTTTT!

Wrong. Please stop trying to read my mind. You're no good at it.


I pointed out that someone ready to have folks to kill animals for money is in no way all for conservation.

The two ideas are counter productive as we are currently seeing.

Are cows going extinct? Are pigs endangered? What about the poor chickens?

How come there are more deer on my place than there was when I was young? People hunt deer here.

Reality... it's what's for dinner.

TheRedneck


lololol

you speak of selective conservatism

it is not the reality that ma intended but is what the government has forced on us

just because your personal desire is too kill a big rack deer and eat a beef steak wrapped in bacon does not mean that is the way things are meant to be. selective conservatism via capitalism



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Perhaps the disconnect we are having here is that the topic is endangered species act and not the conservation act.




top topics



 
26
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join