It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by andre18
Jelly fish…..for one….I don’t see how they would upset the food chain or the environment if they were extinct…and they also do us a great deal of harm…..I know for a fact that certain seals it them…..I’m not sure about sea lions but I know most seals do…but the dietary needs of jelly fish for seals is so small that even if jelly fish were to be extinct by naturel causses ….seals would easily live on…I’ll get to the others in a sec.
Evidence is provided that medusae, siphonophores, and ctenophores are actually important predators in both sorts of planktonic ecosystems, although uneven reporting in the literature may be cause for underestimates of the importance of these carnivores in some systems. As world fisheries begin to experience serious declines, it is relevant to recognize that the carnivorous "jellyfishes" are ubiquitous and are thus opportunistically positioned to utilize secondary production that is ordinarily consumed by fish.
Speaking of diet, according to the literature, jellyfish seem to be a large part of the diet for some sea turtles. There is growing demand for Cannon Ball Jellyfish in China, Japan, Taiwan and other Pacific rim countries. Not only are they valued as a delicacy but their collagen content may be a marketable substitute for current sources. Fisheries are being developed worldwide for these species, including in the U.S. Yet another in a long list of concerns surrounding sea turtles.
In the marine ecosystem, gelatinous predators appear to be important regulators of prey populations and con-
trol their own populations by preying on each other and their own offspring (Kremer 1976, Reeve et al. 1978, Greve & Reiners 1988, Purcell 1991). They feed at all levels in the food web, thereby acting both as predators
of and potential competitors with fish and other zoo-plankton (Moller 1980, Shushkina & Musayeva 1983, Purcell & Grover 1990). These predators can have daily rations exceeding 1000 % of their body weight which can be converted into rapid growth rates (Reeve et al. 1978). High feeding rates, combined with rapid growth, show that control of zooplankton populations is within their capabilities (Greve & Reiners 1988). Control of copepod population growth keeps phytoplankton populations from being overgrazed (Greve & Reiners 1988) and algal growth may be enhanced by the return of dissolved nutnents through excretion into the water column (Biggs 1977, Park
& Carpenter 1987).
Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Here's the funny thing. If you are an atheist, or an evolutionist, there is NOTHING wrong with killing off entire species. After all, they must not have been FIT ENOUGH for the environment. See, those animals that are killed off haven't ADAPTED to our current environment, and don't deserve to be around. You don't see a shortage of cows, horses, sheep, dogs, or cats do you? That's because they have a useful function for humans. However, if you believe in God, he has commanded humans to be good stewards of the resources on this planet.
So, the ironic thing is that atheists and evolutionists have no ethical or LOGICAL reason to protect any species. On the other hand, if you are a Christian, you have a duty and responsibility to protect animals. Ironic, isn't it?
Originally posted by andre18
if this thread has served any real purpose apart from my theory…it is to show that we are still damaging the planet through either way…..and you can’t discredit that…..
Numerous competitor and predator species have been tested to control vectors. The most promising method for mosquito control is to stock food fish in and around ricefields. It reduces vector and weed incidence, increases rice yields, partly because of the fish excreta, and produces fish food (Self, 1987). In the Philippines, the combined culture of larvivorous Tilapia and common carp in ricefields, with supplemental feeding, produced about 700 kgfish ha-' year-' (Petr, 1987).
Sometimes, if we communicate interests, rather than digging in to opposing positions, better solutions emerge. We want to preserve native species and we want to reduce the risk of spread of vector-borne diseases that threaten humans (and, arguably, sometimes non-human animals). One attractive possibility is to use endangered native species of fish to control mosquitoes in wetlands and private ponds. However, some wetland managers hesitate to introduce endangered fish, because then the wetland project faces significantly more regulation. In Arizona, private citizens have been unable to acquire some native species of fish, because it has been illegal for pet stores to sell them. These obstacles are being addressed by various government agencies. If the sale of these fish is legalized and introducing them to one's property does not add excessive legal liability, then perhaps more Gila topminnow and desert pupfish may get opportunities to eat mosquitoes in Arizona (Tobin 2003; Weedman 2003).
Originally posted by Beachcoma
As for the Chinese eating jellyfish -- hahaha, yeah, they'll eat anything. But in fairness to them, the native tribes in Borneo, in the Malaysian state of Sarawak eat jellyfish as well -- tried it, it's not so good. Not exactly my cup of tea, or jelly in this case.
Originally posted by andre18
The difference is god doesn't exist... and if it does......let it try and stop the already vast amounts of people causing the extinction of fish and other creatures.....we are all ready playing "god" hell we went to Japan and used an nuclear bomb on them for bloody sake.....we can pretty much do what ever we want....people are starving in Africa.....and nothing's really being done about it....homeless on the streets....no one cares....
Where's your god for these people ..