It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


What’s wrong with purposely causing the extinction of animals?

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:19 AM
reply to post by andre18

No, all that says is every day that species go extinct by human hands (clearcutting rainforests and polluting specific habitats) it effects us. We just may not know it.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:20 AM
I was going to say what Matt said. Everything in the ecosystem is there for a reason and many things could not live without the other. For instance, like what Einstein said, say if Bees went extinct then all life on Earth would die off in 4 years. That's how most things are, look at the cosmological constant, if that was any different then we wouldn't be here or say if we were any closer or further from the Sun etc.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:32 AM
So according to everyone……as soon as an important and mostly vital creature on this planet like say…. the bee was gone for ever…..the human race would also be gone in a matter of decades….? So….just imagine what would happen if we were the only species left on the entire planet…..I guess we couldn’t survive…..? Well no….it’s called vegetables and fruit… take away the bees and all the other insects…..we can still grow plants with technology….

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:33 AM

Originally posted by andre18
but then when creatures become extinct through natural causes....the ecosystem is still intact......and so what's the difference from us causing the extinction from nature?

When it happens naturally, it's a result of some other more successful species taking over the role and/or food source of the one that got phased out. When we're doing it, it's not like we're introducing some other species to balance it out. So like in the case of the fish stock depletion, jellyfish take over. Then they sting people to death. Very nice..

Anyway, most extinctions happen sporadically throughout the history of life on the planet. But occasionally there are mass extinctions. For the most part, it is caused by natural events beyond the control of any other life on the planet.

That is until now.

The Sixth Extinction

Yet, upon further reflection, human impact on the planet is a direct analogue of the Cretaceous cometary collision. Sixty-five million years ago that extraterrestrial impact -- through its sheer explosive power, followed immediately by its injections of so much debris into the upper reaches of the atmosphere that global temperatures plummeted and, most critically, photosynthesis was severely inhibited -- wreaked havoc on the living systems of Earth. That is precisely what human beings are doing to the planet right now: humans are causing vast physical changes on the planet.

Makes you proud to be human, huh? To be compared to a comet that wiped out the dinosaurs.

I feel warm and fuzzy inside...

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:36 AM
It's impossible to predict the full extent to which an induced extinction would effect the ecosystem, enviroment, and world in general. There are several instances where foreign creatures have been removed or become extinct due to human actions and the surrounding ecosystems have suffered severe and unexpected or predictable results.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:37 AM
reply to post by avingard

That's what I've been trying to tell him. He seems to be not getting it on purpose.... :bnghd:

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:50 AM

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by SilverSmith

To tell you the truth ...... I wouldn't have a clue.....although I know from facts that I’ve read over the years that animals become extinct every can look that one up if you wont....whether insects have become extinct last year is irrelevant.....though I’m guessing insects have become extinct for the past billion years or I don't really see why it would be a problem to do what nature has already been doing for those past billion years......but anyway.....through discussion I’ve accepted that any way we try to purposely cause the extinction of will impact us just as harshly.....but then when creatures become extinct through natural causes....the ecosystem is still intact......and so what's the difference from us causing the extinction from nature?

jeez italkyoulisten you don't have to be involved in this thread if you don't have to....this is just a theory of shouldn't be so damn aggressive.....
talk about a difference of opoinion…

[edit on 17-1-2008 by andre18]

[edit on 17-1-2008 by andre18]

Well now that wasn't all that hard was it? Thanks for the reply and your time.

While you didn't answer my questions directly you at least sought to address them, indirectly.

Now if animals become extinct everyday, it should be easy for you to list those that did so in 2007, correct? I would challenge you to name me 5 that became extinct in 2007.

Now remember, we thought not so long ago that the Coelacanth was extinct yet we now know that to be untrue. My point? It's very difficult to say with absolute certainty that any species is extinct.

Now let's say that flies out number humans, oh I don't know, 100 to 1?? Please expound to us all how you would be able to totally eradicate all flies? Would we string up fly tape over every square inch of land? That would be nasty.

Or, what about chemical warfare? We could use poison to kill them all off but what then about all that toxic waste put into the ecosystem? Is it possible that that could then have an effect on other creatures or even humans? Then there is the possibility that a few flies survive, build up a resistance to that poison and so a more potent and dangerous poison must then be used.

You haven't given your theory enough deep thinking.....but your young so I understand that.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:50 AM
reply to post by andre18

Ok andre18

I'm done !

In spite of page after page after page after page of good, solid and scientific evidence and advise you still refuse to show a glimmer of logic or reason.

Your ignorance/stubborness/and arrogance is spectacular and it saddens me to say this, but I want no further connection with you. The charming innocense I thought I saw in you when you first joined was obviously a case of mistaken identity ... on my part.

I truly hope you grow a brain very soon dear boy ... and soon ... otherwise you are likely to encounter a world of pain and disappointment throughout your life. Good luck with that.

As of now I am removing you from my friends list ... I'm sure that will cause no detriment or have any effect on you personally ... but it will certainly make me feel a lot better.

The Woodwytch

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:53 AM

So are you saying that with our intellect we couldn’t come up with a feasible way to do it without doing any serious damage……

To be compared to a comet that wiped out the dinosaurs. I’ve recently seen some evidence to proves that dinosaurs never died from a comet….and just to clarify…..because I really don’t know the difference….what is the actually difference between a comet an astroid and a meteor…?

Heres the link to the evidence on what I suspect killed the dinosaurs…


That was cold....

[edit on 17-1-2008 by andre18]

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:55 AM
I can't believe we're wasting so much time, discussing such a lame topic.


And I agree... MANKIND is the only species this planet can live without.

We were probably seeded here, interjected into the evolving eco system, with no forethought of how we would become such a blight on the overall Earth. The least we can do, now that we can be relatively certain our presence is unnecessary and unnatural, is to make out footprints as small as we can. To do anything else is to be selfish.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 11:05 AM
I forgot to post this link up. It's very informative and relevant to this whole topic.

Extinct Fish Alter Nutrients

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 11:06 AM
I wish there were a way to remove stars from someone's post. Like negative stars.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 11:11 AM

Originally posted by andre18
To be compared to a comet that wiped out the dinosaurs. I’ve recently seen some evidence to proves that dinosaurs never died from a comet

Nice attempt at deflection, but no dice. It doesn't change the fact that human activity is causing a major extinction event not seen before on the planet for the past 65 million years. The difference then and the difference now is that back then, it was a natural event and no creature on the planet had the power to stop it whereas now we can stop or at least slow it down if we only sat down and considered what consequences our actions have on the biodiversity of the planet.

Originally posted by andre18
….and just to clarify…..because I really don’t know the difference….what is the actually difference between a comet an astroid and a meteor…?

Comet has a coma (core), an ion trail and a dust trail. Asteroids don't. Meteors are asteroids that have entered our atmosphere. Meteorites are meteors that have hit the ground. Some scientists think there is no difference between an asteroid and a comet, except for the fact that the latter has an ion and dust trail (see squiz's Electric Universe thread for details).

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 11:18 AM
Sorry....didn't read all of the of the posts...but i have one simple word...

ECOSYSTEM....without that intricate and delicate balance we all suffer! Uhhh, Buh-bye! ^_~

I dunno....we learned about this in Kindergarten, Grade school and through High School.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 11:19 AM
Look I know thanks to ‘Beachcoma’ that without ‘some’ species living on this planet as they do now…it would do quite a lot of damage to us and the ecosystem the food chain and all…..but I don’t think you guys are ever going to convince me that we would actually die out because of the lack of bees or something…we have the technology to do a lot of things….including as I’ve said before using technology to artificially grow food like vegetables and fruits....and because of our technology no matter what kind of animal becomes extinct in the near future….we as a human race will always live on….and you can’t discredit that….what insects and creatures do for our planet we have the technology to do our selves….and that’s a fact

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 12:00 PM
reply to post by andre18

I think you are not getting the difference between 'suffer' and 'die'. Nobody said we're all gonna die without the insects pollinating plants. But we will suffer, because if they don't pollinate the weeds and wild plants that help maintain the balance in the ecosystems of the world, who's going to do it? Are we to spend copious amounts of money planting stuff every year because at the end of the season it just dies without replenishing itself? And what if we just ignored the end of season die-off of the scrubs and meadows? Let it turn dry and eventually become a desert?

If you don't think that wild plants of the meadows, bushes, forests and jungles are that important, then at least consider how the disappearing bees are affecting farmers.

As it sometimes happens, our attempts to 'fix' the situation with our technology has backfired.

Damning Verdict on GM Crop

The results on this crop were that the patented glufosinate-ammonium weed killer was so effective that there were one third fewer seeds for birds to eat at the end of the season than in a conventional crop. Two years later there were still 25% fewer seeds, even though the weedkiller had not been applied again.

Les Firbank, who was in charge of the trials, said: "These weeds are effectively the bottom of the food chain, so the seeds they produce are vital for farmland birds, which are already in decline. There were also fewer bees and butterflies in the GM crops. All the evidence is that it is the herbicide that makes the difference to the wildlife." Mark Avery, of the RSPB, said: "Six years ago, before the farm-scale trials, we were told that GM crops were good for wildlife and good for farmers' profits. Now, against all expectations, we are told they are bad for both. It is bad news for the biotech industry."

More dangers of GM crops: GM or Not to GM, Which?

One more thing. I think the bit about biodiversity still eludes you.

Yes, we have the technology to grow plants vegetables and fruits hydroponically. Often times these are cloned plants, requiring no seeds and consequently no pollination. But pollination serves a vital function. It allows for the plants to have a diverse gene pool. This makes them as a species more resistant to disease. If one member of the species succumbs, another one might not because they carried within them a different gene. One that could withstand or is immune to the pathogen.

What happens when a pestilence attacks a field of genetically identical plants?

The Great Hunger

Because most of the potatoes in Ireland back then (and even now) are genetically identical, it only takes one successful pathogen to spread like wildfire throughout the entire population. This is also a reason why endogamous populations of people (those that marry within the group) are more susceptible to certain diseases.

Here is a good website for you to start understanding the importance of maintaining a good biodiversity of life on the planet.

Why Biodiversity Matters

Edit: missing word

[edit on 17-1-2008 by Beachcoma]

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 12:23 PM
Beachcoma……I could probably go on for another week or so talking out of my ass….
(Not that I have been, but I could start) you are by far the smartest and most logical person I’ve met on ATS….and trust me….I’m not one for giving out complements…
Keep up the good work….I’m not throwing in the towel….but I am saying well done….

Well again it’s 5 o’clock in the morning and so I need to some good old sleep…..

I’m gonna leave you guys with something that really got me thinking…..


I would like to hear some opinions on what our role is on earth in the grand scheme. What do we bring to the table? Is our destructive nature and our intelligence by design, or are we simply a virus that will eventually die off when nature makes a decision?

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 01:56 PM

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
Sure, the flies are horrible in Melbourne. I could also do without the Mosquitoes, for that matter. Or the sharks. Or absolutely anything else that poses the slightest risk to me of hurting me in any way.
But removing any one of the thousands of species that pose a threat - or annoyance - to humans and you will start a negative chain reaction that will rip the incredibly delicate ecosystem of this planet apart.

So we should not want to eradicate Polio, Anthrax, Small Pox, Malaria and Bubonic Plauge ? All of these are living things that share the planet with us.

[edit on 17-1-2008 by RWPBR]

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 02:34 PM
As seen in various habitats, the addition and/or removal of any species, large or small, always has a hard impact on the rest of the species in the area. I would say leave well enough alone

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 12:50 AM

Originally posted by andre18

Heres the link to the evidence on what I suspect killed the dinosaurs…

[edit on 17-1-2008 by andre18]

HAHAHAHA!! i nearly fell off my chair when the video started playing..
i thought the whole "killing a species on purpose" was ludicrous, now this video?
at university during my first year geoscience lectures our teacher actually went out of her way and spent some time showing how this theory/these videos are the most craziest/stupidest ideas ever. there's little if not no modern scientific literature in geoscience that discusses it because it doesn't need to be.. there's tonnes of evidence to counter-ague it, its one of the most unscientific thing i've ever heard (i've heard a lot).

you aren't serious posting/believing that video are you?

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in