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.

 

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

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
The object here is to remove all animals dangerous or annoying, am I correct?

Before we do that why not remove all humans that are dangerous or annoying?

Or for that matter anything that could be dangerous or annoying, well right now the writers in Hollywood are supposed to be on strike (or they were last I heard) so that is one thing out of the way. Maybe now we can get some decent educational information put on the idiot box so that we will have less people wanting to destroy the ecosystem that has managed so well for longer than man has been around.
Next you could get rid of nuclear weapons since they are dangerous. Cars can be deadly because of many of the idiots behind the wheel so maybe we could just kill them and blow up their cars.

No that sounds wrong somehow, I’m not really sure why……..

Maybe we could spend more money on better education so that people don’t grow into young adults making absurd comments like stated in this thread.

Or we could just kill everyone and let the animals take over the world as I’m sure they would do a much better job at caring for it than us.

Sounds pretty farfetched and ridiculous for the most part? So does what is being suggested in the OP.

I’ll leave you with this proverb, look it up if you must.

A still tongue keeps a wise head.

Raist




posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Well the best way to get something like the extinction a specific species would be a world wide vote…that is….if the species became a problem worldwide and had to be dealt with immediately…..

I see no reason why any creature is of such threat to the human race……so it’s true that it would probably never happen….though this is just a thought….as I’ve kept repeating…..i don’t believe people are just going to go out and start a mass culling of animals just because they are becoming a problem…

But wait…..to all Australians…..you should all remember when the kangaroos become a problem oh and still are I suspect….there population is something like 20,000,000, that’s basically the same population as Australians. and most Australians live outside of Australia…we had the go ahead to kill as many kangaroos as we could…a true fact no body can deny…..now…you apply that to a large scale species the world governments probably the UN sees has a serious threat…well yeah…a extinction would be underway,,,



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   
okay I havnt had time to read the full thread so sorry if somebody else said the same thing.

You want to get rid of pesky creatures that we could do with out, fine ok.

Hold on, that means we've got to die because we're just a nuisance to most spieces of anima, killing them and destroying their habitat.

And if you think about it every spieces is annoying to another one so basically you would have to wipe out everything
Although that isn't what you want to do, so you must just mean annoying to humans.


Why should we have the right to suddenly decide that an entire spieces should die. They annoy you so you want to kill them, and you think that's ok but I bet you wouldnt find it ok if I tried to kill you because what you say here annoys me.


And don't say 'but look here are facts, spiders killed so many people blah blah blah'........for every human an animal kills I'm certain that an awful lot more of that animal were killed by us.

And population numbers, if we didn't take up so much room ourselves then it wouldn't matter that there are 20,000,000 kangaroos in Australia.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by umbr45]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


(Sorry if this has already been said, only skipped through the thread.)

Why we don't 'purposely cause the extinction of' humans then? After all, i bet we could be classified as the worst parasites of all, with all the consumption, destruction and pollution we cause..

Do you seriuosly think, that we don't need a bunch of animals or insects just because they can actually defend from people, who invade their territory? Do we only need some cows and pigs, because they're usefull as food?

And i won't even get into ecosystems and such, because they have been already described by other people here..

Or, i don't really get your idea, man :/ I mean nature can perfectly control the population of species herself, being that when there's too much of a certain kind, it consumes more food, and then dies out because of the lack of it, thus normalizing again. I don't think humans should interfere..



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   

I don't think humans should interfere..



well here's something you may or may not have already thought of…..as we go hunting…fishing….etc…we are already basically killing off species….basically on purpose already…ask a bloody fishing cooperation if they really care about if they cause the extinction of a type if fish…. of course they wont be able to fish that type again….so they’ll be out of business.. or just go and fish for another type….if fishermen cared about the damage they do……the amount of fish in the ocean would be quadrupled…….it’s a sad fact that we humans are screwing the worlds animals and resources…but I guess money is money to such cooperation’s…

Don’t get made at me for what industries are all ready doing….



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Industries are not going out and pouring tonnes of poison into the sea right on top of a group of marine animals with the specific intent to kill them for no other reason that the fact that they are 'not needed' or 'are annoying'

That is what you are suggesting we do to spieces we don't want



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Dude, how about this -- you give me a list of specific species you consider 'worthless' and should be 'scheduled for extinction' and I'll do the actual research and see if it's viable or not, mmkay?



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
well here's something you may or may not have already thought of…..as we go hunting…fishing….etc…we are already basically killing off species….basically on purpose already…


Well then why do you suggest to make it even worse? I mean, sure, corporations are already causing extinction, by trying to provide food, but why should we add to that by also killing species we consider dangerous?

It would be only logical that more and more species evolve to be dangerous to humans, in an attempt to save themselves from extinction..



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by umbr45
 


No but they do completely nullify the populations of animals while hunting and fishing at an unquestionable rate…just think how many fish and cattle die every year through consumption…I don’t know the numbers….but what’s the difference from that…the culling of animals in such away for consumption….to killing a select few.. either way animals both die….except while being hunted animals are increasingly becoming extinct…where as I’m talking about a small maybe hundred or so that we really, really don’t need…



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Yes but these animals are becoming extinct for a purpose, food for us, as is the food chain. If you are happy to go anbd eat the spiders and other insects you kill then I wouldn't try to stop you, but are you? No so they die for no reason what so ever.

Apart from you don't want them there, which yet again brings back that we should be the ones killed off.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   

It would be only logical that more and more species evolve to be dangerous to humans, in an attempt to save themselves from extinction..


Yes I suppose, but I’m not really sure that's how evolution works...but even if that was the case.....evolution is a long and slow process, such an adaptation to become more aggressive would take too long...we would have already wiped out any such species...



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Loose connectipn but the Nazis and Jewish people suddenly jumped into my mind here, The Jewish people were not wanted and so were killed before they had the chance to do anything about it.

Rather similar to what you suggest we should do to these animals.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by umbr45]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by umbr45
 



As I’ve said before…animals aren’t just killed for food….when they become a problem….a culling is proposed. like the over population of kangaroos…and there a probably other similar problems in other countries dealing with over population and such….. I can right now think of a few others…..there was a overpopulation in America with a certain type of aggressive bee.. ..I can’t remember if they tried to kill some off….then back here in Australia…we had…or have a toed problem…I think it’s the bullfrog…can’t remember…. something like that…..either one…there was an attempt to kill them off over an overpopulation in the species

And so….yet again…what’s the difference from this pollution killing…to an extinction of another irritable species?



[edit on 16-1-2008 by andre18]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


Actually there is nothing wrong with anything. If Christians have an issue with this statement, look at Romans 14:14

Anywho, there could however be complications to wiping out a species either intentionaly or unintentionaly. The reason for this is that concentrations of species is what keeps everything working in the system.

Imagine, you had something in your body, and you decided arbitrarily that it should be removed, so you do. What happens next.. did your body depend on that for normal functioning it has adapted to?

Thats the problem with causing extinction on purpose.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by umbr45
 

And so….yet again…what’s the difference from this pollution killing…to an extinction of another irritable species?
[edit on 16-1-2008 by andre18]



Well using this logic, i bet almost anything could be justified.. It's like saying that people die anyway, so why don't we torture them for fun before they do?

And also i believe that those scenarios where a certain species become a problem don't just happen by themselves, for them to overpopulate something must have been done by humans, to affect the balance..

And, ok lets say, we eradicate dangerous and troublesome species. What do we win by that? Less people die or get injured or spend money for whatever measures to protect from the troublesome species. Well economy and bad businessmen won't be happy about that ;P



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
I can’t remember if they tried to kill some off….then back here in Australia…we had…or have a toed problem…I think it’s the bullfrog…can’t remember…. something like that…..either one…there was an attempt to kill of the over population….


That's kind of a bad example. The Cane Toads are not native to Australia and is a good case study of balanced ecosystems getting messed up after human intervention.


102 Cane Toads were introduced to Australia from Hawaii in June 1935 in an attempt to control the native Cane Beetle (Dermolepida albohirtum). [..]Since their release, toads have rapidly multiplied in population and now number over 200 million and have been known to spread diseases affecting local biodiversity.[..]

[..]There are a number of reports of declines in goanna and snake populations after the arrival of toads.[19] [..]


There is a consequence to every action. Killing of entire species of animals (which you have yet to name specifically) may not result in favourable consequences, just as introducing a non-native species like the Cane Toad into the Australian ecosystem caused changes there.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


I said I wouldn't argue with you anymore and I'm going to stand behind that.
However I would like to challenge you, and give you a chance to make a case.

You say you can think of about 100 species on this earth that the planet could do without entirely. What I'd like you to do is compile a list of all 100 species you like to send to their deaths. I want you to provide for me what sustains them within their environment, and then I'd like you to e-mail that to me. I will then compile a list of animals based on those hundred that would be affected by such a culling. And I will devise a model of systematic linkage to see how that affects the planet. I will post the results online and along with my method so all can review it and duplicate my results and post a thread here to call everyones attention to it. See if these 100 species of yours really are completely useless to us and everything else on earth. The whole of the model I will create will only extend to about 5 or 6 hundred "chain links" Each link representing an animal in the chain. If your assumptions are correct, then my calculation of extinction rates should be pretty damned low. To make it easy on both of us. Pick ONLY animals that you'd like to see gone that survive PRIMARILY on ONE food source. As most bugs tend to feast commonly on certain creatures. This should be pretty easy for you.

My e-mail is projectvxn@yahoo.com By all means drop me a line.
Now I don't want you to think of 100 species. I want you to look for those specific ones you want gone. Plus their food sources. I'll do the hard part of putting the data together and getting a result based on the Scientific Method I love so much. Then, with my results and method posted, you and anyone else can duplicate the effect. And then we'll see, you me and everyone else, if your idea has any validity to it at all. Because arguing with you won't solve anything, but I want a chance to prove it to you. Beyond a shadow of a doubt one way or the other.

What do you say? Are you up for some real science?



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
projectvxn

ok 'll get to you in a second.....good idea..i like this....

Ok, I know people are like “who are we do be able to decide whether or not a particular species or every single species on the planet is going to live or die….well…we already are and already do….as I’ve just recently explained.

“would you like it if I killed you for being annoying?

Yeah yeah…the difference is humans are humans…animals are humans….who’s at the top of the food chain..? You wonna say sharks…..they’ve been known to dislike the taste of us as soon they bite into us…I’m not going say lets get rid of sharks as well….more people are (apparently) killed by falling vending machines then sharks…so…..yah….oh and we already have a good use for them…..they taste good…

Why do you think animal rights groups can’t win against food industries….sheep, cows, chickens etc….we don’t care about animals so much as we are about each other…..you go hunting legally…that’s ok…you can kill bears for sport.. you can kill animals for food…you can be a child and go fishing……but when it comes down to killing a human for any means…..well that’s wrong….unless we’re at war…now don’t get me started on the BS reason for defending the rights for war….

Humans are humans….animals are animals…..you kill a fly…..no body cares.. in fact in China there was a request where people could get literally paid for killing flies…because of the over population….maybe that's something we should be do here in Australia….hmmmm

Dolphins Massacre
www.youtube.com...

I cried the first time I saw this...




[edit on 16-1-2008 by andre18]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Andre.

One that has no respect of animals has no respect for life, animals are part of nature, nature and animals are part of what's beautiul about our planet, without animals and insects many of your foods, meat and vegetables would not survive, it all part of the design, enjoy your limited choice of food haha, without animals this planet would be a sad place, if you don't like it, maybe you should go live on the moon haha, have a nice time.







[edit on 16-1-2008 by _Phoenix_]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
Andre.

One that has no respect of animals has no respect for life, animals are part of nature, nature and animals are part of what's beautiul about our planet, without animals and insects many of your foods, meat and vegetables would not survive, it all part of the design, enjoy your limited choice of food haha, without animals this planet would be a sad place, if you don't like it, maybe you should go live on the moon haha, have a nice time.


Again I’m not saying let’s all kill every single animal and living thing besides us on the planet….I’m saying some creatures like spider and snakes and such that are just useless and dangerous to us…and yes….to us….whether they can benefit another animal is irrelevant.. we are the top dominant creatures with an intelligence unrivaled.. well maybe except for dolphins……I’m still looking into that…

Animals are apart of nature...but they die every single damn day...another part of life....they literally become extinct all the time just like the dinosaurs and all... as we kill them day by day for what ever reason...what's the difference to wiping out one more species.....logically every single animal on the planet has become extinct since the very existence of life...what's the difference of killing say one or 20 more on purpose....Why should we not be able to do what nature’s done for billions of years…?

[edit on 16-1-2008 by andre18]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join