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: 9
2
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


What the….I’m not trying to get points……I’ve never seen the logic in ATS points….it’s not like you get a prize for the most points or something…..?????

I’ve just brought up an idea…..through my own opinion I think has got some merit….I’m not to know how people are going to react to this….for bloody sake…can’t you take an opinion…..it’s just a theory on how I see things…..I don’t see what’s wrong with having a discussion on such topics…..I think someone’s got a problem with free speech…




posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
I think someone’s got a problem with free speech…




Wasn't expecting that!

you can say whatever you want, I don't really care. It just takes a little more substance for me to be interested.

How about this.

Give me a brief list of 5 or 6 species that you think we can do without.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
Yeah...it's called decomposing.....look it up sometime.....if it dies in the wilderness....then it will get eaten by some kind of predator....or if it dies in the streets....it'll just get cleaned up......Do you know how long it takes for maggots and such to completely eat say.....a rat...weeks....it makes no real difference whether insects exist or not...


My favorite quote so far. Andre makes the point that something decomposes, but doesn't understand the role that insects and saprophytes have in the process. He seems to think it just magically happens.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


I'm already making a larger list in which I’ve just began recently....I’ve got other things to do besides tend to the people of ATS...


projectvxn



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.




He seems to think it just magically happens. source. As most bugs tend to feast commonly on certain creatures.


Hay I’m 18...give me a break.....If there's something I don't know...well then I’m learning aren’t I....I've never said I know everything....this is just as I’ve said before....a theory on my own opinion...if you find something that I’ve said like that....well yes I probably said something idiotic...it's like you think that I think that I’m never wrong.....I’d rather be wrong half the time.....and learn from my mistakes.....although it’s not like you've proven my actually theory wrong....


[edit on 17-1-2008 by andre18]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
I'm responding to as many as i can at once....you try responding to someone but as soon as you do...you've another 5 or so people asking something.....it takes time....


But you seem to ignore any good points made and keep pressing on with the same faulty logic...



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Beachcoma
 


Don’t talk to me about logic…..Sleeper has a 6000 reply thread full of BS..and as soon as you try to question something a mod will give you a warning….Don’t talk to me about fairness and equality….again….I’m doing my best….not your best….but mine…..I can only reply to so many people at once….what you may see as a logical question may not be to me….simply a difference of opinion…

Pjotr



Logic? Is that the ruler of your universe? Logic does not cover an inch of what is there to experience in the universe.
Common sense covers less.


Logic and common sense does rule our world though…our society…our way of life…..you wont a government to run on no principles of logic….our law and order would then be irrelevant…..


[edit on 17-1-2008 by andre18]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 05:06 AM
link   
In regards to the culling of roo's in Australia:

No, you are wrong. We were not told we could go out and kill as many kangaroos as we liked. The council sent out people to kill a certain number of roo's so they could keep their numbers down. And that is COMPLETELY different to what you're suggesting. They weren't trying to kill off an entire species, they were just trying to control their numbers.

What you're suggesting has nothing to do with controlling the number of animals for the benefit of the environment, but killing off entire species to make life a tiny bit easier for humans.

And as for humans using animals as food/reasearch:

We eat cows, sheep, pigs, chickens, fish, turkeys, ducks etc. What do all these animals have in common? They're all FARMED! They are bred for the specific purpose of human consumption. Their numbers are controlled by us and they will never, ever go extinct. (unless you come to power one day, and they annoy you just a little bit)

Andre, it is very, very good that you stick to your guns and can battle things out til the end, but like everything in life, you can have too much of a good thing. Another very good trait a person can have is when they can admit that they're wrong and take it on the chin. Right now you are ignoring everyone and the facts they are so graciously presenting to you and it is not helping you at all in regards to the ATS community.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Toy_soldier
 


How about this…..this is just something I just thought of out of my head…..If we were to decide to for what ever reason wipe out the entire population of polar bears….what harm would that do…that is…to the food chain…the ecosystem etc…just curious…..?



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattguy404
Maybe you should move to the Arctic circle.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by mattguy404]


Oh no Andre18, you don't need to take my suggestion seriously.

You've managed to escape the snakes, but now the polar bears are bugging you?

[edit on 17-1-2008 by mattguy404]

[edit on 17-1-2008 by mattguy404]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by mattguy404
 


No…no…..Polar bears are actually my favourite animal….I’m just curious to what would happen if we were to kill them off…..



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


We're not talking about sleeper, are we?

Besides I've asked you for a short list earlier than the other person and in a much briefer and simpler post -- you completely ignored that previous posts of mine where I was tactful, instead choosing to respond to the one that struck a nerve.


And don't give me any of that "I can't respond to everyone" excuse. You don't have to respond to everyone, least not the stuff that has already been said. But you do respond to the ones that have been said, in fact you seem to select who you respond to, even if the points have already been answered to. It's all documented for others to verify, even if you want to continue lying to yourself.



Now that I've gotten your attention, please:


Originally posted by Beachcoma
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?


I'm not asking for 100 animals, I don't have the time to research 100. Give me your top 3, that will do.

That was on page 5. We are at page 9. If you continue beating around the bush, I'm just gonna go with what others have said -- that this isn't a serious enquiry but a call for attention. In which case you're no better than sleeper.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Beachcoma
 


Ok….fine…..you wonna be like that…give me a second to think up 3 really good ones…..I’ll be happy to do this…..hang on…..

_____________________________________________

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.

www.australianfauna.com...

[edit on 17-1-2008 by andre18]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by Toy_soldier
 


How about this…..this is just something I just thought of out of my head…..If we were to decide to for what ever reason wipe out the entire population of polar bears….what harm would that do…that is…to the food chain…the ecosystem etc…just curious…..?


I'm no Polar Bear expert, so I can't give a fully educated answer on this, but I will try my best.

Aside from the obvious tragedy that there are zero polar bears left in the world, what do polar bears eat? Seals, fish, walruses, whales? What would happen if all of a sudden there were no polar bears to eat these things? Their numbers would increase.

What do all of those things eat? With an increased number of these animals, would there be enough food to go around for all of them? Personally, I don't think so. They would starve and eventually die.

So from the "simple" act of making one animal extinct many more are dead. I don't want that on my conscience. Do you?

It may seem a bit drastic, but hey, that's life.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Toy_soldier
 


I knew someone would say that…..see this is where you loose this part of the argument…polar bears have a very…very small diet…. the animals they eat would still not increase that much because they don’t get eaten by bears that quickly….sort of like snakes....it takes a long time for polar bears to find food..

www.seaworld.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 17-1-2008 by andre18]

[edit on 17-1-2008 by andre18]

[edit on 17-1-2008 by andre18]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


I'm not too bothered if I lose that argument. The fact still stands that if we kill off that species just because it annoyed us, it would be a tragedy.

And just because you or I can't see the damage that killing off other species of animals will do doesn't mean there won't be any.

And once again I ask you, what do you think Mr Steve Irwin would think of this suggestion of yours?



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


Hey man, why don't we just kill everything that isn't us. I mean animals aren't helping us in any way, and they take up a lot of space that we could use for new shopping malls and low-rent housing. So why not just blast them all off the planet. It's ours anyway.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Another one is the mosquito…..responsible for an estimated 2-3 million fatalities a year…yes frogs and other animals including fish do eat them……but….can you go with out a few frogs and fish so 3 million people don’t die every year…? 3 bloody million….Hitler has been the only person able to go by such numbers…..so three years 9 million…..20 years 60 million etc….

travel.aol.co.uk...


[edit on 17-1-2008 by andre18]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


Hi andre,

In one of your posts you said,

'If there's something I don't know ... well then I'm learning aren't I'?

Oh andre, I really hope so ... but there's no indication of that yet ... in spite of all the posts you've received explaining why !

I even have my doubts that you'll be convinced by the results 'projectvxn' supplies if/when you provide him with your list of 'things to make extinct'. I sincerely hope you prove me wrong on this point.

Woody.

[edit on 17-1-2008 by woodwytch]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Beachcoma
 


Forgive me Beach, I had no idea that the question had already been asked, and dodged. I just couldn't sit through 9 pages of crap trying to convince some kid against killing off various species.

But, since the question has been asked at least twice so far, and dodged both times, I think the answer is about due.

Actually, I'm betting that he's googling insect species and having a hell of a time trying to find one that isn't useful and necessary to the natural balance.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


Mosquitoes are necessary to the survival of many natural parasites. If it weren't for mosquitoes countless microscopic lifeforms couldn't transmit from one animal to another. These lifeforms are sometimes dangerous, but maybe sometimes they are beneficial to other species. We don't know yet.

Try again.

Edit:

Not to mention mosquito larvae filter dangerous microorganism from bodies of water allowing for other animals to survive in it.

Booyaka-shot!!!!

[edit on 17-1-2008 by Rasobasi420]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join