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.

 

Should we protect endangered animals?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
I'm kind of curious on this one, I struggle with it, I do love polar bears, and gray wolves, and all the other cuddly, and not so cuddly sorts of animals.

But I feel the only reason why we do, is straightly put, because their beautiful.

Now if we off one, which is headed in the direction of extinction, what difference does it make? Sure another class of animals may run rampant, for a bit or longer, but does it really change anything?

Does this not go back to "Survival of the Fittest"?

I know, many if not all! Here on ATS, think humans to be the worst of any 'known' living animal on the earth.

But as I look I see terrible, and frightening things done from humans, but we don't go and see a dog eat it's runt, and scream "Eugenics! We should pass laws to make sure this doesn't happen!"

As society grows, other creatures on earth, will no longer be fit to live in par with humans. It's a fact, and it's proven! You haters, can't even deny that.

Now, this has happened before, obviously since, roughly 90% of all animals that lived, are now extinct. So something had to of happened, to at least 1% at the very least, where another animals ousted another. In that, natural selection conquered by 'beefing' up its inheritances so that the strong will survive!

Now, if humans, as a race, we actually make it across the crucial points in our projected timelines, IE Type Once Civilization, we may be very well off, and do great things.

But as for our mammalian brotheren. It's not looking to good.

Now in no way, do I condone Michael Vicks abuse of animals, or do I accept that we should, off other animals, that seem to 'be in the way'.

But I see it as this, should we completely inconvenience our Race of Species, to comfort one, that isn't 'fit'.

I do think, that in actions we do in the future, it is good to look at it through the glasses of being, "polite", to our co existing living beings. We should no harm there, but if we're putting them above us, I feel this is wrong. I also feel the same way with inhabitable spots on earth, they all should have special consideration, but not ahead of our own species of race.

As sad, or crude, or lacking of heart this seems, it's pretty down to earth i'd say.

So should, we stop 'helping' the runts in our newfound ecosystem, or keep throwing money and time at it, where it could be used elsewhere.




posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


Yes,

We have a duty to all animals and we certainly should protect endangered animals - a lot of them are endangered because of human actions.

And as to having a duty to all animals, that includes the ones we eat, which should be treated humanely - which a lot of them are not.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by spellbound
reply to post by Republican08
 


Yes,

We have a duty to all animals and we certainly should protect endangered animals - a lot of them are endangered because of human actions.

And as to having a duty to all animals, that includes the ones we eat, which should be treated humanely - which a lot of them are not.


Yes, I do think we should treat them humanely, only because we are 'above' them in the totem pole.

We should protect them, but only to a certain extent.

Alot are endangered because of us, but is that not due to natural selection, we evolved to be what we are today, to be the best survivor possible, out of all the rest.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   
your thinking is interesting to say the least

but whats wrong with saving an animal because its beautiful?

will this really completely inconvenience our Race of Species?

show me some data that can support your complete inconvience theory



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by overide
 


Thank you.... lol



Each year, roughly 10 million people go whale watching, spending more than $1.25 billion on their adventures

Source

And that's just on watching whales, not triple or quadruple that, and we could go back to the moon.

And that's just on whales!
100,000 Just in Missouri

Still adding sources, hold up.
1,000,000,000 Mark
The Interior Department.




[edit on 10-9-2009 by Republican08]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 02:49 AM
link   
how is whale watching an inconvenience to you personally?

shouldn't people be allowed to spend there money as they see fit?



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by overide
how is whale watching an inconvenience to you personally?

shouldn't people be allowed to spend there money as they see fit?


As they see fit, but when I see that,



NASA calculated that to spot the asteroids as required by law would mean spending about $800 million between now and 2020, either with a new ground-based telescope or a space observation system, Johnson said. If NASA got only $300 million it could find most asteroids bigger than 1,000 feet across, he said.

AP source

Now we can't spot something that will annihilate the earth, or do great harm, and may extinct a ton of creatures, is a bit disheartening.

Now if only what 1/2 of that whale watching money went to NASA, we could fund this! till 2020.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


If we are top of the totem pole, I despair.

We are mean, we are vengeful, we are killers, we let our fellow humans starve and don't care, we abuse animals, we wage war, we abuse children..the list goes on.

I don't think we have the right to wreck this planet and wreck people and animals.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   
People should worry more about biodiversity in general than the fate of specific species. Those who obsess over species like baby seals or whales give environmentalism a bad name because they are micro-focusing on a very small part of a larger, far darker picture. They also come across as flakes who respond to "cuteness" rather than acute realities like loss of ariable land, desertification, water problems, biodiversity, genetically modified crops, and so on. Saving this or that particular species is a tiny part of this extremely grim larger problem.

[edit on 9/10/09 by silent thunder]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   
As has already been mentioned, a great deal of animals have reached extinction by human hand. How is us hunting them down for the fun of it, a case of natural selection?

we evolved to be what we are today, to be the best survivor possible, out of all the rest.

Just because we have a greater capacity for cruelty, doesn't make us the best survivor. It makes us morons with the capability to make machines that can kill easily on our behalf and with little risk. Pit a human being against a polar bear with no weapons and natural selection would certainly show who naturally has the upper hand.
With the amount of damage we have unleashed on this planet, it is our duty to try and give something back. Damn right we should try and save all species, whether they are beautiful animals or ugly-arsed insects. We owe it to our descendants to do our upmost to keep every endangered animal alive.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


Should we protect endangered animals?


what do you suggest?? kill um all...
animals should be protected.

against humans. we are the same animals.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by spellbound
reply to post by Republican08
 


If we are top of the totem pole, I despair.

We are mean, we are vengeful, we are killers, we let our fellow humans starve and don't care, we abuse animals, we wage war, we abuse children..the list goes on.

I don't think we have the right to wreck this planet and wreck people and animals.


There's a theory that we ate the Neandertals into extinction. We are a bang-up bunch of guys, aren't we?

Well, at this rate we won't last long. Crocdiles have been around 65 million years. Humans have been around about 200,000-1 million years depending on where you draw the line. At this rate, we'll be lucky to make it through the next 1,000 years, never mind millions.

Nature itself will trundle on with or without us...possibly a species of intelligent centipedes or something will be running the show in a couple of million years. I believe we will be long gone by then, little remembered and less mourned.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Not another cent should be spent protecting animals (except cetaceans).

Not while we have over thirty million Americans on food stamps.



[edit on 10-9-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by JennyJen
 





Pit a human being against a polar bear with no weapons and natural selection would certainly show who naturally has the upper hand.


You seem to think that our knowledge and creativity, would need to be removed, for it to be natural selection. We could throw spears and do much else at the least to win the battle. Hell if given a gun, which our naturally selected minds, we could easily win, it's why we are ALIVE today! Don't be myopic in natural selection.

We have, within our power now, to inhabit, and eventually make, in good hopes, mars LIVEABLE, now that is amazing, let's see our turtle friends make that claim!



We owe it to our descendants to do our upmost to keep every endangered animal alive.



Why do we owe them anything?

The dodo's are gone, and well, there survival skills sucked! And good for them, they would of been a retarded left brain hemisphere that need be cut off, for the betterment of the whole, of the Human Brain.

I do not hold myself accountable for the dodo, or for the dinosaur, but it seems you do. If it's going to die, let it, go extinct, we cannot hold onto it forever. We can't.

And if we manage to for quite some time, it will hold down our funds, which oddly enough, hold some importance.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   
At the same time, let me also state that I believe humans have a fundamental right to hunt. We were hunter-gatherers before we were agriculturalists. A lot of people think the whole "agricultural revolution" was a big mistake. But that's another topic.

Hunting is in our blood. I don't think its good practice to go out in the woods with a semi-auto and slaughter everything that moves, but I believe that if you eat or otherwise use/process what you kill, that's simply part of being human. I have great respect for bow-hunters, as well. That's a skill humanity should never, ever lose.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


What is so sad is that humans could have been around for a much longer time if they hadn't behaved like - I won't say animals, because no animal behaves like a human - I will say badly.

But, by the same token, I think humans were designed to behave badly since most humans have done so from the year dot.

So maybe it is just something we do, like animals eat prey etc.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder
At the same time, let me also state that I believe humans have a fundamental right to hunt. We were hunter-gatherers before we were agriculturalists. A lot of people think the whole "agricultural revolution" was a big mistake. But that's another topic.

Hunting is in our blood. I don't think its good practice to go out in the woods with a semi-auto and slaughter everything that moves, but I believe that if you eat or otherwise use/process what you kill, that's simply part of being human. I have great respect for bow-hunters, as well. That's a skill humanity should never, ever lose.


I assume, as I do, that "HUNT FOR NECESSITY'. Not for play. Only for survival, to keep to the basis of our being here.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


There is a cute animal as your avatar - and you say that?

Why should humans matter more than animals?

We think we are so important - we are not.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


I'm not saying we are responsible for the extinction of all creatures, but we do need to accept responsibility for some. Just because we have the ability to kill animals, doesn't give us the right to. No way and no how can hunting for the fun of it, be acceptable. I am a vegan so am completely against the use of animals for food or anything else, but I can at least recognise that for those that don't share my viewpoint, killing and eating/wearing an animal can be seen as a part of being human and 'the top of the good chain'. Killing for fun, is nothing to do with survival and simply a case of satisfying our sickening thirst for violence and upperhand-ness.

To be honest, I don't give a damn about being able to inhabit Mars or any other planet. When we are destroying this planet which is currently our home, we need to do everything in our power to protect it. Screw Mars, we have living creatures on Earth that deserve the chance to live comfortably and without fear. This applies to all living creatures. Sort out our own s# first before we jump ship and decide space technologies have higher importance than human and other life.

There are many species now that I wish still existed and that they were killed off, with barely an attempt to protect them is disgusting. We have a duty to every living creature to protect them. As the 'higher species' we need to accept our responsibility as a carer over all life. To think that we are above that is purely egotistical and arrogant.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


Do you know how many men - and I say men advisedly, love to go out and hunt and kill animals for sport?

There may be a few women, but not a lot.

This is a disgusting practice.

I include the British royal family and all their associates in this damnation.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join