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: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Survival of the fittest means surviving things like famine, hardships, disease, etc. Of course, you want the strongest OF THE SPECIES to survive, not just THE strongest species.

Survival of the fittest is not killing a polar bear to use it's hide as a rug in front of your fireplace. It's not killing a shark to make a soup out of it's fin or shooting down an elephant to make a neat ornament out of its tusks.

It's not cutting down an entire forest home to thousands of species so you can raise some cattle or plant some soy crops.




posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


If you think about it, the question is identical to this one:

should the stronger protect the weak?

It is basically a choice between a darwinian, purely utilitarian and mechanistic conception of life (including human beings) and an approach to life where there is place for the "imponderable" (that makes up most of what WE consider "life", in the proper sense of the word).

I know what my answer is.


P.S. Whatever happened to the Spartans...?







[edit on 10-9-2009 by Vanitas]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Didn't read the other posts, simply posting now- I'm sure someone else has said this too.

OP talks about survival of the fittest like these animals are simply dying off on their own accord- When they've been doing fine for hundreds if not thousands of years; right up until we started drawing the lines in the sand.

As the only truly sentient species on Earth, it's our responsibility to ensure it's survival- As well as the survival and prosperity of its inhabitants, be they human or otherwise.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ChrisBenoit
 


right...

It's kind of like we are the keepers of the Earth now, left to supervise and make sure things run smoothly and nature stays in balance.

It's almost akin to government if you think about it. Just because your in power now doesn't mean you start going mad with power and depriving your subjects of well being and happiness.

That's what a tyrant does.

A noble leader takes care of his subjects and makes sure they have the best life possible.

If not he's failed at his job.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarknessFollows
I consider survival of the fittest an evolutionary process, not the outcome of an uneven battle.


That is such a perfect way to sum up my feelings on the matter. Thanks!



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
ah, the undoing of human kind will be the perpetuation of the idea that we are some how 'separate' form the rest of the world.

when in reality we are an inseparable aspect of the world.

the more damage we do to it the more we do to ourselves.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Couldn't agree more. Animal rights activists seem to filled with some kind of self loathing.If we can't take care of our own species how can we be of help to any others.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
If we allow animals to be killed instead of protecting them what we are doing is allowing HUMANS to kill them. If we have the ability then we should protect all animals FROM HUMANS. If they are not endangered by US then we simply have no part in that species fading existence.

They do not deserve to killed because WE can't be bothered to control ourselves. We need to climb higher on the totem pole, as we are NOT the highest.

Think about this: Out of all the species that live here on Earth, which one suffers the most?

We are not at the top, I hope to see the day when we do join the rest of the planet up at the top though.

Over and out
Twisted-Inside-Out



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Let me give you a scientist's reasoning;


Originally posted by Republican08
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!


What happened was a worldscale environmental disaster that caused the oxygen content of the atmosphere to change. It wasn't the strongest that survived but the ones who could adapt to less oxygen.



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.


Diversity protects us in many ways. The less diverse the animal population around us the more zoonotic diseases (diseases that jump from animals to humans) can affect us. With only one species of cattle left, one naturally mutating disease (like influenza) can wipe out most or all of a food source.

In addition, it is more likely that diseases will develop in these food sources (bird flu) that can affect us in the form of worldwide plagues.

Diversity in things you don't think about (plants) leaves us more options for remediation (cleaning up polluted places.)

One of the places I volunteer at is an illegal landfill that was turned over to the Audubon Society and turned into a wildlife center. They have had to do a lot of planting to support the local wildlife; trees and plants that used to be here but were killed off by the toxic outflow from the dump. The fast-growing plants are cleaning the soil, and the new food sources are bringing back bees. Local bees are important for pollinating many food crops (and the center will sell honey, which is important for people who are allergic to some of the local plants.)

The rapid speciation after the Permian Extinction was one that took place in an environment that was completely wild... not paved over by a lot of roads or broken into small parks. We're not seeing that kind of diversity because there's no new niches developing.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Well Op that makes allot of sense. It is Darwin's ideas in action. And you can see it in human civilization. The pinnacle of any society is its ability to "defend" its own survival. The weak die and the strong multiply. Somehow humans got to this point of being the dominant species and now all other species are subordinate. My personal opinion on Moose is that they are the dumbest creatures in the wild and need to be hunted and eaten. My uncle hit a Moose on his motorcycle and nearly died. All because it stood in the middle of the road and stared!



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Byrd did you say theres only one species of cattle left. Or am I reading your post wrong?

Bos indicus

Bos primigenius



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Yes we should. And this thread title made me
. I donno why, I just found it funny hahaha.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by jeasahtheseer]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarknessFollows

There is nothing wrong with survival of the fittest


There is - unless one would like to inhabit a world where there is no place for weakness, for doubt, for anything and everything that transcends simple biological survival.

The question is not about the cause and origins of the survival of the "fittest". Ultimately, it doesn't even matter whether it is the result of an "uneven battle" or not.

The question is, why should only the "fittest" have the right to survive?
(And why would that even be beneficial? I'll repeat my question: whatever happened to the Spartans...?)

If mankind prides itself for having transcended (or is it alienated itself from?) nature - and it so often does - then it should do everything in its power to prevent the denatured (thanks to man) nature from wiping out all those beings that are currently endangered by the lack of balance perpetrated by man and man alone.








[edit on 10-9-2009 by Vanitas]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I have the simplest answer to your problem. If we have nearly killed off a said endangered species, or if it can somehow cure a disease and near extinction, we should do all we can to bring it back from extinction, otherwise, if nature has been killing it off, we should let it die off, for nature commanded it. simple but true solution.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Of course we should.
We have the upper hand as a species, we should lend our hand to them.

After all, they keep the ecosystem running.

and come on...pandas...polar bears...adorable...



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alexander the Great


and come on...pandas...polar bears...adorable...


they are adorable... lol

Especially Pandas, which I don't think their future is to well.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Well, the old saying goes. kill the bees, you kill the humans. that speaks for itself.

And if you have the power, yes you should save life, not ignore. ignore..ance!

[edit on 10-9-2009 by gandhi]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Not only should we protect endangered species, but we should protect all animals and other creatures. They respect our space so we should respect theirs. Yes, I do mean insects too. How many people just kill insects for the sake of doing so? Does it make you feel any better?



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Should we protect endangered animals? Is this really a serious question?

As others have so eloquently stated before me, WE as human beings have done more damage to eradicate certain species of animals than mother nature ever could. We come at them with weapons, we bulldoze over their homes, we drive them into smaller and smaller spaces.

It really is interesting that some people think that because animals do not speak with human voices that they don't have similar traits to us human beings. They have intelligence and their own system of communicating, living and thriving. They feel pain, they feel fear.

Are animals the beings on this planet who have turned our oceans into garbage dumps? Are animals the ones who have overpopulated and overconsumed our natural resources? Who does the most damage here, us or them? Survival of the fittest, or survival of the most destructive?

I don't know about you but I'd like to know that there will still be snow leopards around for my great grandchildren to appreciate, along with other species we take for granted. We're not supposed to be here to damage everything that is beautiful and pristine on this earth, but it seems we're doing a helluva good job doing just that.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   


There is - unless one would like to inhabit a world where there is no place for weakness, for doubt, for anything and everything that transcends simple biological survival. The question is not about the cause and origins of the survival of the "fittest". Ultimately, it doesn't even matter whether it is the result of an "uneven battle" or not. The question is, why should only the "fittest" have the right to survive? (And why would that even be beneficial? I'll repeat my question: whatever happened to the Spartans...?)

But this is not about whether or not the weaker ones have the right to survive, but it's just natures course. Look, in our human society, we do a lot of things to protect the weaker ones. Not nearly enough, unfortunately, but most of us consider every life to be valuable. In the animal kingdom however, the weaker ones die. It is not uncommon to have a mother animal kill her weakest offspring. To us, that is incredibly cruel, but not to them. It is a way to ensure survival. This follows it's natural course, it's the natural cycle of life and there is nothing wrong with that, it is the way nature works. When this natural pattern is being disturbed, when humans come and massacre complete species for their own selfish reasons, this balance, this pattern is disturbed. That has nothing to do with the natural selection, that is distruction. And human behaviour at it's worst.
In order to preserve the delicate balance of nature, we should withdraw ourselves and quit inflichting so much damage. Unfortunately, we have done so much damage, it is unlikely for some species to survice without our help. We should try to make up for what we have done and for once start taking some responsibility.

[edit on 11-9-2009 by DarknessFollows]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join