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.

 

How Willing Would You Be To Take A Human Life In Order To Save A Species From Extinction?

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
If the persons name started with a Hit end ended with a ler, I would kill that person even if I was saving the Maggot.

If you are talking about any random person I would not kill because it will be only a matter of time before the animal I just had saved will extinct anyway. The reasons for its extinction are still present so it has no use....




posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 


To ask questions like this is to fail to understand the many ways that we can change our behavior to ensure that extinction only happens due to natural circumstances and not due to our waste and neglect.

Of course I would say 0 to answer all of your questions, but you are failing to address the issue in a rational way. I don't see this as any more than trying to antagonize and stir the pot..



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 


In my view there is no point to taking a life unless your life or the life of a being you love is in danger. It is not a bad thing to kill something if you need to eat either because it is not against nature to do so but that is another subject.

If something needs to be killed so that a whole species can live then in my humble opinion moral values are corrupted and there is probably something erroneous deep within the mindset of the person or persons who really believes that killing a human being is worth the life of an animal species.

As an animal lover and a human with a deep love of nature I find that there is no conflict of interests in saying this because long before we ever evolved there were mass extinctions and no doubt there were groups of animals that fed on another group until that group died out. There have probably been land bridges as an off the cuff example that have come and gone over the ancient history of earth that has enabled more evolved animals to cross to new lands and decimate whole species of lesser animals just because they had no defences against the invader.

Nature could be construed as cruel and merciless but it is neither because it is just nature and sometimes things will die out due to the actions of another, making room for something else. We are as much a part of the world and in being a part of this world we can cause as much mass extinction as an asteroid with bad intentions or an ancient predator that has found a land-bridge to new fleshy pastures.

Sadly we are "humping the bunk" in that regard but by our very nature we are not prone to doing things in half measures.

If humans have driven a species to extinction and are about to deliver the death blow then killing that human with the raised axe is not going to make any difference because that animal species that was saved will probably only be able to survive behind a glass case from there on in anyway but that slain human will leave a ripple effect throughout your life for a very long time because murder is murder and there will be a price to pay.

Education is the key here not murder!

Therefore a human killing another human for something in that context is not the correct way of thinking or acting and when there are always better ways to resolve such difficulties then I think that those options should be pursued to the maximum and all should seriously forget about killing a fellow human being as even being an option.

Unless you are killing something for food there is no need to kill. Unless you like eating human flesh you should never take another life unless you really needed to but if you enjoy human flesh anyway then you probably quack like a duck but are most certainly not a duck.

Options in that your life or life of loved ones (including a loved animal) is about to be taken, kill to survive or protect = an important, probably vital law of nature.

Kill a human to gain something material = very bad and there is no excuse or reason at all even if it is to further a theological agenda. Sadly many think otherwise and I am even considered weak for thinking thus and that is why this world will burn long before we as a species wake up to a new dawn and a new way of thinking in regard to the importance of not killing other than for inescapable necessity and hunger.

I am therefore with respect, a big fat 0 on all the questions.






*edit spelling*




[edit on 3-6-2010 by SmokeJaguar67]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeJaguar67
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 


If something needs to be killed so that a whole species can live then in my humble opinion moral values are corrupted and there is probably something erroneous deep within the mindset of the person or persons who really believes that killing a human being is worth the life of an animal species.


would this include participating in a government that is at war?

your ideologies look great on paper, but poorly executed by some.
... yet as a whole, we are more than 9 years into WWIII, don't let the marketing geniuses fool ya with thier "global war on terror", when global = world.



Therefore a human killing another human for something in that context is not the correct way of thinking or acting and when there are always better ways to resolve such difficulties then I think that those options should be pursued to the maximum and all should seriously forget about killing a fellow human being as even being an option.


does this also include participating in institutions that promote, entice, and propel war?
self proclaimed "pacifists" just "pass a fists" don't they?



Unless you are killing something for food there is no need to kill.


does this include participating in institutions that wage war, in your opinion, or are citizens exempt and absolved from any guilt because they believe they are not participating?



I am therefore with respect, a big fat 0 on all the questions.


aren't actions and behaviors better to use when measuring someone's words. don't actions and behaviors speak louder than words?

how is it we can accept the mentality that we have the right to answer with a "big fat 0" when we are activley supporting the institutions killing for us?

havn't we already decided that "a big fat 0" is not consistant with what we are actually doing in the real world?

thanks for the input, and we agree on some issues. star. it's just late and i thought i would hit on some of the points i'm not personally sure about.

thanks,
E.T.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   
A big fat ZERO to all the questions in the opening post.

It really annoys me that humans seem to think that they are in charge of all other species on earth, and that they should be in control of what happens to them.

This planet has been around for much longer than we have; I'm sure it can cope perfectly well... and as another poster stated, species have been going extinct long before we came along.

Why do people think that if a species is about to go extinct, we should be saving it? Who says it is meant to be saved?

People mess around with 'endangered' animals far too much in my opinion. Like when they decide that, say, hedgehogs are going extinct on some remote Scottish island, so they introduce a breeding program to increase the numbers. Cut to several years later - there are 'too many' hedgehogs on the island, so now they have to be culled.

Stop. Just stop messing with animals. If they want to go extinct, why should we stop them.

And as for killing someone to save one of these species? It really worries me that some people say they would.



new topics

 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join