Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes. But extinction of millions of animals predates the existence of man.
Animals died out before we ever walked the earth.
So what difference does it make if they die out while we walk the earth?
For one reason or another, many species die out eventually.
I am actually a tree hugger, so don't get me wrong. But I think it's very odd that man considers there to be a dichotomy between himself and nature.
If a sea otter's territory expanded and he pushed out the local woobie noobie bird, causing it to become extinct, we'd be like, "Whatever." But if man does the same thing, it's somehow bad and different.
We are an animal like any other, and we can't expect our lives not to impact the rest of the planet's citizens.
We can, through reason, however, be more responsible and thoughtful about how we affect others, simply because we have the brain power to do so.
Of course man probably had nothing to do with the extinction of animals that predate our existence. I say probably because we simply don't know everything. But to deliberately cause the extinction of a species, simply because then man can increase our population (destroy habitats so we can inhabit them) is wrong. And we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that doing things like that won't have any effect on us.
At the end of the day (human life) bacteria will be the survivor. It is much more resilient than us. And life (animal life/human life) will probably then start over. Maybe we will become smarter that time around.
I would say let the Seagulls attack the whales, both species will learn to adapt that's how natural selection works. For another species to tip the scales artificially, in my opinion, will upset the balance that all species fall under.
So my question for the debate is: If pigeons are suddenly attacking poodles in the city, is it cool for us to kill all the pigeons in the city to save the poodles from the attacks?
No.Nomore then its cool to kill hawks for killing squirrels or eagles for killing fish.If pigeons evolve into preditors then thats the way it is.Poodles and folks who have poodles would have to be awair of pigeons wanting to eat them.
Bottom Line is There are too many people on the planet and it is only going to get worse for all the other animals pushed out of their habitat by human means.
Here on Cape Cod we are very protective of a endangered bird the Piping Plover. We close off beaches for half the Summer due to their nesting, we also considered killing off the racoons, foxes and crows with poison bait that eat the baby plovers. We have way to many crows and way to many seagulls and now way to many seals. We have thousands of seals that were once endangered and are still protected eating tons of fish a day and pooping tons into our waters. The abundance of seals for the past few years have attracted Great White sharks which also results in beach closings when they get close and this past Summer a guy was bitten by one. Blame the guy not the shark on that one.
We are so worried about our septic systems leaking into the water but for some reason the officials forget about the tons and tons of seal poop?
I think humans are causing extinction of some animals but in other cases the animals have adapted and their numbers actually need to be cut back.
Actually I think it's as valid as what you posted.
Feral cats have to eat also although I don't think it is just birds.
How do we determine that humans get to kill off species?
Nobody is talking about killing off the gulls, they just want to discourage them from feeding off the whales. The whales generate income from those that like to view them in this location. If they continue to be attacked when they come up for air, they will either die, or leave this area.
Most people find it unpleasant to see an animal suffering. They aren't going to pay to view that.
Whales are in jeapardy, gulls are not. I support this intervention.
How many of you worry about the eagles being killed by the windmills? Which should prevail?
Is there any evidence that they are truly harming the whales, or killing whales? What if the gulls are just picking at the barnacles, which is a parasite on the whale?
As to the general topic, I would like to think that humans would value animals enough to make attempts to preserve their natural habitats - but I don't have much confidence in that. I don't favor saving them by putting them in cages and artificial breeding programs. It's pretty much humans vs wildlife, and I would like to see the wildlife prevail. There should be places that are off limits to humans, for the wolves, bears, foxes, coyotes etc, and their prey - but that's not likely. Humans think they must "manage" nature, instead of looking for ways to live in harmony with it.
I think there are some real issues about humans and extinction going on right now. This last summer, there were enough shark attacks in Australia that their governmentt was entertaining lifting the protected status that has been on sharks for the last 20 years there. In cases of sharks, I say they need their population downsized. Not only in Australia, but there were more shark attacks in the U.S. also-- at Cape Cod and Florida. I don't know what their value is in the ecosystem, but I don't see their importance over human life.
I watched a National Geo. documentary the other day, it seems that the lion in South Africa is becoming almost exstinct. One of the causes is that hunters will pay big bucks to shoot them. I think this animal should be saved, but I don't know how many humans they kill every year.
I don't think you can be so selective....they all serve a purpose in the food chain. I worry what will happen when we humans finally erradicate all flora and fauna that doesn't actively serve our purposes.......we have made many mistakes in the past and I fear we will just keep on doing it and our grandchildren will reap the consequences. But, hey, pass it along to next generations problems.....right...? Ignorant, arrogant humans.
As to the general topic, I would like to think that humans would value animals enough to make attempts to preserve their natural habitats - but I don't have much confidence in that. I don't favor saving them by putting them in cages and artificial breeding programs. It's pretty much humans vs wildlife, and I would like to see the wildlife prevail. There should be places that are off limits to humans, for the wolves, bears, foxes, coyotes etc, and their prey - but that's not likely. Humans think they must "manage" nature, instead of looking for ways to live in harmony with it.
I don't think humans value much of anything but their own selfish pleasures and desires. Look at the decimation of the whale populations, the rhinos, the elephants, and all for some silly, unfounded folk medicine that viagra would fix thier problems even better....but, oh well......
The whole thing is overpopulation with humans. There just isn't enough room for everyone and what space we take up, we haved fouled beyond belief. Look at the garage belt off the coast of California. We have bred, are breeding like rats and will continue to do so until all land is paved over. I look at humans like viruses, some are not so harmful but the bulk of them are.....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
