Page 1 of 2
#1
What are we conserving exactly?

organisms that have no sense of justice and fairness? That rip each other to bloody shreds?


oh wait. I think that includes humans.
Quote by icaneatcatfood
On second thought, **** tuning forks. You best be carrying around a grand piano that was tuned by an Italian
#3
...really?
"Love is the only thing that we can carry with us when we go, and it makes the end so easy." -Louisa May Alcott
#5
Quote by Le_Bunny
What else is there to conserve, human apathy?


the thought of dedicating myself to this cause excites me
Quote by icaneatcatfood
On second thought, **** tuning forks. You best be carrying around a grand piano that was tuned by an Italian
#8
As the dominant species of this planet, some say we have a duty to protect and preserve the diversity of animals from our own destructive influence. We are simply so much more dangerous than other animals, we can't just say "ooh they're nasty, lets just carry on regardless" - we have to restrain ourselves or we'll end up destroying the fragile ecosystems which ultimately sustain our own lives.
#9
Quote by LegsOnEarth
Are you serious? Come on, UG.


Excuse me? I am not UG
Quote by icaneatcatfood
On second thought, **** tuning forks. You best be carrying around a grand piano that was tuned by an Italian
#10
Dude. No animals=no meat. No meat=vegetarian. Vegetarian=all plants gone. All plant life gone=apocalypse. Nah, I'm just guessin' that, I'm probly wrong.
#11
Quote by meisjjb@gmail
Dude. No animals=no meat. No meat=vegetarian. Vegetarian=all plants gone. All plant life gone=apocalypse. Nah, I'm just guessin' that, I'm probly wrong.


this step convinced me immediately.
#12
Quote by Kumanji
As the dominant species of this planet, some say we have a duty to protect and preserve the diversity of animals from our own destructive influence. We are simply so much more dangerous than other animals, we can't just say "ooh they're nasty, lets just carry on regardless" - we have to restrain ourselves or we'll end up destroying the fragile ecosystems which ultimately sustain our own lives.


I do not think so. We humans have the ability to be peaceful non-belligerent creatures, but animals do not.

of course conservation of other species are essential to our well-being.

But I couldn't care less about saving the last tiger on earth.
Quote by icaneatcatfood
On second thought, **** tuning forks. You best be carrying around a grand piano that was tuned by an Italian
Last edited by Laces Out Danny at Jul 8, 2009,
#13
Quote by Laces Out Danny
I do not think so. We humans have the ability to be peaceful non-belligerent creatures, but animals do not.


Then why aren't we?
"Love is the only thing that we can carry with us when we go, and it makes the end so easy." -Louisa May Alcott
#14
Quote by meisjjb@gmail
Dude. No animals=no meat. No meat=vegetarian. Vegetarian=all plants gone. All plant life gone=apocalypse. Nah, I'm just guessin' that, I'm probly wrong.

There's more reasons for preserving biodiversity than mere food

For example, deforestation may well be contributing to global warming, since there are fewer trees to absorb CO2. Also to me it seems there's just something deeply morally damaging about allowing ourselves to engage in wanton destruction of our environment.

Quote by Laces Out Danny
I do not think so. We humans have the ability to be peaceful non-belligerent creatures, but animals do not.

of course conservation of other species are essential to our well-being.

But I couldn't care less about saving the last tiger on earth.

That argument would be perfectly well and good were animals behaving that way on purpose. Animals have no choice but to behave as they do, but only we are morally accountable since only we, and perhaps higher apes, have conscious thought.

Ultimately, yes, there will be no material benefit in preserving the last tiger, but don't we lose something of our humanity if we simply allow such amazing creatures to wither away? Since we have hunted these creatures almost to extinction, do we have no moral obligation to preserve these incredible creatures for generations to come?
Last edited by Kumanji at Jul 8, 2009,
#15
EDIT: ^ not true, there are actually more trees now than ever due to the paper industry etc. growing new forests.
Quote by Shortbuschld
Then why aren't we?

Because we're constantly torn between our high intelligence and still very present instincts and primal urges, which are very often in high conflict with each other.
#16
Quote by Shortbuschld
Then why aren't we?


maybe we're on the process of being?
Quote by icaneatcatfood
On second thought, **** tuning forks. You best be carrying around a grand piano that was tuned by an Italian
#17
Quote by Kumanji
As the dominant species of this planet, some say we have a duty to protect and preserve the diversity of animals from our own destructive influence. We are simply so much more dangerous than other animals, we can't just say "ooh they're nasty, lets just carry on regardless" - we have to restrain ourselves or we'll end up destroying the fragile ecosystems which ultimately sustain our own lives.

+∞ !!!

Quote by Laces Out Danny
maybe we're on the process of being?

The world is constantly degrading due to us humans.. So no.
ॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐ
Quote by dannyisokay
It's our little online utopia where we smoke with folks from the far corners of the world and say things like "I'm high, heheehehe."

Quote by Ed Hunter

Thoughts about new naked airport scanner?

^
Quote by nightraven
brb applying for job at airport

Last edited by nutmeg_trippin' at Jul 8, 2009,
#18
Quote by Laces Out Danny
I do not think so. We humans have the ability to be peaceful non-belligerent creatures, but animals do not.


Yeah, I know what you mean. My cat declared war on me the other day. It's just not cool.
#19
Dude, you are arguing against Animal conservation, what exactly is your argument? Why SHOULDNT we protect endangered species?
We do have the ability to be peaceful, but many choose not to, which is also part of the reason for animal conservation (ie: endangered due to hunting?)
#20
Quote by Kumanji
There's more reasons for preserving biodiversity than mere food

For example, deforestation may well be contributing to global warming, since there are fewer trees to absorb CO2. Also to me it seems there's just something deeply morally damaging about allowing ourselves to engage in wanton destruction of our environment.


Uhh...you can't live without food!

And also coreysmonster is right about the tree thing too.
Last edited by meisjjb@gmail at Jul 8, 2009,
#21
Quote by CoreysMonster
EDIT: ^ not true, there are actually more trees now than ever due to the paper industry etc. growing new forests.

Because we're constantly torn between our high intelligence and still very present instincts and primal urges, which are very often in high conflict with each other.


...which leads me to believe we're not capable of it.

This whole thread is completely ridiculous to the point that I thought you might be trolling. You can't get rid of animals- they are part of what keeps our environment in check. WE are the problem- animals could live just fine without us forever.

Quote by Laces Out Danny
maybe we're on the process of being?


Oh yeah, I guess the several thousand years we had to perfect it wasn't enough.
"Love is the only thing that we can carry with us when we go, and it makes the end so easy." -Louisa May Alcott
Last edited by Shortbuschld at Jul 8, 2009,
#23
Quote by meisjjb@gmail
Uhh...you can't live without food!

We're not talking about factory-farmed chickens or herd cattle, since we can artificially sustain them. We're talking, I believe, about the wider 'wild' ecosystem.
#24
Yes MEN need meat, if we didn't have meat, we would become gay, and therefore no procreation and everything would die.
April is the cruellest month, breeding Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing Memory and desire, stirring Dull roots with spring rain
#25
I saw a documentary in which Mark Wahlberg conversed with animals. It was quite informative.
Demolition hands.... Got 'em!
#26
Quote by Kumanji
We're not talking about factory-farmed chickens or herd cattle, since we can artificially sustain them. We're talking, I believe, about the wider 'wild' ecosystem.


I'm not talking about herds neither, with NO ANIMALS AT ALL you would have no meat, which would leave plants which we would eat because it's all that's left, then there would be no supplies at all, so if you think you can live without supplies, let me lock you in my basement after I clean it out for a couple years, and let me see if you live.
#28
Quote by meisjjb@gmail
I'm not talking about herds neither, with NO ANIMALS AT ALL you would have no meat, which would leave plants which we would eat because it's all that's left, then there would be no supplies at all, so if you think you can live without supplies, let me lock you in my basement after I clean it out for a couple years, and let me see if you live.

I think that's a little unnecessarily combative, Mr Fritzl.

Dear sir, the issue at stake is not whether we could survive without any animals, but whether conservation of the natural environment and the preservation of lone members of species is a good thing or not.
#29
Quote by Kumanji
I think that's a little unnecessarily combative, Mr Fritzl.

Dear sir, the issue at stake is not whether we could survive without any animals, but whether conservation of the natural environment and the preservation of lone members of species is a good thing or not.


But you brought up the sh*t that got me started!
#30
Quote by meisjjb@gmail
But you brought up the sh*t that got me started!

...? I think I missed something, I'm very sorry to have 'set you off' unintentionally. I'll have to watch for Terminator trigger words more carefully in future.
#31
Quote by CoreysMonster
EDIT: ^ not true, there are actually more trees now than ever due to the paper industry etc. growing new forests.

Because we're constantly torn between our high intelligence and still very present instincts and primal urges, which are very often in high conflict with each other.

About the trees, total crap.

Quote by Kumanji
There's more reasons for preserving biodiversity than mere food

For example, deforestation may well be contributing to global warming, since there are fewer trees to absorb CO2. Also to me it seems there's just something deeply morally damaging about allowing ourselves to engage in wanton destruction of our environment.


That argument would be perfectly well and good were animals behaving that way on purpose. Animals have no choice but to behave as they do, but only we are morally accountable since only we, and perhaps higher apes, have conscious thought.

Ultimately, yes, there will be no material benefit in preserving the last tiger, but don't we lose something of our humanity if we simply allow such amazing creatures to wither away? Since we have hunted these creatures almost to extinction, do we have no moral obligation to preserve these incredible creatures for generations to come?

They have no choice, but the way they behave is less violent, less belligerent and more intelligent, humane and peaceful than us humans behave. With all the wars, pollution, unnecessary killing and suffering we cause to animals, there is no way we are more 'peaceful' than other animals. I'm 100% sure that if humans would be behaving now as they did during the cavemen era, which I think is the 'natural' life we should have had, the world would be a much better place. No nuclear weapons, no deforestation, no real wars.. Hell, there wouldn't even be guns for us to kill each other. IMAGINE!

The humans are actually the less humane animals (or beings if you wish) of all.
ॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐ
Quote by dannyisokay
It's our little online utopia where we smoke with folks from the far corners of the world and say things like "I'm high, heheehehe."

Quote by Ed Hunter

Thoughts about new naked airport scanner?

^
Quote by nightraven
brb applying for job at airport

Last edited by nutmeg_trippin' at Jul 8, 2009,
#32
TS, In my humble opinion, you are an idiot.

Quote by CoreysMonster
EDIT: ^ not true, there are actually more trees now than ever due to the paper industry etc. growing new forests.


I don't know where you heard that, but it's the most ridiculous thing I've heard all day. Total bullsh*t.
#33
Quote by nutmeg_trippin'

They have no choice, but the way they behave is less violent, less belligerent and more intelligent, humane and peaceful than us humans behave. With all the wars, pollution, unnecessary killing and suffering we cause to animals, there is no way we are more 'peaceful' than other animals. I'm 100% sure that if humans would be behaving now as they did during the cavemen era, which I think is the 'natural' life we should have had, the world would be a much better place. No nuclear weapons, no deforestation, no real wars.. Hell, there wouldn't even be guns for us to kill each other. IMAGINE!

The humans are actually the less humane animals (or beings if you wish) of all.

I'm never sure about regressionism like that, but I see your point. Let's not get onto the evils of nuclear weapons, we could be here for some time

Imagine there's no heaven...
#34
Instead of "saving" the animals, we should be saving their environment. What's the use of breeding pandas to release into the wild when there's no room for them to fit or even anywhere for them to live?

Letting a native species die out in its environment is never a good idea, it severely ****s up the natural balance Even if it is something vicious like a lion or something, the entire food chain relies on those links remaining as stable as possible. Without lions, the zebra/gazelles and whatever would begin to increase in numbers. That will lead to over grazing, leading to desertification leading to destruction of land, no food for animals, animals die off, land is no longer arable.

In response to the CO2 comment and global warming, CO2 is a horrible retainer of heat, it's a perfectly symmetrical molecule, its ability to retain heat is quite paltry in comparison to water. H2O molecules are not perfectly symmetrical and so retains heat quite well, it's much more likely that this is the cause for global warming, not CO2. CO2 makes up about 0.01% of the gases in the atmosphere, sounds quite paltry doesn't it?
#35
Quote by XianXiuHong
Instead of "saving" the animals, we should be saving their environment. What's the use of breeding pandas to release into the wild when there's no room for them to fit or even anywhere for them to live?

Letting a native species die out in its environment is never a good idea, it severely ****s up the natural balance Even if it is something vicious like a lion or something, the entire food chain relies on those links remaining as stable as possible. Without lions, the zebra/gazelles and whatever would begin to increase in numbers. That will lead to over grazing, leading to desertification leading to destruction of land, no food for animals, animals die off, land is no longer arable.

Exactly - environmental preservation is the key. Each ecosystem is incredibly finely balanced; damaging this balance can have unforeseen and often disastrous consequences. We constantly act blindly without any regard to the long-term consequences of our actions. What is needed is much much greater awareness through study of complex ecosystems.

I'm going to ignore the CO2 stuff for now for two reasons - one, because I have only the sketchiest of knowledge of molecular chemistry, and two, because that's a whole other can of Pit-flavoured worms
#36
Quote by XianXiuHong
In response to the CO2 comment and global warming, CO2 is a horrible retainer of heat, it's a perfectly symmetrical molecule, its ability to retain heat is quite paltry in comparison to water. H2O molecules are not perfectly symmetrical and so retains heat quite well, it's much more likely that this is the cause for global warming, not CO2. CO2 makes up about 0.01% of the gases in the atmosphere, sounds quite paltry doesn't it?

I'm not sure if it's heat retaining or the greenhouse effect, but heck, you are arguing against the almost absolute majority of scientists and research. It doesn't make sense that global warming is caused by water, since during the last decade, CO2 levels have risen by a lot due to industrialization, cars etc., but I see no reasons for a rise in H2O..
ॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐॐ
Quote by dannyisokay
It's our little online utopia where we smoke with folks from the far corners of the world and say things like "I'm high, heheehehe."

Quote by Ed Hunter

Thoughts about new naked airport scanner?

^
Quote by nightraven
brb applying for job at airport

#37
Quote by Beserker
TS, In my humble opinion, you are an idiot.


I don't know where you heard that, but it's the most ridiculous thing I've heard all day. Total bullsh*t.

sorry, I had my facts wrong; there are more trees in the US than there were 100 years ago, due to the paper industry. however, these are not forests, but tree farms.

my bad
#38
Quote by CoreysMonster
sorry, I had my facts wrong; there are more trees in the US than there were 100 years ago, due to the paper industry. however, these are not forests, but tree farms.

my bad

Well fair enough, that's actually quite an interesting fact. But overall, I don't know the figures, but I would guess that the world has lost something like 90% of its forests since argiculture began.
#39
Quote by Beserker
Well fair enough, that's actually quite an interesting fact. But overall, I don't know the figures, but I would guess that the world has lost something like 90% of its forests since argiculture began.

THAT goes without saying. just look at europe, it used to be one big oak forest, now everything is fields.
But that's been going on for hundreds of years, it's nothing that just happened recently.
#40
Quote by nutmeg_trippin'
I'm not sure if it's heat retaining or the greenhouse effect, but heck, you are arguing against the almost absolute majority of scientists and research. It doesn't make sense that global warming is caused by water, since during the last decade, CO2 levels have risen by a lot due to industrialization, cars etc., but I see no reasons for a rise in H2O..



There doesn't need to be a rise in H2O and there won't be because the water cycle's levels remains constant. However, as water vapour is created (power stations, boiling water, evaporation, transpiration etc) the steam is scattered throughout the atmosphere and retains its heat for a damn long time, much longer than any CO2 molecule and will remain in the upper troposphere until it cools down, but not before that vapour is replaced by more vapour, locking the heat in.

Everyday, you use hot water, tonnes of water are evaporated by the sun from the oceans/lakes/rivers, energy plants heat water for power and a whole other list of things. Water's ability to retain heat poses a worse threat to us than CO2, it only covers 0.01% of our atmosphere, even if levels are on the rise by humans, one volcanic explosion releases way more CO2 in one explosion than we do collectively in a year.
Page 1 of 2