Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Do We Need So Many Other Animals on Earth?


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#61 dmaiski

dmaiski

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 187 posts
  • LocationLondon

Posted 16 September 2012 - 11:29 AM

I know CharonY doesn't subscribe to that, but surely we must be, as no other animals are capable of having discussions like this


my immediate reaction to this was "yes, only humans could be so stupid"
1. do we know animals cant communicate? (actually they can, we are just to stupid to understand them)
2. humans need food, food=animals/plants, plants need animals to survive, animals need plants to survive
3. if there was only cows, humans, and grass on earth, 1 virus would evolve and kill us all in a matter of years(HIV 2.0)
4. evolution likes diversity (actually it just doesn't like cleaning up the mess)
5. humans are the most poorly evolved, redundant, stupidly designed, inefficient beings on earth. (their only redeeming trait is that they are stubborn furless monkeys)
6. if you are looking for the top creature on earth, look at a tree, possibly the most cleverly made creature on earth


also when we reach the point where we control the weather, freely manipulate planet wide ecosystems, have flying tanks, and can shoot plasma bolts from our eyes, we will be more machine then biology, so species wont mater that much to us, nor will planets, the only thing we will be interested in is fuel for power plants, cooling systems, and how many yottaFLOPS we can fit into 1mm^3 so we can run even faster simulations.

Edited by dmaiski, 16 September 2012 - 11:40 AM.

  • 1
it's not mad science if it works! its just very messy
Be open to all ideas no mater how absurd, but also accept that most ideas are probably wrong.

to solve a problem; you first break it down into its components, work out what they do, and then use them to build a bigger problem.
if you got to the answer, you did not really understand the problem

"it made sense in my head, then pen hit paper and gibberish came out"

click one, actualy dont, i dont like 1 its scary------------------------>>

#62 Iota

Iota

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 366 posts
  • LocationEngland

Posted 16 September 2012 - 03:44 PM

... So i'll ask you; do we need less?
  • 0

 


#63 dmaiski

dmaiski

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 187 posts
  • LocationLondon

Posted 16 September 2012 - 08:50 PM

... So i'll ask you; do we need less?


yes... on second thought we do! go forth and kill them all to the last unborn egg and salt the earth and blacken the skies!

actually if your planning a mass genocide, aim to kill of 90% of H. sapien first, those pesky buggers are clogging up the planet as it is

[insert mad scientist laguh here]
  • 0
it's not mad science if it works! its just very messy
Be open to all ideas no mater how absurd, but also accept that most ideas are probably wrong.

to solve a problem; you first break it down into its components, work out what they do, and then use them to build a bigger problem.
if you got to the answer, you did not really understand the problem

"it made sense in my head, then pen hit paper and gibberish came out"

click one, actualy dont, i dont like 1 its scary------------------------>>

#64 AivazoffMickaih

AivazoffMickaih

    Lepton

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 18 September 2012 - 08:09 AM

Rainforest wildlife are typically rather colourful, often utilizing them as defensive shield versus much larger predators. A wide selection of these animals already have camouflage printing upon them that will put other types of wildlife off target, for instance butterflies that have eyes like ornamentation to their wings. Some animals like to unite in with the background to go hunting at the same time, just like the stick insect. Rainforest animals definitely take part in the most critical function of dispersing plant seeds and pollens through the forest to support retain its environment.

Among the list of rainforest animals, birds and also snakes already have a healthy and well balanced relationship i.e. both of them feed on the second type. This simply leaves the larger predators for example tigers, anacondas, crocodiles. Typically if a rainforest is blooming, most of these predators are in huge numbers because they are going to have plenty of foodstuff to take care of themselves.

Rainforest wildlife always play a role in their very own environment maybe even after passing away, because of their bodies changing into natural food for herbs. The continual moisture content and greenhouse effects also develops a range of much bigger than common small animals over these forests which aren't documented. Despite the fact that people are eliminating the rainforests daily, there continually remain a large number of mysterious rainforest wildlife whose share for their environment we won't ever be aware of.


More Information : http://www.amazonrai...estanimals.org/
  • 0

#65 somanymike

somanymike

    Lepton

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 1 September 2013 - 07:36 PM

Hi I´m just a simple lawyer but consider this wildly proposition:

 

What if billions years from now another species evolves so much that they match us in congnitive abilities (even asking to be refer as humans and having the consequential rights), should we banish all non-useful life from earth, wouldnt it be a shame to deny them from ever existing? 

 

Now on a more concise opinion: Reducing bio diversity its denying the infinite amount of opportunites that universe has to offer. Its like sending all kids who didnt had good grades in their childhood to the farms and saying that there is no need to educate them any further. But I wonder, how many einstein would we be costing to humankind.

 

 

Forgive my lack of proper grammar, I beg of you. 

PS: ([joke] What if having children with those "new" humans would make us inmortals [/joke])

PS2: Sry for resucitating this threath, please mods do not hate me, but this was in the first page of my google search so many may yet see this discussion.


Edited by somanymike, 1 September 2013 - 07:40 PM.

  • 1

#66 Titan1290

Titan1290

    Quark

  • Members
  • 22 posts
  • LocationUnited kingdom

Posted 4 September 2013 - 04:42 PM

Very simple what happens if a predators prey dies off. The extinction of 'worthless' prey species may lead to the extinction of an important predator species. This 'worthless' species may also have useful part/parts for medicine/other branches of science/other areas. I'm not really into religion but probably from a religious view point this may be immoral, certainly unethical by animal rights groups. If these animals that are going extinct are put in a zoo (PROVIDING THEY ARE CARED FOR WELL) then it lets the younger generation/whole world be interested in biology. I don't see why killing off very rare numbers of animals would do anything good since they aren't taking up much space or going to do severe damage. If it is a pest species then maybe monitoring it's location and making sure it doesn't cause havoc apart from that I cannot see any reason to kill animals if they might actually help us someway in the future.


  • 0

#67 overtone

overtone

    Protist

  • Senior Members
  • 921 posts

Posted 4 September 2013 - 05:25 PM

We are just now, after several tens of thousands of years of investigation into the uses of the relatively few minerals on this planet (an entire "stone age" of human civilization, for starters)  getting a hint of the possible value to us of formerly mere decorations such as rubies or dull and unimpressive stuff such as germanium.

 

That was assuming, of course, that decoration and enjoyment and entertainment are not valuable to humans - one wonders whether the people who find the variety of beings on the planet a hindrance to their plans would draw the line at getting rid of the hummingbirds, and if so why.

 

There are a lot more different living beings on this planet than there are different kinds of rock. And we have been investigating them carefully for much less time.

 

I'm not sure what the agenda for human life would be, that was hampered rather than enhanced by great variety in other living beings. 

 

The image I have is of an illiterate janitor finding the books in the library shelves a hindrance to efficient dusting, and throwing them out.


Edited by overtone, 4 September 2013 - 05:29 PM.

  • 0

#68 traviscoty

traviscoty

    Lepton

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 8 September 2013 - 02:00 AM

Heres a thing to think about.

 

The house cat before becoming demesticated was most likely considered to be a pest. Then agriculture started and the cats were excellent at keeping the rodent population down.

 

But then in the black plague started and people killed dogs and cats because they thought they were helping to spread the disease and they helped the disease spread by killing off the rats predators.

 

Another example; We are forces to hunt deer because we killed off the wolves.

 

If you kill off the top predator then you create an explosion of the prey item which in turn over eats on its prey item (including plants) In the case of the deer it is the farmers crops it over eats on.

 

 


  • 1

#69 BusaDave9

BusaDave9

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 114 posts
  • LocationDurango, Colorado USA

Posted 6 October 2013 - 02:51 AM

WOW

I don't know what to say. Hard to believe there are people like Dekan that think any animal that doesn't benifit mankind should be exterminated? ! ? !

One big city over the world? Animals only in parks if they are harmless like ducks in a pond?

That would be hell. I live in Colorado. I love getting out into the mountains and into the "wilderness". There really isn't much wilderness left. I hope to see lots of wild animals when I'm out. Animals such as bear, wolfs and if I'm lucky mountain lions. There is very little danger. No animal hunts down humans for prey.

We humans have overpopulated this world. Earth needs more wilderness.


  • 0

#70 Endy0816

Endy0816

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 441 posts
  • LocationOrlando

Posted 6 October 2013 - 04:07 AM

I base my actions on how much of the modern support system I have access to. Don't kill unnecessarily, but be willing to kill if your own survival depends on it.

 

 

Broadly speaking we need other life  to provide us with novel genetic variations. No easy way to simulate it all, nor see the compound interactions that occur as a result.

 

Other life can act as a disease vector, but our own farm animals are some of the worst threats. We could eliminate that risk at present and will, literally, have more palatable options in the future. I don't see that as a viable reason.


  • 0

Site look up

 

 


#71 BusaDave9

BusaDave9

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 114 posts
  • LocationDurango, Colorado USA

Posted 6 October 2013 - 11:32 AM

Broadly speaking we need other life  to provide us with novel genetic variations.

 

So your stance is that the whole world with all it's wildlife are only here for our enjoyment. It any animal does not bring us enjoyment or food it has no purpose?


  • 0

#72 Endy0816

Endy0816

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 441 posts
  • LocationOrlando

Posted 6 October 2013 - 02:29 PM

 

So your stance is that the whole world with all it's wildlife are only here for our enjoyment. It any animal does not bring us enjoyment or food it has no purpose?

 

 

No, my stance is that other species are here for their own sake. We should keep them around to help ensure our own survival.

 

More than reasonable considering it includes every genome on the planet.


  • 0

Site look up

 

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users