walrusman

I find it interesting that everybody wants to save cute fluffy animals about to go extinct, but I don't see anybody rescuing the endangered insect species going extinct almost daily. Also, we don't drive species extinct because of sport / fun killing. That's silly. Again, we might drive the nail in the coffin because of it, but if a particular animal's numbers are so low that the relatively small number of inbred murderous hillbilly's can kill them into extinction, then they were on the way out anyway. I will also add, that ethical hunting has actually increased the numbers of game animals. In Oklahoma, about a decade ago, you could only shoot one Buck and one doe. Now, I think it's 3 bucks and 5 does, or something crazy like that. Because they've done such a good job at managing the wildlife, they've increased their numbers almost too much. They are even allowing crossbow hunting during bow season, trying to get the population down. This is completely paid for by hunters. Everytime you buy a tag, a license..etc - that money goes to fund the wildlife management. Ethical hunters are usually lovers of wildlife and outdoors.

This is ridiculous. The earth and space is just as volatile now as it was before we got here. When we didn't know a comet from a microwave things were just fine. As soon as mankind sniffs around and learns a little about the world around him, everybody wants to cry the sky is falling. Yes yellowstone could blow - or not for another 100,000 years. Yes a comet could hit us...or not for another 100 million years. They aren't predictions...they're dramatic overtures by bored scientists... And the human race is great. In fact, mankind is freaking awesome. Don't fall for that anti-human self loathing crap...

Are you as gung-ho about saving endangered icky little insects? Or is all of this "caring" just limited to cute fuzzy things that make us laugh? Or animals that remind us of ourselves? I couldn't disagree more. Fragile? It's only fragile if you want it to stay status quo - then yeah I'd agree that's a precarious balance. But life has been here for billions of years and hasn't been stopped yet. Ecological systems change and seemingly adapt to the change in evironment. It's the players that get swapped out.

Tampering? Not sure I agree with that. I know nothing about why they are shot is why I say that. If it's just for sick fun, then tampering I guess would be a good word for it. And I did say early on that we shouldn't do that... Of course, I'm only agreeing with this because I don't think we want the Bonobo going out of existence because of our lust for sport hunting. But my premise remains the same. They really should be extinct. They're low in numbers because they are not fit to survive in the present conditions.

Yes, luck does have a part to play just like I said in the quote of mine that you used for your post. But AzurePhoenix is all wrapped up in splitting hairs with me about my phrasing, like "nature" is a concious being or something. It's all about weak and strong, not man's ideas of right and wrong - that's my point. And the whole point I've been trying to make is that just because you all "feel" like you know alot about nature, doesn't mean you know what you're doing enough to tamper with it. I can see why you are interpreting it that way, but that's not what I mean. I mean it very simply. If you are alive, then apparently you have survived the "Survival of the Fittest" challenge, if you will, up to this moment. If you are dead, then obviously you are supposed to be dead. Otherwise, you would have been superior to whatever challenge took you out. I'm just stating the obvious. That's what is so funny about all of this.

Chance? There is indeed chance, but I doubt an antelope has a "chance" of fighting off a hungry lion. Between survival and natural selection, the fittest prevail. Not the luckiest. Talk about twisted theologies... Why not care? We can care. We can care enough to leave it well enough alone. I think I made that point several times. As for the rest...I've grown tired of the same old human loathing poetry. It doesn't hold water...

Well I didn't say I'd like it or accept it, but then it's not up to me. Without man's law, that's probably a likely reality in a way, and in that case the patients would deserve to die since they obviously can't beat their attackers. The funny part about all of this is I'm just repeating an already accepted norm of science. Survival of the fittest. The problem is, all of you want to leave humans out of it. Just because we're really smart doesn't mean we're not animals and part of this whole thing. Other animals wouldn't lose a second of sleep over eating the last beating heart of a given species, but somehow we humans are just beside ourselves about it. Well, it's actually sweet. We care. But that doesn't mean we know better than nature. Part of this is very philosophical in that I don't question our behavior so much because we don't understand the big picture. We don't know why we're here or anything, so how do we know what SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be done? Maybe our job is to plunder this planet and cause the great extinction. Maybe we're the proverbial meteor - just more selective. Or maybe not... For this reason, I choose to do it nature's way. If they're endangered, let them die.

In reverence to man's law I will seek and deserve protection in that context. In the context of survival of the fittest, however I do not. If I deserve to live, then I'll somehow defeat those hunters. If I deserve to die, then I won't. Nature doesn't care about right and wrong - just weak and strong. Well let's put that in perspective. If there's few enough of these animals BEFORE we start shooting them, then it's not really humans that drive them to extinction. We may be putting the nail in the coffin, but their numbers should have been such that our murderous frenzy didn't wipe them out. If it did, then they deserve to die and obviously would have anyway since their numbers were down to that point in the first place. However, if their numbers were up and we started killing them to the point they are almost extinct - then that is quite a slaughter which implies money and survival. Don't think that killing animals for their skin or other parts, and selling them isn't survival. It most certainly is. Money buys food, clothing and shelter. Just because we don't have four legs and eat meat raw in a field doesn't mean we didn't kill for survival. And in that case, they deserve to be extinct since we just flat out absorbed them. Although I wouldn't feel too proud about it.

This is as much a philosophical argument as a scientific one. And what great scientific argument have you made here? Some weak reference to animal intelligence that we can learn from? Where's the science that you eluded to, that I did not? I don't see it. I think you have an ideological agenda yourself. Everyone thinks we should poke around and interfere with nature because of our noble intention. I'm simply questioning that logic since we are all just stupid humans. Nature is far more complex than any of you are giving it credit for. We've been here for millions of years and only recently decoded the human genome. Just because we can build fancy tools and learn stuff, doesn't mean we can now APPLY what we've learned on the animal kingdom. I think if a species is meant to be exinct, then let it go. It's probably for a good reason. If it deserved to live, it would be alive. That's nature's law. I trust nature far more than any man ( or woman ). I've seen what man does when he thinks he's got something figured out...much like the posts I've seen from some of you.

Geez there's a bunch to reply to. I'm doing my best but I can't argue with everybody - haha! Much simpler. If an animal deserves to live, it will be alive.

How do you know? Can you guess the future? Maybe we need to be altered as well. Maybe the gradual global warming is happening at a rate that our evolution can adapt to, and later humans will be built for higher tempatures. And maybe that's in preparation for a new foundation of life on this planet that helps propel humans to the next level. Or maybe we don't have a role in the future. I'm just making this up, because the point I'm trying to make is that you don't know that your interference is good or bad. Of course, you think it's good. But then so did the scientists who started playing with nature and transported species from one continent to another only to find themselves overwhelmed with overpopulation problems. Nature knows what it's doing, I simply have faith and trust in that. Afterall, life's been around a long long time before we ever came along. No one here to babysit the weak and help the doomed species of earth until we popped up. We are just another animal, poking and proding trying to figure stuff out. I believe there are too many variables for us to be playing that role. We could doom ourselves early because we don't understand ENOUGH about the effects of what we do or don't do. Of course, I guess that would be fate then too. I simply believe the closest interpretation to mother nature's intent, is instict.

I was sticking with the issue. That was just a colorful way of saying that we are all guilty of these things - if you want to call it guilt. All of us are typing on computers in controlled environments where hundreds or thousands of living things USED to live. There is no reason for the elaborate housing we choose to dwell in. But we do it anyway, don't we? If it's natural for us to go on a serial killing spree of the entire animal kingdom, then I guess that's the way it rolls huh? Look, we group up and form civilizations and establish rules and we should enforce those rules in reverance of that. But no one here can tell me why we're here. What's the big plan? Is there a big plan at all? No, I don't think it's necessarily productive to preserve a species that nature is trying to exterminate. Did you ever think that it might be catastrophic to preserve a particular dying species? A dying species that will threaten the foundation of another species due to come into existence in the future? Perhaps after our time here? We can go all day at this, but at the end of the day, only mother nature knows what she's doing. And the only communication we get from her...is instinct. I also said that humans have the capacity to override their instinctual behavior. I question how often we SHOULD do that. I didn't say never. I didn't say always. Damaging the environment is intictive because it's only damage to the eyes of the beholder. When someone pours a concrete slab, I see damage - they see construction. When someone trims their lawn up to a park like setting - I see damage (since most wildlife needs cover), they see progress. Of course it's instinct to modify our environment. We all do it without question everyday. Rearranging your furniture, putting in a flower bed...changing your environment - damage to one, progress to another.

Ok, now think about this... What would the Bonobo do if nobody cared about it? Would it still deserve to survive? You're basically saying it deserves to survive because you think it's really cool and stuff. There's probably countless species of animals that have alot to teach us but have since become extinct, perhaps by our behavior or perhaps not. But we're still here, alive and kicking. They are not because they don't deserve to be here. Life isn't a right, it's earned. There are no rules and no referees. Cheaters win too. Sucks huh?

No, I'm not claiming that. Much simpler actually. I'll leave the diversity of speciation to the expert - mother nature. I'm just saying that if you're the fittest, then you'll survive. Personally I think it's sick for people to kill for sport or money. You should only kill what you eat. I also think it's sad for a lion to chase down the wounded, sick antelope. But those are the thoughts of animals that empathize and have pity. Not the thoughts of nature. I realize we're at the top of the food chain, at least the local one, and we have the unique ability to reason and change our instinctive behavior. However, instinct should never be underestimated. There's usually a good reason for it. For whatever reason, we like to kill. We kill each other, we kill other animals - half the time just for fun. But I can't really take you seriously when you sit there in your air conditioned room, over a concrete slab most likely, judging mankind and big business for lack of habitat. Besides, we don't take up that much space. That's another tired old argument. When's the last time you've taken a road trip? Seen a satellite snap shot of Earth? Green all over the place. I don't see any concrete in those pictures. All this human bashing just sounds like poetry to me. People love hating themselves. Just like Hollywood liberalism. They love to feel guilty about being rich.

Ummm...I don't agree. If idiots shoot them, then they're not surviving are they? How is it any different if a human kills something or some other predator? I'm not suggesting that the Bonobo is hunted by any other predator than the idiots you mentioned, but an idiot is still a predator and if it can't survive then I guess that's destiny. Sure, we humans can change our behavior and save some species, and perhaps we should, as in the case of the Bonobo, but I'm tired of getting left out of the nature equation. We are animals. We eat other animals and we flourish doing what comes natural to us. If species become extinct because of our actions, then perhaps they were supposed to be exterminated. Maybe that's our role here. What makes you think they deserve to survive?

Well I googled it and found several entries on the subject. http://www.well.com/~davidu/extinction.html That particular page reads a little alarmist to me. I never trust anything put in bold letters with exclamation points on the end. But, I heard a few years ago a mass extinction was underway because we were losing an exponential amount of species per day. ( I'd sure like to know how they figure that out... ) And of course, the trend is that humans are bad and we plunder everything and blah blah blah. Too bad the rest of the animal kingdom doesn't feel sorry for itself and blame itself for it's behavior.

Thanks for all of the replies. You all have given me plenty to consider as I move forward with this. Now, I'm going to need some astronomical help...

Well, maybe I'm heartless but I don't worry about what's becoming extinct. If they're becoming extinct, then they should be. That's how this thing works. By the way, aren't we in the middle of a mass extinction right now?

Actually quite close. Yes, the scientific experience is there, just no resources in which to exercise it. I need for humans to NOT be able to build machines, weapons, computers and etc. So, I thought the lack of material would be a good way to do that and still have a believable timeline of several thousand years to work with. Thing is, I'm not very knowledgable about this stuff and humans are very persistent, so I'm not sure we couldn't find a way to mine the iron and minerals out of vegetation to make our metals - no matter how ridiculously difficult that might be.

Ok, so for 200,000 years or more we, humans, remained wood, bone, rock specialists with not much advancement in technology over that time before we somehow discovered iron and copper and leaped into the future. Have I got that right? Ok, so my question is...did we stay idle for 200,000 years because of our lack of intelligence and inquisitive nature necessary for the discovery of such minerals? Or...?

Wow...I'm thrilled with the replies so far. Ok, I guess what I have in mind is more of a fantastical setting, where humans are far more spread out over a much larger planet, if you will. I need for hundreds of years to go by without the "ability" for mankind to be able to make so much as a light bulb. I would rather that be because of no material with which to make it. The thing is, humans are persistant and resourceful and can make just about anything work given enough thought and enginuity. So, I'm wondering how effective the lack of certain minerals would be in keeping humans from being able to use electricity and build machines or any of that.

I'm writing a book and I need to know if the absence of Iron, copper, or other minerals would hold the human civilization back in terms of industry, weapons, machinery and electricity. I would think without the basic building blocks for our various metals, mankind would still be relegated to the proverbial "bush", without any electricity, machinery or any of that good stuff. Am I wrong here?