Community >> View Post
·
Post By
fan4

In Reply To
The Black Guardian

Subj: Last time I checked, animals don't contribute to pollutions. Humans do that.
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 at 06:02:12 pm CST
Reply Subj: Re: Yes, we do eat to live. I wouldn't want to kill off an entire species though....
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 at 05:51:04 pm CST

Previous Post

> > Species were dying out long before mankind got here. They will
> > continue to die out long after we're gone. It doesn't really make a
> > difference, as long as it isn't mine.
>
> Well, yes and no. The above statement is true, but it ignores the
> fact that humans have a bigger effect on *changing* their environment
> than any other species and, more importantly, that overall humans
> take way more than they give back. And way more than they need.
> Others species don't hoard like that, or waste like humans do.
>
> Harkening back to the above example, if a tiger is hungry it goes and
> kills something and eats it. Humans, to get their food, kill not
> only what they eat, but cause all kinds of collateral damage. Farms
> drive all kinds of other animals away from their homes and eliminate
> their food. Harvesting crops kills burrowing animals. etc. etc.

I'm not ignoring any of that, but I just think that's part of the nature of the beast. There's nothing morally wrong with killing animals for food, clothing, or shelter. Left unchecked, other animals will cause all kinds of collateral damage. Not as severe as humans, but still severe.

And if a species can't cope with it, then it's just evolution being the unkind lady she is. Things will eventually even themselves out when the ecosystem can't support the extisting number of humans. In the meantime, I'm going to eat, drink, be merry, and live as a top-of-the-food-chain should.
____________________





> > > Species were dying out long before mankind got here. They will
> > > continue to die out long after we're gone. It doesn't really make a
> > > difference, as long as it isn't mine.
> >
> > Well, yes and no. The above statement is true, but it ignores the
> > fact that humans have a bigger effect on *changing* their environment
> > than any other species and, more importantly, that overall humans
> > take way more than they give back. And way more than they need.
> > Others species don't hoard like that, or waste like humans do.
> >
> > Harkening back to the above example, if a tiger is hungry it goes and
> > kills something and eats it. Humans, to get their food, kill not
> > only what they eat, but cause all kinds of collateral damage. Farms
> > drive all kinds of other animals away from their homes and eliminate
> > their food. Harvesting crops kills burrowing animals. etc. etc.
>
> I'm not ignoring any of that, but I just think that's part of the nature of the beast. There's nothing morally wrong with killing animals for food, clothing, or shelter. Left unchecked, other animals will cause all kinds of collateral damage. Not as severe as humans, but still severe.
>
> And if a species can't cope with it, then it's just evolution being the unkind lady she is. Things will eventually even themselves out when the ecosystem can't support the extisting number of humans. In the meantime, I'm going to eat, drink, be merry, and live as a top-of-the-food-chain should.

What kind of person are you, to want to destroy natural habitats?! Don't you care about this world we live in at all?!

>
>
>


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software