Community >> View Post
·
Post By
neil

In Reply To
The Black Guardian

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 08:14:56 pm EST
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 06:51:04 pm EST

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.
____________________





> Left unchecked, other animals will cause all kinds of collateral damage.

Generally, no, this is untrue. Evolution is a system of ecological balance, not one of imminent crisis. And change happens so slowly that, except in the case of global environmental catastrophe, the status quo will remain the status quo for thousands or millions of years. Sure, animals will cause all kinds of damage if 'left unchecked' - but since ecosystems have evolved over such a long period of time to take the shape that they have, those checks have been in place for a long time and are only easily disrupted or altered in the case of disaster.

But I digress. You're quite confident that this is true, so can you give me your examples?

> 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.

But evolution is slow-moving and the changes it introduces tend to be rather minute; humans are an extinction-level event, and this is neither slow-moving nor minute. So the logic simply can't be appropriated in this way.

And as for 'evening themselves out'? That won't matter if we don't leave viable ecosystems behind.

-neil
neil's blog


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 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