they had disappeared from the earth
FYI, 99% of ALL species that EVER existed on this Earth are now extinct.
Furthermore, at what cost should the protection of species be? The extinction of humans?
Furthermore, at what cost should the protection of species be? The extinction of humans?
We could atleast keep some DNA samples of all animals ready just in case they become extinct. Then, if we feel like, we can bring them back to life. Believe me, the technology exists - it's just thta it is too costly and error prone to use practically now.
And about the cost being the extinction of humans, think about how the animals are becoming extinct. Habitat destruction, pollution, hunting , food scarcity, ...
Finally these problems will start affecting us humans also. The weakest (in terms of adapting) animals died first - that's all. If we don't stop this, finally - we'll become extinct.
And about the cost being the extinction of humans, think about how the animals are becoming extinct. Habitat destruction, pollution, hunting , food scarcity, ...
Finally these problems will start affecting us humans also. The weakest (in terms of adapting) animals died first - that's all. If we don't stop this, finally - we'll become extinct.
that's the same logic that tree-huggers use to say that hunters are evil.. whereas the reality is that conservation groups (also known as rod & gun clubs) do the vast majority of grassroots support for wildlife, and certain species of animals are propagating specifically through the help of those organizations
often the facts go against common logic.. such as the case with the Alaskan pipeline.. critics argued that it would destroy the environment and animals would suffer.. in reality, the pipeline has provided protection and refuge for many species.. the caribou population has exploded since it was built
with a few known exceptions (passenger pigeons, bison, etc), man has done at least as much for the welfare of animals as he has done to hurt their species.. I for one, do not feel it necessary to take on the guilt of various extinctions.. the rule of nature is either adapt or become extinct.. man has to follow that same rule.. why should animals be put above us?
often the facts go against common logic.. such as the case with the Alaskan pipeline.. critics argued that it would destroy the environment and animals would suffer.. in reality, the pipeline has provided protection and refuge for many species.. the caribou population has exploded since it was built
with a few known exceptions (passenger pigeons, bison, etc), man has done at least as much for the welfare of animals as he has done to hurt their species.. I for one, do not feel it necessary to take on the guilt of various extinctions.. the rule of nature is either adapt or become extinct.. man has to follow that same rule.. why should animals be put above us?
| JoeFriday wrote: |
| why should animals be put above us? |
Because they are superior to us.
Not in inteligence, no, but there are other, more important qualities.
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
Because they are superior to us. Not in inteligence, no, but there are other, more important qualities. |
You're starting to freak me out. How about an example of how they're superior to us and deserve to live more than we do?
Oh, wait, that's you'r 1,666th post. that explains it.
| FunDa wrote: |
| We could atleast keep some DNA samples of all animals ready just in case they become extinct. Then, if we feel like, we can bring them back to life.
|
What makes you think they should be brought back? Perhaps they're gone because Mother Nature was done with them?
 |