PETA and HSUS

[SamuraiSid]

The problem is not just Fox or people, who get their information from Fox. The problem is that US became so goddamn right shifted in the last two decades, even the so called "non-biased centrist media" spews inaccurate BS on a regular basis. Due to this TV based uneducation, it is seen quite normal to make decisions, which has worldwide implications, based on a book that was written thousands of years ago by a bunch of uneducated peasants. Science is only there to make money and unless it helps to make money, it is disregarded utterly.

Spot on.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/


Yesterday your breakfast cereal had anti-oxidants, tomorrow it will be gluten-free and early next week it will come with a double serving of magic pixie dust. All based upon, "peer reviewed, scientific research."

I agree with the majority of what Snark is saying, but his acceptable and understandable attack on Fox News is where I deviate.


The root cause of all the **** we are discussing, all the tangents, is our flawed system of government. And yeah, Im putting Canada in the same boat as the USA. In terms of good and bad, Canada isnt as far along the dark path as USA, but our politicians and corporations have a love affair with the excessively capitalist system.

Right now in Canada, Half of our Senators are embroiled in controversy. They get $135,000 a year and a pension that makes your average Canadians jaw to touch the floor. On top of this, many make hundreds of thousands of dollars serving on corporate boards. Ms. Wallin served on three seperate boards to the tune of $1,000,000 in board funds and stock options.

According to the Ethics Commisioner, serving on these boards is not a conflict of interest. From the Senators themselves, they believe that they have the right to make additional income. They believe that serving on corporate boards will keep them up to date with current corporate trends, and will not produce a biased effect.... Like the time Prime Minister Martin gave east coast freight companies huge tax cuts, which they used to increase fleet size AND produce more profits for share holders. Yes, Mr. Martin was a major shareholder. But this wasnt a conflict of interest.

We all grow up with some understanding of morals. Right and Wrong. Well, as it turns out when you become a politician youre handed a rule book which provides a different set of morals to be followed. This rule book is designed to protect the status quo. Not to benefit the country or the people.



So when Im a politician, earning double the average household income WITH a guaranteed pension (Something average Canadians are well aware they wont be able to say after 2020), I have a right to work other jobs and make a ton of money. However, since I have obligations outside the senate, I need to make some sacrifices. For example, instead of talking to the people, talking to the corporations and scientists, which will affect my opinion on legislation. I only have 30 minutes before my next board meeting. So that will give me time to meet with one lobbyist, get a lapdance, shake his hand and head off.

And yeah, lobbyists buy lapdances for politicians all the time. Unfortunately lobbyists dont work directly for the corporations they are lobbying for, so you cant prove a conflict of interest or corruption.

When Rob Ford admits to buying illegal narcotics, within the time since he started serving as mayor... Thats it. Nothing has happened. If you or I were to admit under oath that we did Cocaine, we would be thrown in jail, period. LETS PROTECT THE STATUS QUO!!!



In BC, There are several organizations whos sole objective is the welfare of aboriginal children. They are in a lot of trouble after it has been found out that the government hands them money, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, and some of these organizations dont handle a single case.... And yet the consultants, people whos job description is, "WORK CASES", still get paid.



I recall getting into an arguement with a friend of mine right out of high school. She was planning on getting a masters in environment sciences, and me, being a contrarian had something to argue:sarcasm: I said the facts dont back up Kyoto, and it doesnt make sence for Canada to buy carbon credits from the Russians just to stay in target. How about we spend that money on Canadian researchers, to research how to reduce pollution. She told me the facts dont matter, and Kyoto is a fantastic device to raise awareness. Come to think of it, I bet she belongs to PETA now.

The facts dont matter. Lets look at Tarantula Care Sheets as an example. For the most part, our community thinks they are an awful form of information. Fomr my personal perspective, they simplify and dumb down the information so that it can be easily absorbed by the largest number of people. However, it is simplified to the point the information should be considered incorrect. We live in a time where our ability to gather information, far outweights our minds ability to assimilate the information. Ever hear the term, "Headline reader" it refers to the fact that most North Americans read the headlines, skim the stories and derive simple opinions, based upon one sensationalised sentence, regarding a complex situation. Politicians are no different!

You can find simplified 1 page documents, in point form, telling you how to properly care for a plethora of exotic animals. Animals which scientists spend years and years and years in school just so they can properly study them. This information cannot be properly scaled down. This is the same problem we have in Politics.




One final note, I recall a time when the words Guerilla and Terrorist were not interchangeable. Dont read to much into this, Im a pacifist.

 

[viper69]

The problem is not just Fox or people, who get their information from Fox. The problem is that US became so goddamn right shifted in the last two decades, even the so called "non-biased centrist media" spews inaccurate BS on a regular basis. Due to this TV based uneducation, it is seen quite normal to make decisions, which has worldwide implications, based on a book that was written thousands of years ago by a bunch of uneducated peasants. Science is only there to make money and unless it helps to make money, it is disregarded utterly.

On top of this, repealing Glass-Steagall act destroyed your economics (with the world economy in tow) , Citizens United killed the idea of an independent politician and Homeland Security Act destroyed your freedom. As a person, who has spend about 1/3rd of his life in the Pacific Northwest, I am sad to see USA in this shape.

You and I both!! It's quite disgusting. Basic science in the USA hasn't been popular since the 1960s. Everything you say is very true. The portion you wrote about science/money at least in the USA, is typically believed by conservatives. They typically have a very, very short sighted view on financial investment when it comes to scientific research and what those findings should be used for.

The funny thing about Jesus Christ, is that he was a radical in his time, spouting all manner of crazy thoughts. BUT, even more interesting, is that he wasn't the only one. There were many other men living in the same region that were spouting as much radical ideas as he was. But for some reason, JC's ideas caught on. I like history, and it would be fascinating to see what were the events that enabled JC to become popular and not some of the others that lived during his time. I wish I could remember the title of the history book that was published a few years ago which examines all the radicals including JC.

---------- Post added 11-17-2013 at 03:58 PM ----------

We live in a time where our ability to gather information, far outweights our minds ability to assimilate the information. Ever hear the term, "Headline reader" it refers to the fact that most North Americans read the headlines, skim the stories and derive simple opinions, based upon one sensationalised sentence, regarding a complex situation. Politicians are no different!

You can find simplified 1 page documents, in point form, telling you how to properly care for a plethora of exotic animals. Animals which scientists spend years and years and years in school just so they can properly study them. This information cannot be properly scaled down. This is the same problem we have in Politics.

That's why they are called "Care Sheets", not Care Compendiums. I don't disagree that some care sheets, be there printed or on the web, are misleading the consumer in how easy some pets can be. However, like any resource, one must consider the source, intended audience and equally as important intended purpose of the material. There is value in care sheets, just like there is value in this web site.

I had no idea Canadians made so much so much in their government! Just like the USA! The truth is capitalism exists in all countries, yes even China and Russia. Unfortunately, in the USA there is nothing to balance out capitalism like there is Western Europe. I've never felt the USA or Europe had all the right answers themselves, but a healthy blend of both would be better I think than either system. That would be a better "grand experiment" as they like to call the USA at times.

 

[The Snark]

Appropo

"We realize, clear thinking scientists that we are, that the world is governed by illiterates. You would scarcely credit it but there is rarely a politician in the world with the simplest grasp of biology. Most of them don't even understand how their own kidneys function, let alone anything more complex. Mention a word like ecology and they think you are referring to some obscure foreign statesman. Biology to them means the elementary sex instructions they received in secondary school. So is it to be wondered at that the last people our rulers ever consult are the appropriate scientists until they have made a thorough mish mash of the situation? Then they come crying to us like a child with a broken toy, asking us to mend it."

-Gerald Durrell - The Mockery Bird-

 

[Galapoheros]

Spot on.


The root cause of all the **** we are discussing, all the tangents, is our flawed system of government. And yeah, Im putting Canada in the same boat as the USA. In terms of good and bad, Canada isnt as far along the dark path as USA, but our politicians and corporations have a love affair with the excessively capitalist system.

Right now in Canada, Half of our Senators are embroiled in controversy. They get $135,000 a year and a pension that makes your average Canadians jaw to touch the floor. On top of this, many make hundreds of thousands of dollars serving on corporate boards. Ms. Wallin served on three seperate boards to the tune of $1,000,000 in board funds and stock options.

According to the Ethics Commisioner, serving on these boards is not a conflict of interest. From the Senators themselves, they believe that they have the right to make additional income. They believe that serving on corporate boards will keep them up to date with current corporate trends, and will not produce a biased effect.... Like the time Prime Minister Martin gave east coast freight companies huge tax cuts, which they used to increase fleet size AND produce more profits for share holders. Yes, Mr. Martin was a major shareholder. But this wasnt a conflict of interest.

I don't see this as capitalism though, this is corruption that pops up in any gov system. I think corruption has just as much opportunity to get in a system dominated by the left, and big gov, left or right, leaves the public with less avenues to do something about it. Yeah, I think it's just gotten too big, the party systems don't seem to matter much today imo. "Liberal" used to mean free, today it seems to be big bro watching, more taxes, but we don't see much change. Conservatism used to mean conserving our freedoms, but today the public seems to associate it with keeping things the same all the time, political conservatism doesn't have to do with social conservatism, they are two diff things. I'm getting too distracted again, easy to do in a thread like this.

 

[Mister Internet]

Thanks for taking the time to reply thoughtfully... I have a final on Saturday, so please don't mistake brevity for "attitude"...

I do not think animals and humans are morally equivalent. Humans are an animal, but we are a very unique and, dare I say, unnatural, animal. Humans alone have the capacity for morality. Humans alone have expanded far beyond environments that are suitable for their survival in a natural state. Humans alone can drastically alter the entire planet. Humans alone have figured out how to leave earth. We are not the same as other animals. We have much greater capabilities and understanding, and therefore more responsibility.

First of all, the concept of an "unnatural animal" is definitionally and rationally incoherent. If we are animal, our existence, our capabilities, our capacities, and our track record are all, by evolutionary necessity, "natural". We evolved to have bigger brains, use the resources of the planet in novel ways, and invent hundred of ways to kill large amounts of organisms at will. There is something a bit dishonest about trying to separate our mechanical, industrial, and moral capabilities from our biological identities as a sort of 'weak, naked ape', isn't there? Cats kill for fun... but we're not allowed to kill for fun? Why is that? Simply because we can kill better and grander?

Also, who decided that greater understanding mandates greater responsibility (I'm assuming you mean this axiom is in play of necessity, not just due to Stan Lee's coining the phrase)? It sounds nice to say, but how is this an actual mandate on sentient beings? There seems to be NO correlating "degrees of responsibility" with degrees of development among higher mammals. On the contrary, some of the highest mammal species are some of the most wasteful and wanton. You're saying they should know better? If not, when does the line get crossed from "extremely high-functioning mammal" to "ok, now you have a moral conscience, stop being a douche"?

We all make at least one assumption in our world view: that any of this is real. I don't think you'll find any atheist who would agree that there is no morality. You might find a psycho who uses that philosophy to justify his actions, though. The atheists that I know all agree that there is morality, but stop short of calling it absolute or universal. I think we can all agree that, for example, pleasure is preferable to suffering. That's universal. The origin of this sentiment doesn't matter. It works, so we've stuck with it. For social animals like humans there is a sense of right and wrong that is inborn. Dogs, ants, elephants and humans have codes of conduct that govern our social behavior, and these can change. Society itself evolves, and with it our ideas about what is and is not acceptable.

This is completely incongruous with our every day experiences, though. You would care a great deal if I decided to burn your house down. But if the sum total of reason against me doing such a thing were an assortment of "social behaviors", that's hardly compelling. It's compelling if I want to live in proximity to YOU, maybe, but if it's not a mandate that lives one level above the western social construct we both happen to find ourselves in, then how does its moral import even pertain? NO ONE lives their everyday lives as if they REALLY believe that there isn't universal morality... even those who vehemently deny it.

Your bald assertions about pleasure > suffering as a universal is easily disproved. Because "it works"? For whom does it work? Pleasure is nothing more than a biochemical response to ostensibly non-noxious stimuli, so it's hardly repeatable in any rigorous way, across a population.

Besides, what is the point of discovering good or bad actions anyway, if societies can evolve past it?

As I said, I am an atheist but I was raised in a Christian family. I was taught that God gave humans dominion over the earth and told us to eat and wear animals. Isaiah 51:6 says "the earth will wear out like a garment." These are the defenses my mother and sister give when I ask how they justify their disregard for nature and animals. As an atheist, I don't have permission from a deity to destroy the planet. Earth is, to our knowledge, an experiment without a control. This is a unique planet with a unique system that has given rise to unique inhabitants. We don't know how our actions will change this system. From a purely selfish perspective, the things we are doing may threaten our species and way of life. We know for sure that we are already drastically changing individual ecosystems and locations.

Again, who cares? That's nice that YOU care, but the fact that you FEEL we shouldn't be wanton with the Earth isn't even remotely an argument in favor of an obligatory responsibility we've somehow unfortunately obtained by virtue of developing into symbolic reasoning. You are treating the imperative that we should care for the Earth as a statement OF something made BY someone. Otherwise, from whence has it come, and how can everyone be said to be obligated to it?

What you want here is a full blown discussion of secular morality. Why do atheists not kill anyone they want? How do we know how to be good? It goes back to social constructs and self-interest, in my opinion. If I'm known for being a thief, I'll be excluded. That sucks for me, so it's better that I behave myself, no? Also, again, we all kind of agree on the basics of what is and isn't good. We obviously disagree on the specifics, but usually it takes a religion to make people really screwed up.

We all kind of agree... isn't that curious. It's almost like... nahh.....

In your definition, "good" isn't a known quantity, it's merely a subjective value judgement by societal peers or tribesmen. In such a case, "good" things and "bad" things aren't that way inherently, but 100% in virtue of the values assigned them by our society or tribesmen. If something isn't "good" inherently, you really don't have any tools in your toolbag to tell me I'm WRONG when I do "bad" things, other than the threat of retribution by the society that decided it didn't like such actions... but that doesn't make it WRONG, it merely makes it not tolerated in a particulate set of circumstances.

On YOUR definition, I can't say "Rape is wrong". I mean, I can SAY it, but I have no means to justify it. About the sternest your definition allows me to be is to threaten lifetime incarceration or capital punishment if I don't agree to behave as if rape is wrong. I can behave as if rape is wrong without ever conceding the premise. And acting as if I believe it's wrong is all your definition requires of me. Actually, that's more than your definition requires, but I'm feeling generous.

I actually have mixed feelings about extinction. Something like 99% of all species to ever exist are now extinct. Extinction is a part of nature. Species that work thrive. Those that are obsolete or ill-suited fade out. That's just how things are. I'm totally ok with giant pandas going extinct. They just aren't cut out for existence. Bye, pandas! What I'm certainly not ok with is humans destroying things almost arbitrarily regardless of how well they perform in the environment they evolved to fit. We don't know the repercussions of these extinctions. They still have a job to do or a niche to fill. To return to an anthropocentric view, who are we to decide which organisms are worthwhile today? For example, my grandmother would wipe out all spiders given the chance. I enjoy spiders personally. They have useful properties medically. They fill an important niche ecologically. She doesn't know or appreciate that. What if the dodo bird droppings could have cured cancer?

Again, who cares? Humans in 10,000 years who might be mad at us because we killed all the spiders? If a species can't stand up to the un-fettered jugernaut of Homo sapiens acting wantonly, a case can be made that it wasn't "cut out for existence". You are trying to have your cake and eat it, too. You can't just assert that pandas aren't "cut out for existence" and therefore aren't worth saving anymore than you can assert that another species IS worth saving. Either we have a responsibility to ameliorate our actions or we don't. If Giant Pandas would have lived one minute longer on this Earth were it not for humans, we've become responsible for them according to the system of moral responsibility you're trying to construct.

Animals try to survive. We are doing WAY more than simply surviving. Again, I don't think we are morally equivalent. We can see the effects of our actions. A beaver doesn't know that it's messing up a stream when it builds a dam. A cat doesn't know it's causing pain to another creature when it kills a mouse. What we are doing is "<edit> where we eat." And we should know better.

Every responsively cognitive mammal can see the results of its actions... it's inherent in the cause-effect and stimulus-response models of the natural world. Just because we can see the effects of our actions, and some of us feel bad about it... how does that create a moral obligation? You're wrapping the discussion with "well, of course" sorts of morally-obligatory language without giving yourself permission to use morally-obligatory language. Your moral relativism doesn't allow you to make a statement like "we should know better".

 

[The Snark]

Mr. Internet, that was an impressive post with several memorable quotes BTW.
I'm sidelining here as much of this entire thread needs rereading but in your, if I may call it rebuttal, and in what Thistles wrote, one aspect of the human condition isn't touched upon and certainly is a salient point. Discerning. The glaring difference between the human animal and the rest is in the ability to make choices. Only the human undertakes pre-meditated actions, bears malice aforethought, and has the brain capability to make alternative decisions.
I would really like to reread your latest post that takes that factor into account.

 

[viper69]

Again, who cares? Humans in 10,000 years who might be mad at us because we killed all the spiders? If a species can't stand up to the un-fettered jugernaut of Homo sapiens acting wantonly, a case can be made that it wasn't "cut out for existence".

Who cares? I do, and there are many people who care. There are species I would have loved to see, but can't, because man caused their extinction.

Re: Your statement of "species can't stand up..."... I think that's pure crap, man introduces things into the environment that are completely "artificial", that is, there's no way a species could have evolved with those pressures, because they didn't exist until man arrived (eg. ships, chemicals,...).

In addition, evolution is a very slow process and when one species' activities decimates populations faster than it can naturally reproduce and evolve, of course those species will go extinct, but that doesn't mean the species wasn't "cut out for existence". The world was finely balanced before man arrived, it has been unbalanced ever since.

 

[The Snark]

Who cares? I do, and there are many people who care. There are species I would have loved to see, but can't, because man caused their extinction.

Re: Your statement of "species can't stand up..."... I think that's pure <edit>, man introduces things into the environment that are completely "artificial", that is, there's no way a species could have evolved with those pressures, because they didn't exist (eg. ships, chemicals,...)

And of course the minor consideration that humans are probably going to join the extinction list due to their avarice, greed, and 'who cares' attitude.

Speaking of avarice and greed. Starbucks just sued a street vendor in Bangkok and won, forcing him to change his business name and the sign:

http://s29.photobucket.com/user/thaiexodus/media/Starbung_zps81bbf678.jpg.html

 

[viper69]

And of course the minor consideration that humans are probably going to join the extinction list due to their avarice, greed, and 'who cares' attitude.

Speaking of avarice and greed. Starbucks just sued a street vendor in Bangkok and won, forcing him to change his business name and the sign:

Exactly, "who cares", shouldn't people be allowed to murder others without consequences. If people can't defend themselves, clearly they haven't evolved to survive. Let the strong survive!

Well if man doesn't get off this planet and destroy another planet, only bacteria will be left, and maybe some insects. Short live span, high reproduction rates, low complexity organisms. It won't be long before there will be another world war, this time over resources. There's a reason why China will never let Tibet be free, and it's about resources.

I can see why they won. But the King of lawsuits is Apple. However to be accurate, I ultimately blame the US Patent Office for being a bunch of dopes and letting an amazing amount of things slide through that shouldn't be patented at all.

 

[cantthinkofone]

I hate HSUS and PETA with a passion. 'nuff said

 

[The Snark]

"Feel intense dislike for. "Loathe, detest, dislike greatly, abhor, abominate, despise, execrate, feel aversion towards, feel revulsion towards, feel hostile towards, be repelled by, be revolted by, regard with disgust, not be able to bear/stand, be unable to stomach, find intolerable, shudder at, recoil from, shrink from."

Wow. That's a whole lot of emotions and energy that, when not properly directed towards the source, is entirely wasted.

 

[Mister Internet]

Who cares? I do, and there are many people who care. There are species I would have loved to see, but can't, because man caused their extinction.

Re: Your statement of "species can't stand up..."... I think that's pure crap, man introduces things into the environment that are completely "artificial", that is, there's no way a species could have evolved with those pressures, because they didn't exist until man arrived (eg. ships, chemicals,...).

In addition, evolution is a very slow process and when one species' activities decimates populations faster than it can naturally reproduce and evolve, of course those species will go extinct, but that doesn't mean the species wasn't "cut out for existence". The world was finely balanced before man arrived, it has been unbalanced ever since.

But don't you see? That's just something you would have preferred... it doesn't MEAN anything, really. I can tell you I would have rather had sushi for lunch today than a ham sandwich, but you're not obligated to make me some when I tell you. In fact, no one is obligated to make me some. Unless, and only if, I can prove that a universal, unchanging, moral law was violated by my not having sushi, I have no just cause to compel anyone to accede my wishes on the matter.

Just because you would have loved to see a live Sabre-toothed cat (believe me, I would too!) doesn't mean that a moral wrong took place in their extinction, even if we caused it. To establish that, you have to prove that preserving all species at all costs through all available means, to detriment of our own species is a universal moral obligation. That's simply impossible of one truly believes in evolution, that's all I'm trying to say. Metaphysics is required to establish things of that nature, and naturalistic/materialistic models don't allow for those things to exist.

And man's pressures on the earth and its species are simply that... new pressures. Some species have adapted, some haven't. Our nuclear bombs and plastics aren't any more "artificial" than a Neaderthal's stone tools.

I think you need to check in with an evolutionary biologist before you go ascribing things to evolution like "fine balance", as evolution is utterly unconcerned with balance, and is completely agnostic to population pressures. Those under pressure will be selected against, or adapt. Full stop. There is no "fine balance" in this view, only degrees of "equilibrium", depending on all extenuating circumstances...

 

[viper69]

But don't you see? That's just something you would have preferred... it doesn't MEAN anything, really. I can tell you I would have rather had sushi for lunch today than a ham sandwich, but you're not obligated to make me some when I tell you. In fact, no one is obligated to make me some. Unless, and only if, I can prove that a universal, unchanging, moral law was violated by my not having sushi, I have no just cause to compel anyone to accede my wishes on the matter.

Just because you would have loved to see a live Sabre-toothed cat (believe me, I would too!) doesn't mean that a moral wrong took place in their extinction, even if we caused it. To establish that, you have to prove that preserving all species at all costs through all available means, to detriment of our own species is a universal moral obligation. That's simply impossible of one truly believes in evolution, that's all I'm trying to say. Metaphysics is required to establish things of that nature, and naturalistic/materialistic models don't allow for those things to exist.

And man's pressures on the earth and its species are simply that... new pressures. Some species have adapted, some haven't. Our nuclear bombs and plastics aren't any more "artificial" than a Neaderthal's stone tools.

I think you need to check in with an evolutionary biologist before you go ascribing things to evolution like "fine balance", as evolution is utterly unconcerned with balance, and is completely agnostic to population pressures. Those under pressure will be selected against, or adapt. Full stop. There is no "fine balance" in this view, only degrees of "equilibrium", depending on all extenuating circumstances...

I understand a lot of what you said, and what you have previously said. I don't necessarily think all of it is incorrect either. I'd prefer a lot of things really as would everyone else. It does mean something, it means I prefer to do/live/think a certain way, and others think like me, while others don't, and others think only some of the same things I do as well. Morality ? what is that?? It is nothing more than something that changes like sand dunes in a desert, it's completely subjective. One empire of people (eg Romans) thought slavery was OK, many years later another empire (eg USA) does too, and then later changes their laws (ie shifting its morality). No one is obligated to do anything actually. No one is obligated to attend a church, to help a person on the side of the road w/a flat tire, to volunteer to help others. But they do those things because they think it's the right thing for them to do, that's all, and neither is right or wrong. Morality is HIGHLY subjective, personal and rarely universal. People who are victims of violent crimes may feel the people who committed those crimes should die by the victim's own hands, others don't. Does that make either side wrong just because a society says it's illegal to do the former (rhetorical question) ?


Which species have adapted to humans destroying the planet? I'd say it's a bit too early to determine that, we haven't been around long enough to study and observe that with any degree of accuracy in my opinion.

I understand your line of thought regarding regarding new pressures, that we are just another species on the planet like all others, creating our own pressure, and other species will live or die. I understand that "top down" line of thought, that we aren't anything different than another species (that's my interpretation of such a line of thought). However, I think there is a danger when viewing these issues in a rather overly simplistic manner. I would completely agree with you if say, all these species developed alongside modern man simultaneously then perhaps sea turtles might actually have evolved in time not to eat plastic, or better yet, man might have found methods to prevent plastic from entering the ocean (as an example). However it didn't happen that way unfortunately, so they really have very little fighting chance of survival.

It's true about nuclear bombs vs stone tools, they are both artificial in the strictest and most simplistic of comparisons. However, their effects are radically different don't you think, surely almost anyone would rather have a stone tool pointed at them, then a nuclear bomb dropped by their house while they are cooking?? I certainly would take my chances with the stone tool, wouldn't you?! They are hardly the same when compared on a "micro-level".


Oh, I wasn't suggesting some religious power/s behind a "fine balance", NOT at all. It's something I that exists as in, it's a fact, there is no doubt a balance on this planet prior to man's arrival, and that balance is out of whack now due to man only. As a small general example, I'll use apex predators. When man wipes out apex predators, there is scientific data which shows the environment that those apex predators lived in definitely does not flourish. The wolf in N. America is a perfect example. In areas out West in the USA where the wolf was hunted to virtual extinction the level of species diversity dramatically dropped. I wish I had the link with the photographs from a national park of the before and after photographs; it's dramatic. That's partly what I meant by a "fine balance". Maybe that helps clear up what I wrote previously.

 

[The Snark]

Which species have adapted to humans destroying the planet?

Apparently, according to some of the postings on this thread, Protectia Dementia, aka PETA has.

 

[viper69]

Apparently, according to some of the postings on this thread, Protectia Dementia, aka PETA has.

There are A LOT of groups, PETA included, which have members that do good and/or mean well (I'm not referring to stars who lend their face/support for publicity) BUT also have members who MAY have good intentions but are doing things that are truly wrong such as putting people's lives in lethal danger. Radicalization can promote positive change, but lately it seems for many groups around the world, it's a method of promoting negativity, some of it lethal, to advance an agenda that is not necessarily a solution for the greater good.

 

[The Snark]

NO! No no no no no no no no no no no! NOT!

There are A LOT of groups, PETA included, which have members that do good and/or mean well (I'm not referring to stars who lend their face/support for publicity) BUT also have members who MAY have good intentions but are doing things that are truly wrong such as putting people's lives in lethal danger. Radicalization can promote positive change, but lately it seems for many groups around the world, it's a method of promoting negativity, some of it lethal, to advance an agenda that is not necessarily a solution for the greater good.

EVERY single person even remotely connected with PETA is EVIL! VILE NASTY! They must be hated! Please reread all the PETA bashings on this thread. Exterminate them all!

 

[PlaidJaguar]

(But please don't tell Americans that. They will start getting all rabidy and foamy about their wonderfulness)

Lol! I was born American, never left the country (except Canada once or twice, which really doesn't count) and even I find our arrogance stifling! Everything that's wrong with the country is the president's fault, and the president is only in office because a few left wing crazies rigged the election. Everything else about America is either perfect or at least better than anything else in the world. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

---------- Post added 11-26-2013 at 08:14 AM ----------

Which species have adapted to humans destroying the planet?

Dogs, cats, crows, pigeons, rats, gophers, coyotes, all manner of insects and arachnids, horses, deer, etc. etc. etc.. I think it would be safe to say that any species considered a "pest" by humans has successfully adapted to our presence, as well as any species that humans consider useful. We find pets and livestock highly beneficial, so all of those species are sitting at a VERY good place population-wise. Not to say we always treat them well, but their numbers are unquestionably above endangered levels.

I understand your line of thought regarding new pressures, that we are just another species on the planet like all others, creating our own pressure, and other species will live or die. I understand that "top down" line of thought, that we aren't anything different than another species (that's my interpretation of such a line of thought). However, I think there is a danger when viewing these issues in a rather overly simplistic manner. I would completely agree with you if say, all these species developed alongside modern man simultaneously then perhaps sea turtles might actually have evolved in time not to eat plastic, or better yet, man might have found methods to prevent plastic from entering the ocean (as an example).

What exactly do you mean "developed alongside modern man simultaneously"? Every living thing on this planet technically developed simultaneously, considering we all started from primordial ooze. Sea turtles aren't new--they have had almost exactly the same amount of time to adapt to plastic as humans have, since we started dumping it in oceans almost the instant we decided it was disposable.

 

[viper69]

Dogs, cats, crows, pigeons, rats, gophers, coyotes, all manner of insects and arachnids, horses, deer, etc. etc. etc.. I think it would be safe to say that any species considered a "pest" by humans has successfully adapted to our presence, as well as any species that humans consider useful. We find pets and livestock highly beneficial, so all of those species are sitting at a VERY good place population-wise. Not to say we always treat them well, but their numbers are unquestionably above endangered levels.



What exactly do you mean "developed alongside modern man simultaneously"? Every living thing on this planet technically developed simultaneously, considering we all started from primordial ooze. Sea turtles aren't new--they have had almost exactly the same amount of time to adapt to plastic as humans have, since we started dumping it in oceans almost the instant we decided it was disposable.

I should have been more clear hahaa..my mistake. I hardly think domesticated animals, and those use as livestock count in this context. I was thinking more along the lines of large apex predators and other large animals. I should have been more clear.

Developed alongside- meaning if man had been on the planet at the beginning with all other species too, man arrived much later after everything else. I never said sea turtles are new, in fact, they are QUITE old, dating back to dinosaurs. You made my point. There was NO plastic in the ocean back then hahaha, they have not had time to adapt to plastic being in the ocean (assuming they even can). On top of that, humans know what plastic is, and turtles don't.

The health of the planet would be better off without humans, that's a fact. The reign of the cockroach is near!

 

[PlaidJaguar]

I never said sea turtles are new, in fact, they are QUITE old, dating back to dinosaurs. You made my point. There was NO plastic in the ocean back then hahaha, they have not had time to adapt to plastic being in the ocean (assuming they even can).

And you just made MY point! Turtles have been here longer than humans, so they've definitely had time to adapt. They've had literally all the time in the world. The problem here isn't that they don't have time to adapt, it's that they don't adapt quickly enough. And that is a heavy selection pressure. The sad fact is that the planet will lose many species as a result of Homo sapiens.

Now please don't mistake my intentions. I'm a bleeding heart, save the animals, eco-friendly kinda girl. I cry when I see pictures of animals harmed by human carelessness. But from a purely scientific standpoint (which is extremely fun to discuss!) and more specifically evolutionary theory, Homo sapien is a wildly successful apex predator which is simply cutting down other, less successful predators. Just as smaller, faster, more adaptable mammals stole the show from the great reptiles of the prehistoric era, the great ape is taking over where other creatures used to rule. There isn't a moral imperative built into the process--that's something we invented, and is a wholly unique concept. Oh what I would give to be a fly on the wall in biology lectures a thousand years from now!

 

[The Snark]

And you just made MY point! Turtles have been here longer than humans, so they've definitely had time to adapt. They've had literally all the time in the world. The problem here isn't that they don't have time to adapt, it's that they don't adapt quickly enough. And that is a heavy selection pressure. The sad fact is that the planet will lose many species as a result of Homo sapiens.

Now please don't mistake my intentions. I'm a bleeding heart, save the animals, eco-friendly kinda girl. I cry when I see pictures of animals harmed by human carelessness. But from a purely scientific standpoint (which is extremely fun to discuss!) and more specifically evolutionary theory, Homo sapien is a wildly successful apex predator which is simply cutting down other, less successful predators. Just as smaller, faster, more adaptable mammals stole the show from the great reptiles of the prehistoric era, the great ape is taking over where other creatures used to rule. There isn't a moral imperative built into the process--that's something we invented, and is a wholly unique concept. Oh what I would give to be a fly on the wall in biology lectures a thousand years from now!

Darned bleeding heart liberal animal protection fanatic. Grrr.

Let's quote Gerald Durrell* again. "...the chaps a bloody menace. One of these damned fluffy minded animal lovers, always interfering and causing trouble. You can't set a space in the ground anywhere but up he pops with all his namby pamby henchmen to tell you you can't build here because of a stoat or weasel or some such damned animal and you can't drain that swamp because of some awful crawly thing that's got to be saved. I tell you, that man is against all progress. He's a bloody menace."

Let's follow that up with another quote from the same book. The dialogue between the progressive and the conservationist.
" 'It's perfectly ridiculous that the whole future of the human race should be risked for the sake of a bird and a tree.' snapped Sir Osbert."
" 'It is extraordinary to me that you cannot see that the whole future of the human race depends upon conservation, not continual and rapacious exploitation.' said Sir Lancelot angrily."

Just to point something out. If we take the worst case scenario of what is happening to the world at this time, we could very well be facing an apocalypse as great as, and on the planetary time scale close to the wham of 65 million years ago. Possibly even faster. Even if the scenario isn't all that bad, there are enough facts in right now to clearly demonstrate that we have altered and are altering the living conditions of earth WAY WAY WAY faster than anything evolution could possibly counter. That translates as the extinction of as many species as the wham and the ice age.
In other words, no, there is no moral imperative. It's much closer to 'sink or swim'. Clean up our planetary act or go under. And on that note, homo sapien is not all that wildly successful. Unless you call the wham of that giant comet successful.

* The Mockery Bird