NationStates Jolt Archive

If we continue with current rates of species extinction, we will have no chance of rolling back poverty and the lives of all humans will be diminished.

That is the stark warning to come out of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), the most comprehensive audit of the health of our planet to date...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4563499.stm

I'm a tad more worried about global warming, nuclear winter, and AIDS.

And my Biology finals.

EDIT: Huh...that's ironic. No biology to learn if there is no life on Earth!

Maybe when its to late to reverse the changes the human race will have realizied its mistake. Once we kill off all the other species the rest of the eco-system will fail and the earth will slowly die. Giving humans two options.

1. Using science to create what we need. From oxygen to water.

2. Leave Earth.

Maybe when its to late to reverse the changes the human race will have realizied its mistake. Once we kill off all the other species the rest of the eco-system will fail and the earth will slowly die. Giving humans two options.

1. Using science to create what we need. From oxygen to water.

2. Leave Earth.

Leave earth where to? On all planets we could reach, we would still have to fall back on option 1....

Extinction schmextinction. Species are being extinguished all the time, through a process called natural selection.

Extinction schmextinction. Species are being extinguished all the time, through a process called natural selection.

If you had read past the first 5 lines, you would have found that we have increased the speed by which they are disappearing by a factor 1000. Add the natural selection to that and you have a pretty bad scenario...

If you had read past the first 5 lines, you would have found that we have increased the speed by which they are disappearing by a factor 1000. Add the natural selection to that and you have a pretty bad scenario...Actually, I haven't read the first 5 lines either.

And natural selection puts out species at the same time it creates new ones which are better. It's called evolution.

We do need some biodiversity, but humans act as an increasment to natural selection. We have improved most breeds of vegetables we use and altered many species (horses, wolves, cattle) to fit our purposes. All of this is good. Humans have a positive influence on nature.

Actually, I haven't read the first 5 lines either.

And natural selection puts out species at the same time it creates new ones which are better. It's called evolution.

We do need some biodiversity, but humans act as an increasment to natural selection. We have improved most breeds of vegetables we use and altered many species (horses, wolves, cattle) to fit our purposes. All of this is good. Humans have a positive influence on nature.

God I hope your joking about this. Humans have polluted and defiled so much of the natural ecology that species are dying out before there are new species to take its place. The Dodo. The soon to be hump back whale. We over fish the sea's.

Our use of genetics in plant life is creating artifical foods that can be grown in the worsening soil has pollution takes it toll.

Our meddling with the natural order (horses, wolves, cattle) is alot more deterrimental. We have off set the natural balance and now it is degernating quicker than what it should be. With all the deforestation we destroy the natural habitats of the animals that live there. How many species have we killed and not even know that we have? If the rate of deforestation continues the amount of trees will become to low and the greatest source of new oxygen will be gone.

So how exactly do humans have a positive influence on nature?

Here's a tip, for your own interest: people will have a hard time taking your ideas seriously if you cannot convey them in proper English.

The dodo clearly proves my point. It was an oddity of nature, it should've gone extinct. There is no such thing as a "balance of nature." Nature is chaos, and man's job is not to bring order to it because that's impossible, but to make it serve his needs. That means we need to preserve it for our children, but it is there for the meddling.

Actually, I haven't read the first 5 lines either.

perhaps you should get started then. after all, the report comes from people who actually understand both the theories and the data.
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx

And natural selection puts out species at the same time it creates new ones which are better.

source?

We do need some biodiversity, but humans act as an increasment to natural selection. We have improved most breeds of vegetables we use and altered many species (horses, wolves, cattle) to fit our purposes. All of this is good. Humans have a positive influence on nature.

only if you assume good for industrial agriculture = good for 'nature'. but since industrial agriculture is pretty much an unmitigated bad for 'nature', i'd say that idea gets tossed right out. hell, domesticated things are less genetically diverse than the original wild type we took them from, and we typically then destroy most of the habitat the wild type uses, if not killing it off outright. which means that even on the face of it, domestication is bad for biodiversity.

Humans will go extinct.

only if you assume good for industrial agriculture = good for 'nature'. but since industrial agriculture is pretty much an unmitigated bad for 'nature', i'd say that idea gets tossed right out. hell, domesticated things are less genetically diverse than the original wild type we took them from, and we typically then destroy most of the habitat the wild type uses, if not killing it off outright. which means that even on the face of it, domestication is bad for biodiversity.Actually I don't like industrial agriculture.

Domesticated species are often less diverse than the original wild type, yes. But they're more convenient, so that's good.

Humans will go extinct.

Very true. Our bodies are already showing signs of de-evolution has our minds continue to grow. Female hips will continue to grow more narrow until natural birth becomes fatal for the mother.

Also our bodies have not fully evolved to support a completely bipedal stance. Our skeletal still support quadraped movements. Thats why we have arthritis and our problems. It is surprising our species ever got as far as it did.

Here's a tip, for your own interest: people will have a hard time taking your ideas seriously if you cannot convey them in proper English.

The dodo clearly proves my point. It was an oddity of nature, it should've gone extinct. There is no such thing as a "balance of nature." Nature is chaos, and man's job is not to bring order to it because that's impossible, but to make it serve his needs. That means we need to preserve it for our children, but it is there for the meddling.

The dodo existed just fine. But the humans of the region hunted it to extinction. Same with the mammoth. Nature does exist in a balance. You take away an apex predator (wolves and bears) and the prey animals begin to over populate with no predator to keep their numbers in check. You over hunt sharks and the fish and other animals in the ocean over populate and the ecology of the oceans is ruined.

Why should mankind make nature serve him? Should he not serve nature and make sure it continues? Or do we kill the planet that gave us birth?

Why should mankind make nature serve him?This is so hard to make people understand this, but here we go again.

Nature has no rights, it is the property of man by right of conscience.

At our current rate of consumption...and its exponentially increasing demand...I think we should all be very concerned about the peak oil crisis....

Hopefully, an alternate efficient energy source would be discovered by then...

Very true. Our bodies are already showing signs of de-evolution has our minds continue to grow. Female hips will continue to grow more narrow until natural birth becomes fatal for the mother.

Also our bodies have not fully evolved to support a completely bipedal stance. Our skeletal still support quadraped movements. Thats why we have arthritis and our problems. It is surprising our species ever got as far as it did.

I don't think we need to wait for further evolution to rid the planet of our presence. We'll manage long before that becomes accute...

We survived this long because we didn't adapt to our environment the way other species did, we rather tried adapting the environment to suit our needs. That way, we kept pushing nature/evolution in the direction we thought would be best for us. Now nature is picking up speed and we realise that we can't keep up...

This is so hard to make people understand this, but here we go again.

Nature has no rights, it is the property of man by right of conscience.

So man is not part of nature? Ah, yes, sorry, I forgot. Man was created by god.... :rolleyes:

If we continue with current rates of species extinction, we will have no chance of rolling back poverty and the lives of all humans will be diminished.

That is the stark warning to come out of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), the most comprehensive audit of the health of our planet to date...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4563499.stm

yeah if we continue,to believe our democratic representative or totalitarian
friends.....I m not a happy hippy since i can kill you with one blow,still :fluffle:

Man kind can adapt nature to his needs without raping the land and all the other species on it. We could live in more ecological friendly "cities". We could not congrate in such large numbers that we over tax a given region. We build using natural resources that will decompse once we no longer need them.

Alternate forms of power like solar panels. Windmill fields. We could get rid of the large energy plants like coal and natural gas that produce far to much pollution. We could have a more ecological friendly relationship with the planet.

What we are doing now is killing the thing that gave us birth. Or are you the type of monster that could kill his/her own mother?

What we are doing now is killing the thing that gave us birth. Or are you the type of monster that could kill his/her own mother?

Not quite... we are not only killing the very thing that gave us birth, but the thing that is feeding and sustaining us now. Mankind may meddle with nature, but it's a fact that we lack the foresight to fully comprehend the consequences of our actions, and we just keep forgetting that we are utterly and completely depending on nature. We can't live without it.

At our current rate of consumption...and its exponentially increasing demand...I think we should all be very concerned about the peak oil crisis....

Hopefully, an alternate efficient energy source would be discovered by then...

The problem is not finding an alternative energy source, its getting people to use it.

well looks like the nanties are going to feel the same as everything that is not human.So far so bad

I think that all of this "the earth is ending! we are killing off all animals! We are poluting the earth into anailation" stuff is basically a load of bull. Natural selection is there for a reason. true right now humans are at the top of the food chain, but you know what, little micro-organism still defeat us, anyone every heard of AIDS? Humans arn't outside of the food chain, we area part of it. Species will become extinct, that is a fact of life, but also new ones will be created. i notice all those people that say we're killing off all the animals arn't trying to bring back the dinosaurs.

I think that all of this "the earth is ending! we are killing off all animals! We are poluting the earth into anailation" stuff is basically a load of bull. Natural selection is there for a reason. true right now humans are at the top of the food chain, but you know what, little micro-organism still defeat us, anyone every heard of AIDS? Humans arn't outside of the food chain, we area part of it. Species will become extinct, that is a fact of life, but also new ones will be created. i notice all those people that say we're killing off all the animals arn't trying to bring back the dinosaurs.

Oh... another one who hasn't read the article this thread is about....

Species will become extinct, that is a fact of life, but also new ones will be created.

it's not the fact of extinction that is the cause for concern. it is the cause and the rate. we are living in the middle of a mass extinction event, and we are causing it.

i notice all those people that say we're killing off all the animals arn't trying to bring back the dinosaurs.

why would we?

I think that all of this "the earth is ending! we are killing off all animals! We are poluting the earth into anailation" stuff is basically a load of bull. Natural selection is there for a reason. true right now humans are at the top of the food chain, but you know what, little micro-organism still defeat us, anyone every heard of AIDS? Humans arn't outside of the food chain, we area part of it. Species will become extinct, that is a fact of life, but also new ones will be created. i notice all those people that say we're killing off all the animals arn't trying to bring back the dinosaurs.

The point of this article is to point out that due to human interference the worlds animal species are dying out to quickly. We are not allowing enough time for the world to adapt to the changes we bring to it.

A classic example is the development of rural road networks - a common feature of hunger reduction strategies - which are likely also to accelerate rates of biodiversity loss by fragmenting habitats and by opening up new areas to unsustainable harvests.

Just to point something out, this comes directly from the article. Is it implying that we should tear down our roads? All roads? Or just paved roads? What will we do without roads?

More useless emotional appeal with no basis in common sense.

Here's a bit of common sense for you: The Earth has undergone far worse. This planet has nearly had life wiped from it on multiple occasions, and after each occasion life has come back, stronger than ever. And most of those happen much faster than what humanity has been doing. If the human race were to go extinct today, in several centuries no one would notice that humans even had an effect until they bothered to dig up fossils.

Really, there's nothing here that is anything new for this planet. Being polluted? Nature's done that. The very atmosphere that allowed life to grow as it is was originally a form of pollution. Having mass extinctions in a short amount of time? Done that so often that it's a set schedule, and by that schedule we're due for one right now (as well as being hit by a huge meteor). Had life forcibly altered because of other life? That's a driving force behind evolution.

Here's what this issue is really about: We're afraid to die. We know that if the animals go, we're next. This is not about preserving nature or animal life, but about the survival of humanity. It's the same self-centered view that got us into this situation in the first place. Humanity sees death on the horizon and is trying to run away from it, crying like a little girl and wetting its pants.

More useless emotional appeal with no basis in common sense.

Here's a bit of common sense for you: The Earth has undergone far worse. This planet has nearly had life wiped from it on multiple occasions, and after each occasion life has come back, stronger than ever. And most of those happen much faster than what humanity has been doing.

the earth has undergone worse, yes. but we're just getting started and already we're at 41% of species that we've checked being threatened with extinction.

life has been wiped out to a similar extent a mere 5 or 6 times in the past 500 million years. and our extinction level event is shaping up to compete among the worst of them. and while life does come back, it takes a while. the permian extinction took place over something on the order of less than 900,000 years, but it took 5 million years to get back to fully diverse ecosystems. similarly, after the k-t event it took about 3 million years to get back to diverse and stable ecosystems.

i don't know about you, but i prefer for our episodes of mass extinction and the millions of years it takes to recover from them to be caused by random and unpreventable events, rather than being personally responsible for the megadeaths we're talking about.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment assumes that the earth is supposed to remain at the same state as it is currently, which wont happen. We are currently in a transitional stage between Ice Age and Tropical Age, complaining about the changing climate is like complaining about the phases of the moon. The earth will never have one standard climate.

The vast majority of every species that ever existed (95%+) are simply gone, and it happened entirely without human intervention. Let the animals die in peace.

I don't think this is about the rights of animals to an unpoluted environment. Mankind never much cared for anything but their own rights.
This is about a massive change in this planets vegetation and wildlife, a change that we maybe didn't intend, but we did cause it.
Now, nature will recover. It will take millions of years, but IT will recover. Humanity won't. We've spent much of our time adapting the environment to our needs rather than the other way around. We are inflexible, we can no longer adapt. Simple as that. If we continue on, we will exterminate ourselves. Nature won't care. But we should.

The vast majority of every species that ever existed (95%+) are simply gone, and it happened entirely without human intervention.

yeah, and?

doesn't change the fact that the anthropogenically enhanced extinction rate is well above the observed background extinction rate.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment assumes that the earth is supposed to remain at the same state as it is currently

it does, does it? care to show where and how?

Nature recovers when it is allowed to. We are altering the planet to suit more and more people. The problem? Too many people. Now, we could kill some people or we can simply have fewer babies. There are over 6 billion people on this earth. Having fewer babies won't mean us going extinct. Natural selection at fault? Are you in support of the "nuke the amozon" campaign going on is the loony circles? Nature has survived many near deaths before. It may take a single species, instead of a large rock from outer space, to finally finish the job those space rocks could not. Without plants or other animals, how will we survive? What would we eat? What would turn Carbon Dioxide into pure Oxygen? This may shock many people in support of mass extinction, but people need food and air in order to not die right now. Shocking, I know.

This is so hard to make people understand this, but here we go again.

Nature has no rights, it is the property of man by right of conscience.


Cool. I'm going to declare your car by right of conscience (my conscience). If you disagree, ill make you go extinct.

Neat reasoning, isnt it?

Here's what this issue is really about: We're afraid to die. We know that if the animals go, we're next. This is not about preserving nature or animal life, but about the survival of humanity. It's the same self-centered view that got us into this situation in the first place. Humanity sees death on the horizon and is trying to run away from it, crying like a little girl and wetting its pants.

Really good point because humanity will probably die out or atleast evolve to something else as all individual will die. BUT I don't think it's coverdly to accepte your mortal but try to have a long and good life, becuase that's what a lot of people want to do with humanity to clean up the mess we started so we can live a bit longer as a race. But the thing we are doing know as a human race is like saying hey I will anyway die so let's eat how mutch I want and weight 300 kilos/600 pounds and die at a age of 30 instead of 80.

If you had read past the first 5 lines, you would have found that we have increased the speed by which they are disappearing by a factor 1000. Add the natural selection to that and you have a pretty bad scenario...


What are the rules of the forum? Are you allowed to tell someone they are an idiot? Just asking...

:rolleyes:

-Tom Steele

Population is the root of all evil. Though I'm sure you've all heard this from me before, and know it to be true yourselves.

If you really care, just have 1 child.
And if you don't want me to hunt you down and cut yo' ass, have at most 2.

If you can't comprehend the reasoning behind this, or delude yourselves into thinking that Malthus, Smith, and modern biologists and other officious people are crocks, that modern science can "protect us" from whatever shit we throw at it, that animals "were meant to come and go" but that "we aren't going to become extinct", then I won't bother wasting any breath on you, and wish you a swift return to the nothingness from whence ye came.

Hawkintom']What are the rules of the forum? Are you allowed to tell someone they are an idiot? Just asking...

:rolleyes:

-Tom Steele

Yep. And if not, you should, and I still will.

To be perfectly honest, all these people saying "it was going to happen anyway" need to stop, take a moment to think about what the hell they're saying...and then, if they still feel that way, be slapped by the nearest person. Hard.

Yes, it's true that species were dying off and new ones created by nature, but...we are increasing the speed at which this is happening by pollution, deforestation, introduction of foreign species, introduction of diseases, and hunting, just to name a few.

If I may cite a debate held in my Zoology class a few years back that I still remember...word for word...
Teacher (playing the Devil's Advocate, as usual)
"So you're against the clubbing of the fur seals...why?"
Me
"Because it is inhumane. There has got to be a better way of doing this job, if it's deemed so necessary. Although, personally, I would rather it be illegal, considering there are much more humane (and better-looking) alternatives to fur now."
Teacher
"But what about jobs?"
Me
"Create new ones."
Teacher
"What about overpopulation?"
Me
"The seals won't overpopulate because nature wouldn't allow that. Nature is far too efficient for that to happen. And besides...Orcas are the seals' natural predators, right? So...they wouldn't be overpopulating if we'd not hunted the Orcas almost to extinction."

So...basically...we're just moving from one species to the next. What about things like Elephants, Rhinos, Tigers? Creatures that we share this planet with, that have every right to be there, except that we are hunting them down and methodically killing them...one-by-one. Nothing else could or would kill any of these animals, but a human. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. (After all, I could kill a person I see on the street, take their money and car, and never look back...but I don't.) I say this especially since all we use are the small, useless things for jewelry, such as ivory and bones...or the pelt of the tiger, for our own purposes in clothing or decor. Vanity, that's all it is.

Cool. I'm going to declare your car by right of conscience (my conscience). If you disagree, ill make you go extinct.

Neat reasoning, isnt it?

Yeah, that's some fine "reasoning," all right. Don't people take classes in logic anymore?

You can't confiscate Venus Mound's car, since your sentience is equal to his (hers? its?); you're both human beings, "endowed with certain unalienable rights," blah blah blah. On the other hand, humans are clearly superior in intelligence to any other species on the face of the planet, which is why we're the ones who can call the shots. We owe other species nothing, since we're so far above them.

Yeah, that's some fine "reasoning," all right. Don't people take classes in logic anymore?

You can't confiscate Venus Mound's car, since your sentience is equal to his (hers? its?); you're both human beings, "endowed with certain unalienable rights," blah blah blah. On the other hand, humans are clearly superior in intelligence to any other species on the face of the planet, which is why we're the ones who can call the shots. We owe other species nothing, since we're so far above them.

There are many animal species that we do not know their full capabilities. Certain avians. Parrots and African Greys. Some primates are as well. Dolphins and whales.

One of the key factors in gaining sentience is the ability to regonize oneself in the mirror. Knowing that, that is you. And some animals are capable of knowing that.

We have intelligence. But we lack cunning and instinct. Two things the natural world as that we do not. And how are we so far above them? We kill without reason, we go to war, we hate, we have pride and jealousy. The natural world has balance, integrity and in some cases a primal sort of honor. The dolphin plays in the water and mankind calls it unintelligent. Mankind kills and maims and the dolphins call them untelligent.

We are superior? Maybe we are inferior. After all, alot of our technology goes into killing others. We kill and wipe out just for fun. People claim that wolves do the same. Really? I guess I should trust hunters looking for any excuse to kill them instead of common sence, scientists, and people who've lived with them. After all, why should I trust someone with no reason to lie over someone almost garanteed to lie? Humans have issues. We feel that we are better than everything else. We are the most environmentally devestating species there ever was. We'd probably make ourselves extinct over stupid reasons, such as "superiority", money, a few billion more people, etc.

Here's a tip, for your own interest: people will have a hard time taking your ideas seriously if you cannot convey them in proper English.

The dodo clearly proves my point. It was an oddity of nature, it should've gone extinct. There is no such thing as a "balance of nature." Nature is chaos, and man's job is not to bring order to it because that's impossible, but to make it serve his needs. That means we need to preserve it for our children, but it is there for the meddling.

Might I ask how the Dodo was an oddity of nature? Don't say it was a stupid bird-it was extraordinarily intelligent. It was perfectly adapted for where it lived. It was hunted to extinction within only one generation of being discovered by man using gunpowder and dogs. Man does not bring natural selection, we destroy. Simple as that. Man works outside of natural selection. Gunpowder is not "natural selection". Natural selection dictate that those better suited to an environment survive. Man does not work this way. Many minipulates the environment to better suit him. By doing so, we destroy a great deal. And by doing this, we no longer work withing "natural selection".

Ever heard the thought that "By destroying the rainforests, we may be destroying a cure for cancer". Don't pass this off as hogwash-Much of what we have as medicine today started off as a Medicine-Man in a rainforest grinding up seeds and plants. Simply put, there is far to much we don't know for us to destroy needlessly.

Also, if you're going to make a claim, at least give support for it. Don't make claims without giving support.

Yeah, that's some fine "reasoning," all right. Don't people take classes in logic anymore?

You can't confiscate Venus Mound's car, since your sentience is equal to his (hers? its?); you're both human beings, "endowed with certain unalienable rights," blah blah blah. On the other hand, humans are clearly superior in intelligence to any other species on the face of the planet, which is why we're the ones who can call the shots. We owe other species nothing, since we're so far above them.

Slow down there bub. We have no clue how intelligent many animals are. Certain cephalopods convey an intelligence level that is remarkably high. Also, there are many hominids which appear to have sentience, and almost human intelligence. Canines are far more cunning than humans can even hope to be, with the ability to rationalize and use logics when hunting, using techniques which no human would ever think of. Ravens use advance problem solving to get food from bird feeder which only small birds can get at. Whales exhibit an intelligence level that we are not even beginning to understand. Dolphins especially.

Also, our ability to invent is not unike to humans. All apes have the ability to create tools for various uses, and understand how to use weaponry.

Don't use all of our "accomplishments", also. The majority of people are stupid, who completely lack common sense. The human race did not make these accomplishments: Individual people did. Also, discoveries tend to snowball. Our knowledge base is meaningly when finding intelligence.

Maybe when its to late to reverse the changes the human race will have realizied its mistake. Once we kill off all the other species the rest of the eco-system will fail and the earth will slowly die. Giving humans two options.

1. Using science to create what we need. From oxygen to water.

2. Leave Earth.


Isn't that the begining to tri-gun?

What it really means is that the majority of evolution will happen in the cities. Street vermin and so forth. Lots and lots of insects. Diseases, of course, FLOURISH in tight quarters...

The extinction of man may come soon, and it's all our faults. Man destroys the rain forest on a large scale. Man drasticly alters the environment to suit man's wants(not needs). The human race is basicly a few billion retards living on the same planet with a few dozen smart people of the same species. One man invented the light bulb. One man invented the pencil. We think we are the smartest species, but we use the works of a few(compared to the number of people) as evidence against animals that often show some level of ability mentally than we do. Our strategy for hunting is pumping the prey full of lead. Great plan. Must have taken you all night to come up with that one. Meanwhile, wolves work by tiring the prey down. Foxes leap around to make their prey come out. It would have taken us a few days to think of those and only if we get clues.

Wolf plan: almost there. Billy, you attack the rear-right leg. Good, it's down. go for the neck.

Fox plan: leaping. Leaping. Jumping around. Rabbit's coming to investigate. Leaping some more. Almost there. Leaping on target. Killing. Eating. Done.

human plan: Hmmmm. How to kill it with this here gun. Hmmmm. :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: My golly, it worked. I'm so smart.

I offer to this thread two different possible ways humanity can go.

1. The population increases further, most other species are headed for extinction. Biodiversity goes down the drain. Humans, being clever enough to realize they don't owe the other animals anything, continue to do various pointless things while using up the remaining natural resources. Humans eventually die out from a deadly micro-organism and all other surviving species give a collective sigh of relief.

2. Humanity in general realizes that it just might be a considerate thing to do if they let other species live their lives in peace, while working at bringing their population down. Everybody's quality of life improves, and the only species that face extinction do so because they are truly unsuited to their surroundings. Earth eventually gets hit by a big space rock and everybody dies.

What I'm trying to say is that, as far as we (humans) know, no other species has had to control their own population. They've all had it done for them.

What I'm trying to say is that, as far as we (humans) know, no other species has had to control their own population. They've all had it done for them.


Actually, not entirely true. Lemming(And various other rodents) populations skyrocket about once every four years for some unknown reason in north western Canada and Alaska. During this period, the population grows to millions upon millions, with lemmings "popping out" of almost nowhere. During this time, it's not uncommon(if you know where to look) to see "herds" of several tens of thousands of lemmings scurrying about in one giant mass. And then, natural population control sets in. Starvation is a given, considering such massive numbers, but what's more interesting is two instinctual population control: Mass suicide and mass pseudo-cannibalism.

Now, forget about lemmings tossing themselves off of cliffs. That was a myth created by Disney. It CAN happen, and probably does happen(More often by accident than suicidal motives), but it is hardly the norm. No, mass suicide comes moreso in the form of them swimming out to sea. And either drowning or getting eaten. It's spectacular(Something I've seen once before-quite odd, really). Mass-pseudo-cannibilism is more common throughout species, though. Basically, when popultation get to large, animals will attack each other, not necessarily eating each other, but killing. These two forms of population are completely instinctual, and are sort of Nature's way of regulating things. This is occurs in many cases(Several lab studies have been done on this as well).

Even if humans weren't completely screwing over the environment (we are, but not in as severe a fashion as many believe) we'd probably end up being killed off by some sort of natural disaster. It may take many hundreds or thousands of years, but if we don't leave Earth we're going to die.

Actually, I haven't read the first 5 lines either.

And natural selection puts out species at the same time it creates new ones which are better. It's called evolution.

We do need some biodiversity, but humans act as an increasment to natural selection. We have improved most breeds of vegetables we use and altered many species (horses, wolves, cattle) to fit our purposes. All of this is good. Humans have a positive influence on nature.

Humans are decreasing natural diversity and the selection we encourage can hardly be considered natural. Species domesticated by humans are less fit for survival in a natural setting. For instance, domestic dogs have 15% less brain capacity than wolves.

The extinction of man may come soon, and it's all our faults. Man destroys the rain forest on a large scale. Man drasticly alters the environment to suit man's wants(not needs). The human race is basicly a few billion retards living on the same planet with a few dozen smart people of the same species. One man invented the light bulb. One man invented the pencil. We think we are the smartest species, but we use the works of a few(compared to the number of people) as evidence against animals that often show some level of ability mentally than we do. Our strategy for hunting is pumping the prey full of lead. Great plan. Must have taken you all night to come up with that one. Meanwhile, wolves work by tiring the prey down. Foxes leap around to make their prey come out. It would have taken us a few days to think of those and only if we get clues.

Wolf plan: almost there. Billy, you attack the rear-right leg. Good, it's down. go for the neck.

Fox plan: leaping. Leaping. Jumping around. Rabbit's coming to investigate. Leaping some more. Almost there. Leaping on target. Killing. Eating. Done.

human plan: Hmmmm. How to kill it with this here gun. Hmmmm. :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: My golly, it worked. I'm so smart.

Right, let's think about how the human hunting plan developed, shall we.

We watched the wolf. We had some pointy sticks, as we are tool builders. "Let's ambush the mamoth. Sweet, food." Move up a few years. Same thing, but with the bow. Later, some Chinese fellow figures out that sulfur, saltpeter and charcoal explode. A few years of pretty fireworks occur. Then, some European chaps figure out that they can launch a solid projectile out of a tube, with gunpowder.(Again, toolbuilders.)

This progresses until the modern hunter can wait in the fucking balls cold all day to(maybe) get one shot off and bring home dinner. Not a dumb plan, or a particularly easy one. Lacking claws and fangs, the toolbuilding decendants of the ape are forced to adapt to the world around them, all for the same purposes that the wolf does. To put food on the table. Please, don't think that Man has had it easy. We put up a hell of afight, and happened to come out on top.

We have intelligence. But we lack cunning and instinct. Two things the natural world as that we do not.

And a fat lot of good it's done them. I'll choose intelligence any day.

We kill without reason...

You know what? So do animals. Orcas have been known to toy with prey, harassing it mercilessly, then when the poor animals drops from exhaustion, not even eating it. They weren't killing for food, but for amusement.

Likewise, dolphins kill hundreds of porpoises for no apparent reason; they're not even in competition with one another for the same food.

http://luna.pos.to/whale/gen_art_killer.html

It's interesting to see people refer to nature as some perfect, happy, balanced place that "evil" mankind is recklessly destroying. I'll tell you what: you do your part to stop destroying nature by shedding all the accoutrements of civilization and living in the Amazon with nothing more than the tools you can shape for yourself out of rock and wood. Then you can lecture me about how we should be "in touch with nature."

Hobbes was right, you know. Life in the state of nature would be "nasty, brutish and short," and it's high time people stopped romanticizing the natural ecological balance.

Humans are decreasing natural diversity and the selection we encourage can hardly be considered natural. Species domesticated by humans are less fit for survival in a natural setting. For instance, domestic dogs have 15% less brain capacity than wolves.

Actually, it appears that animals get dumber whenever humans get involved(With most land-mammals, that is).

Take Chimps for example. In Captivity a Chimp is a childish, rather docile being which knows how to get food, but doesn't really develop the capacity to learn a great deal. Sure, it still learns, but they just aren't that bright, especially in teh common sense world. They scare easily, and are dependant on humans.

However, in the wild, Chimps portray a remarkably high level of intelligence, because they have to. When approaching a carcass of a dead predator, such as a cheetah, they go with extreme caution, and remarkably enough CAN USE CLUBS to beat it, likely to make sure that it is dead. Once found to be dead, they immediately calm down. Captive Chimps tend to freak in shear dread, and have apparently don't understand the thing is dea. Wild Chimpanzees make tools for "fishing" termites. They actually wage land wars against other Chimpanzee troops. If you haven't seen it before, it is possibly the most disturbingly human thing you will see from an animal.

Don't use all of our "accomplishments", also. The majority of people are stupid, who completely lack common sense. The human race did not make these accomplishments: Individual people did. Also, discoveries tend to snowball. Our knowledge base is meaningly when finding intelligence.

An interesting take on the matter, Seangolia, but one which I reject. Granted, most of us couldn't re-invent the transistor even if our lives were on the line, but the fact of the matter is, we're here. The animals are not. Even if we give all the credit for advancement of the human race to exceptional individuals, what are the Einsteins of the animal kingdom doing -- that is, when they're not fighting for day-to-day survival? That's right, they're discovering the manifold uses of pointy sticks.

And if you'd like to pit the average, "dumb" human in a battle of wits against the most ingenious whale/dolphin/orangutan you can find, you've got yourself a wager, buddy.

An interesting take on the matter, Seangolia, but one which I reject. Granted, most of us couldn't re-invent the transistor even if our lives were on the line, but the fact of the matter is, we're here. The animals are not. Even if we give all the credit for advancement of the human race to exceptional individuals, what are the Einsteins of the animal kingdom doing -- that is, when they're not fighting for day-to-day survival? That's right, they're discovering the manifold uses of pointy sticks.

And if you'd like to pit the average, "dumb" human in a battle of wits against the most ingenious whale/dolphin/orangutan you can find, you've got yourself a wager, buddy.

I can respect your thoughts on the first point. Difference of opinions for hte time being(To late in the night to go into detail).

Second point-The problem finding a way to guage the battle that would not be bias towards us. Since we would make the "games" so to speak, we would obviously have the upper hand. A complex puzzle of sorts would be the best way of doing it, one which shows no bias towards people or animals. It is very difficult to specify and guage intelligence. We can get general ideas of how intelligent an animal is, but nothing specific.

Now the question is "Why are we where we are at". Well, if we follow evolution, it all started about 5-6 million years ago(About the period of time when Apes and Humans diverged paths in the fossil records). At this point in time, the first Humans(only vaguely human-looked moreso like apes than man) left the forests. Why doesn't matter, and we will never know, we just know we did. The apes stayed. This moment, this brief point in time in which one group of humanoids was exiled from the forests marks our turning point. For because of this, we lived a life free from trees. We no longer need strong "swinging" arms. We could walk upright. By walking upright, we now had two major advantage-line of sight and freeing of the hands. Both have had a profound effect on our intelligence as a whole, but the freeing of the hands is BY FAR the largest factor in this. By doing so, we could now manipulate. Manipulation favors those who are inventive. Those who are inventive exhibit more intelligence. The more intelligent thus could use tools better than those who couldn't-an obvious advantage. And so, a snowball effect occurred, moving to more and more upright beings(to a point in which we no longer need our forelimbgs to walk at all) with more developed brains.

Basically, the turning point was more than likely the human migration from the forests.

Population is the root of all evil. Though I'm sure you've all heard this from me before, and know it to be true yourselves.

If you really care, just have 1 child.
And if you don't want me to hunt you down and cut yo' ass, have at most 2.



Well the problem is that people like sex at the same time you have organisation like the vaticans that say that condoms and birth control pills is evil. That cause problems. Becuase even if you think people can stay of sex until they married, that happen afterwards? Should they stay away from sex between the time the wife is 25 until she is 40, because they already got two childs at 25? No I agree with you but we need a more modern way of looking at birthcontrols and abortion to make it work

Forced sterilisation of couples, who are selected randomly by the government of authority.

It's cruel, but it would cut down on the population. And it's better than killing off people in the name of the environment.

Hawkintom']What are the rules of the forum? Are you allowed to tell someone they are an idiot? Just asking...

:rolleyes:

-Tom Steele
You can do it overtly or you can add some flair.
Expect to prove your point though on many an occasion ...

Interesting stuff. The dolphins might outsmart a person, but the person can tell you who Joe celebrity is and how you start a car. We really f'd up the world big time. Were we born to destroy the world or to take care of it and live with it instead of against it? Should we wage war on the earth or on pain and suffering?

Actually, if I make interject a viewpoint, humans were given responsibility for the earth (by God.) So while that does give us the right to use the resources of the earth at the expense of lesser creatures, it also gives us the huge responsibility of preserving the earth that God created. Clearly the advent of modern industry and transportation is having a negative effect on the world God created. That means it is our responsibility, as the ones with brains, to either find technologies that will benefit the planet or to curb the gluttonous excesses which defile our planet.

At least that's my take on things.