NationStates Jolt Archive

Wacky Logic ('http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-19/1177628288138260.xml&storylist=orlocal')

Yes, we like one kind of owl, which we put on the endangered species act. So, we did things like restrict human activity (logging), but that isn't enough. It seems that other owls pose a competitive threat (Darwin was right, you know), and we have to "restore the balance" by shooting the owls we don't like.

It would seem to me that if people didn't exist, the protected species of owl would eventually lose to the other owls - and that would have been the natural outcome.

So, are we going to fight to maintain all species as they are, forever and ever, even if (in a situation where humans never existed) said species would be wiped out by natural evolution in action?

Wacky Logic ('http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-19/1177628288138260.xml&storylist=orlocal')

Yes, we like one kind of owl, which we put on the endangered species act. So, we did things like restrict human activity (logging), but that isn't enough. It seems that other owls pose a competitive threat (Darwin was right, you know), and we have to "restore the balance" by shooting the owls we don't like.

It would seem to me that if people didn't exist, the protected species of owl would eventually lose to the other owls - and that would have been the natural outcome.

So, are we going to fight to maintain all species as they are, forever and ever, even if (in a situation where humans never existed) said species would be wiped out by natural evolution in action?

You know, I too have wondered this. I reckon though, that if its a human cause we should try and prevent the extinction, and if its just nature, then we should just let it go. We are not God, so we should not play around like him. If nature desires to balance out by offing some lower species, then so be it.

People are stupid. The bigger the group gets the lower the inteligence gets. You see, the human IQ divides by the lowest IQ of the person nearest to them. In a large group of people human IQ divides at a phenominal rate, dividing the lowest IQ and coming up with a lower figure thus it continues to divide.

Remember that these are the same people that want to try to manipulate our climate next. :eek:

Actually, if people didn't exist, the spotted owl's habitat would be large enough that it would not come into species-ending conflict with the other owl.

Actually, no. Eventually, species come into competition with each other, whether humans are here or not, and wipe each other out on occasion.

Go back and read your textbook.

Actually, if people didn't exist, the spotted owl's habitat would be large enough that it would not come into species-ending conflict with the other owl.

If people didn't exist, the ants would have evolved into the dominant sentient life form on earth and they would have eaten them all dipped in honey. :)

Actually, if people didn't exist, the spotted owl's habitat would be large enough that it would not come into species-ending conflict with the other owl.

Human action endangered the Spotted Owl, and we cannot rectify that by killing more animals. Relocation, captive breeding, and other non-lethal conservation methods are the way to go here. Otherwise, we risk bringing about a greater imbalance by lowering the population of the Barred Owl.

There are ways to protect something other than destroying everything that opposes it.

I can not even express how bad I think this is. This is so... bad. I mean it's just... not... good at all. It's... just bad actually.

Sorry, I'll just shut up now and go wonder what the HELL this species I belong to is doing.

You see the formula goes osmething like this. A/B x Infinity
This takes place every 2 or 3 minutes (scientists studying the phenomina have forgotten because thier IQ keeps dividing when in study groups). ut is is suggested that when a group gets together to make any important decisions they must do so quickly or suffer for it.
After a couple of minutes int he clear your IQ resotres to normal, so there are no lasting effects.

Actually, no. Eventually, species come into competition with each other, whether humans are here or not, and wipe each other out on occasion.

Go back and read your textbook.

In some cases. Not in all. Since there wasn't this sort of competition before the destruction of the habitat, it's obviously a result of the smaller habitat. Comprende?

Remember that these are the same people that want to try to manipulate our climate next. :eek:

They're trying to stop the manipulation of the climate. It's really beginning to get a bit annoying how people have to keep explaining this.

They're trying to stop the manipulation of the climate. It's really beginning to get a bit annoying how people have to keep explaining this.

People don't have to keep explaining this. Not to me. And I regret bringing it up because it could end up hijacking this thread if we don't end it now.

All I'll say is that there's a big difference between affecting the climate and attempting to deliberately control it. Environmental scientists have a long sad history of getting vastly different results than they expect to even when tampering with relatively small ecosystems. I suspect that what is going on with these owls ought to give people a little insight into the dangers of letting political activism drive environmental science.

Wacky Logic ('http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-19/1177628288138260.xml&storylist=orlocal')

Yes, we like one kind of owl, which we put on the endangered species act. So, we did things like restrict human activity (logging), but that isn't enough. It seems that other owls pose a competitive threat (Darwin was right, you know), and we have to "restore the balance" by shooting the owls we don't like.

It would seem to me that if people didn't exist, the protected species of owl would eventually lose to the other owls - and that would have been the natural outcome.

So, are we going to fight to maintain all species as they are, forever and ever, even if (in a situation where humans never existed) said species would be wiped out by natural evolution in action?


http://img486.imageshack.us/img486/9695/owltrouble1rq.jpg

If people did not exist, many species, from dodos and passenger pigeons to Japanese wolves and falkland foxes, wouldn't be extinct today. Of course, some species would die out, but they would be killed by nature, not nature-hating mankind. You see, mankind hates nature. It pollutes the air to punish nature for existing. It kills off species because killing is fun. It poisons water to kill off fish. Nature's lands feed the crops we eat, but we still hate it. Maybe that's why nature attacks people with earthquakes and Katrinas and stuff. It's nature's way of trying to stop mankind from killing nature, either through fear or extinction.

This reminds me of why California's Channel Island fox is endangered. People grew stupid and released pigs on the island while getting rid of bald eagles. You see, pigs attract golden eagles and bald eagles drive away golden eagles. The nonnative golden eagles eat the foxies, which are small and knew no previous predator before the golden eagles. Now, there are people, like me, who want the destructive pigs dead and the golden eagles out. It's our way of trying to unfuck what we fucked up. But animal rights groups think that the pigs should stay. Those animal rights groups must hate the poor little foxies. So, save a Channel Island fox. Eat a Channel Island pig, help the bald eagles, and kill the animal rights nutjobs. They're taking away the foxes' right to not suffer from mankind's stupidity.

As for mankind's stupidity, you must realize something. Danger and intelligence are related. Before guns and cities, people lived in nature. We had common sense back then because we needed it. Now that we don't need common sense, our brains began to rot. Don't tell me that we are smarter now. How many modern inventions revolutionized the world as much as the wheel and fire. Without those two inventions, we wouldn't have towns or computers or cars. We wouldn't even have the hippies that annoy us so much.

If people did not exist, many species, from dodos and passenger pigeons to Japanese wolves and falkland foxes, wouldn't be extinct today. Of course, some species would die out, but they would be killed by nature, not nature-hating mankind. You see, mankind hates nature. It pollutes the air to punish nature for existing. It kills off species because killing is fun. It poisons water to kill off fish. Nature's lands feed the crops we eat, but we still hate it. Maybe that's why nature attacks people with earthquakes and Katrinas and stuff. It's nature's way of trying to stop mankind from killing nature, either through fear or extinction.

This reminds me of why California's Channel Island fox is endangered. People grew stupid and released pigs on the island while getting rid of bald eagles. You see, pigs attract golden eagles and bald eagles drive away golden eagles. The nonnative golden eagles eat the foxies, which are small and knew no previous predator before the golden eagles. Now, there are people, like me, who want the destructive pigs dead and the golden eagles out. It's our way of trying to unfuck what we fucked up. But animal rights groups think that the pigs should stay. Those animal rights groups must hate the poor little foxies. So, save a Channel Island fox. Eat a Channel Island pig, help the bald eagles, and kill the animal rights nutjobs. They're taking away the foxes' right to not suffer from mankind's stupidity.

As for mankind's stupidity, you must realize something. Danger and intelligence are related. Before guns and cities, people lived in nature. We had common sense back then because we needed it. Now that we don't need common sense, our brains began to rot. Don't tell me that we are smarter now. How many modern inventions revolutionized the world as much as the wheel and fire. Without those two inventions, we wouldn't have towns or computers or cars. We wouldn't even have the hippies that annoy us so much.


http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/7538/owllolno2nx.jpg

Mankind hates nature? That's news to me. It seems like a lot of people these days are unhappy with pollution, the cutting down of old growth forests, littering, etc....

And how do you figure that we don't still need common sense? It's common sense to avoid walking in front of a moving vehicle, to wear eye protection while operating machinery, to close the door so the dog will stay inside, to avoid touching something that's hot enough to burn you, etc....

Danger and intelligence are related.
Your point would be better if intelligence wasn't just an artificial construct that does not exist in reality. Intelligence does not exist. Some people are good at some things. Some people are good at other things. Some people are good at a larger number of things than other people.

Also, your "wheel and fire" example is so utterly inane that I'm actually laughing. Everything has a predecessor. Doesn't mean that the guy who made the wheel is so much more intelligent than the guy who came up with, say, automobiles. Your philosophy utterly disregards the difficulty of innovation. It's far more difficult to come up with an automobile than it is to come up with a wheel. The automobile was independently invented twice. The wheel? Several dozen times at the bare minimum. Anyone can invent something. It's making the invention useful that is the hard part.

If people didn't exist, the ants would have evolved into the dominant sentient life form on earth and they would have eaten them all dipped in honey. :)

MANT!

Half man/half ant/all terror

"The barred owl is not native to the West Coast"

thread over.

This is news?

Killing non-native species to protect native species has been a standard tool of conservationists for about as long as there have been conservationists. It's not particularly fun or pleasant, but it tends to be better than the alternatives.

"The barred owl is not native to the West Coast"

thread over.

and just to drive the point home (http://www2.nature.nps.gov/YearInReview/yir2000/pages/02_nps_science/02_03_gremel.html)

"Native to eastern forests, the barred owl (Strix varia) has moved into the Pacific Northwest over the last several decades, likely as a result of human-caused changes in the landscape.
...
As recently as 10 years ago, the barred owl was rare in Olympic, found mostly adjacent to logged areas along the park boundary and in broad, naturally disturbed river floodplains at lower elevations."

hmm, an anthropogenicly spread invasive exotic is adversely affecting an endangered native. yeah, clearly we ought not do anything about this...

This is news?

Killing non-native species to protect native species has been a standard tool of conservationists for about as long as there have been conservationists. It's not particularly fun or pleasant, but it tends to be better than the alternatives.

and in this case it's even more needed than usual, as there is hybridization between the species. which means that even if they didn't ecologically drive the natives out, the natives would eventually be genetically swamped out of existence.

Your point would be better if intelligence wasn't just an artificial construct that does not exist in reality. Intelligence does not exist. Some people are good at some things. Some people are good at other things. Some people are good at a larger number of things than other people.

Also, your "wheel and fire" example is so utterly inane that I'm actually laughing. Everything has a predecessor. Doesn't mean that the guy who made the wheel is so much more intelligent than the guy who came up with, say, automobiles. Your philosophy utterly disregards the difficulty of innovation. It's far more difficult to come up with an automobile than it is to come up with a wheel. The automobile was independently invented twice. The wheel? Several dozen times at the bare minimum. Anyone can invent something. It's making the invention useful that is the hard part.

Before towns and computers and killbots and guns, most of the stupid would have died before they could reproduce. Their methods of death differed. Some fell from high places. Some were killed by animals. Some ate things they shouldn't have. They died in different stupid ways, but they died before the could reproduce. Well, mostly. Now, we work so hard to keep the stupid alive and to protect their right to reproduce, we're allowing mutant stupid genes to enter the gene pool. Before all our dumbass-saving technology, only the smart and strong survived, unless you count kings. The "does not have abnormally weak muscles" gene and the "isn't stupid" nonmutant genes were in most of the survivors. Now, we work so hard to keep them alive. Dumbass walks in front of a fast car? Punish the driver. He should look out for stupid jaywalkers. Dumbass drinks cleaning fluid? That's what hospitals and the Poison Control Center is for.

Sounds like every nation on the planet Earth's foreign policy.

Before all our dumbass-saving technology, only the smart and strong survived

is it your belief that, for example, moths are smarter than modern human beings?

shoot all the owls :sniper:

I sometimes dream about Avian Influenza hybridizing so that it can transfer between humans and then sweeping across the globe in a viral blaze, leaving ghost towns and rotting meat in its wake. The setbacks to humanity will be immense; while it would be difficult to destroy them outright and leave the planet unharmed, they would be greatly diminished. Perhaps enough that some small part of what was once the natural order could reclaim its foothold.

Maybe then the cities would decay, the earth would envelop them with growth, fed by the bodies of disruptive men. Roots would entwine their bones and hide their blasphemous forms out of site, until decay finally took them, broke them down, and returned them to the soil to do some good.

And then there'd be enough forest land for both species of owl. :D

See, there's a proposition for you. It was humanity that drove these species into conflict, so instead of punishing the owls for something that's not their fault, we should remove the people from the land, tear down the buildings, rip up the asphalt, re-seed a forest and see if we can sort things out. That way we'd pay for our dues with the blood of our own rather than punishing that which we'd purport to save.

Or we could wait for the plague. Still wanting that plague.

shoot all the owls :sniper:


http://img452.imageshack.us/img452/4492/owlwhatnow9hd.jpg

MANT!

Half man/half ant/all terror

Precisely! :D Why do no theatres have electrified seats anymore? :(

Wacky Logic ('http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-19/1177628288138260.xml&storylist=orlocal')

Yes, we like one kind of owl, which we put on the endangered species act. So, we did things like restrict human activity (logging), but that isn't enough. It seems that other owls pose a competitive threat (Darwin was right, you know), and we have to "restore the balance" by shooting the owls we don't like.

It would seem to me that if people didn't exist, the protected species of owl would eventually lose to the other owls - and that would have been the natural outcome.

So, are we going to fight to maintain all species as they are, forever and ever, even if (in a situation where humans never existed) said species would be wiped out by natural evolution in action?

Whether or not you agreed with our initial owl intervention, the die has already been cast. I know it's hard to stay the course, but we have to keep killing those other owls. If we pull out now, that would embolden other owls bent on further destruction of habitat. Leaving it to a "natural outcome" would mean the sacrifices we have made so far were in vain. Let's not cut and run.

and in this case it's even more needed than usual, as there is hybridization between the species. which means that even if they didn't ecologically drive the natives out, the natives would eventually be genetically swamped out of existence.

Sounds a bit like evolution to me. :p

Whether or not you agreed with our initial owl intervention, the die has already been cast. I know it's hard to stay the course, but we have to keep killing those other owls. If we pull out now, that would embolden other owls bent on further destruction of habitat. Leaving it to a "natural outcome" would mean the sacrifices we have made so far were in vain. Let's not cut and run.

YAY! :D

Before all our dumbass-saving technology, only the smart and strong survived,
No, before all our technology, only the cowardly and lucky survived. This is because we were partially arboreal scavenger/gatherers. Strength and intelligence were not needed.

Sounds a bit like evolution to me. :p

in a sense, it is. unfortunately, the selection pressure involved is 'ability to deal with the environmentally destructive and morally bad bullshit of current human society'. not the sort of selective pressure we ought be promoting.

in a sense, it is. unfortunately, the selection pressure involved is 'ability to deal with the environmentally destructive and morally bad bullshit of current human society'. not the sort of selective pressure we ought be promoting.

Come on, species that adapt to urbanity aren't that bad. You have pigeons, rats, seagulls, the homeless..

in a sense, it is. unfortunately, the selection pressure involved is 'ability to deal with the environmentally destructive and morally bad bullshit of current human society'. not the sort of selective pressure we ought be promoting.

Yeah, but for the most part, animals are going to have to put up with destructive filthy recckless self-absorbed arrogant human beings for a while longer, so it seems to me that this is exactly what they need to adapt to. *nod*

Come on, species that adapt to urbanity aren't that bad. You have pigeons, rats, seagulls, the homeless..

Don't forget Rappers. *nod*

Don't forget Rappers. *nod*

If you can call being shot at all day "successful."

If you can call being shot at all day "successful."

I'd call being able to turn an attempt on your life into "street cred" to help CD sales a successful strategy.

I'd call being able to turn an attempt on your life into "street cred" to help CD sales a successful strategy.

Well, it's similar to politics...