NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/57646.html

I don't want to make this another Bush thread specifically, but I was reading National Geographic magazine and it mentions that Bush is moving to gut the endangered species act on his way out, that is, even more than he already did. And yes, I know, politics is politics and all presidents lean on politics on their way out.

Basically, the way endangered species get added to the list according to the endangered species act is changed in that it will be politicians making the decision, not the scientists that did it before. Bush is a prick, whatever, the conswervatives don't care about conservation, blah blah blah.

But is animal conservation really important, or should we just stomp on any critter that gets in our way?

Anyone who understands how ecosystems work and has even a basic understanding of biology knows that animal conservation is important, for practical and economic reasons, as well as intrinsic .

Some species go extinct on their own. Such is natural. But humans have caused waaaay more animal endangerment and extinction than is natural and healthy for the world's ecosystems.

Well that does bring up a good point. Some people were concerned that deforestation and die-offs of algae and plantlife in general would reduce atmospheric oxygen production and asphyxiate us. Hence planting trees and trying to halt deforestation.

HOWEVER another solution presents itself. Just kill off the animals! That leaves more oxygen for the rest of us AND we can cut down the forests too.

I see nothing wrong with this plan.

Anyone who understands how ecosystems work and has even a basic understanding of biology knows that animal conservation is important, for practical and economic reasons, as well as intrinsic .

Some species go extinct on their own. Such is natural. But humans have caused waaaay more animal endangerment and extinction than is natural and healthy for the world's ecosystems.

Yes, but the dilemma is how far should we take it? Conservation above industry and (short-term) economy at any cost? Or not?

Yes, but the dilemma is how far should we take it? Conservation above industry or (short-term) economy at any cost? Or not?

It certianly does not have to be an either/or. Conservation can be profitable, and in many instances it already is. Many countries main industry is tourism. Their ecosystems and animal species generate more revenue in the form of tourists then any other industry in their country.

Anyone who understands how ecosystems work and has even a basic understanding of biology knows that animal conservation is important, for practical and economic reasons, as well as intrinsic .

Some species go extinct on their own. Such is natural. But humans have caused waaaay more animal endangerment and extinction than is natural and healthy for the world's ecosystems.

I've I really have drunk to much and I'm imagining it or I'm agreeing with you. Blouman is turning greeen.

To the question: Yes

Well that does bring up a good point. Some people were concerned that deforestation and die-offs of algae and plantlife in general would reduce atmospheric oxygen production and asphyxiate us. Hence planting trees and trying to halt deforestation.

HOWEVER another solution presents itself. Just kill off the animals! That leaves more oxygen for the rest of us AND we can cut down the forests too.

I see nothing wrong with this plan.

The main problem is more like the lands will go to shit and many resources will plummet for people, not lack of air.

I've I really have drunk to much and I'm imagining it or I'm agreeing with you. Blouman is turning greeen.

To the question: Yes

You agree with me far more than you think;)


Hows that for a mind fuck?

You agree with me far more than you think;)

Hows that for a mind fuck?

lmao, yeah maybe I do.

It certianly does not have to be an either/or. Conservation can be profitable, and in many instances it already is. Many countries main industry is tourism. Their ecosystems and animal species generate more revenue in the form of tourists then any other industry in their country.

Well of course, but the large countries like the US have far more clout and affect on the issue in either direction. Bush has clearly shown that the country will not hinder industry for the sake of conservation. And no, it does not have to be an either/or, but then how far should it go? What protocol should we follow, including in dealing with politicians about it? The point is, if only little countries that rely on tourism are going to be at the helm, that's not going to stop the problem when the US and other large countries are still doing whatever they please. And realistically, is there any hope for this cause getting anywhere when some people even want to ignore global warming? Global warming hardly has a chance in hell of getting fixed before things get quite bad, because of all the stupid people who will complain about it and follow along every politician that tells then what they want to hear promising protection against the "tax conspiracy", and this animals stuff seems like an even lower priority for people. Could anything possibly hold back the dynamic of people rejecting spending more to save some bird somewhere? A few hippies meaning well isn't going to do it.

what's wrong with trotsia's plan, is that the green parts of plants is where the oxygen COMES FROM. it ISN'T just there. animal diversity is part of the process that keeps the plants healthy.

(considering how the vote has gone so far, i may be, hopefully, merely stating the obvious)

what's wrong with trotsia's plan, is that the green parts of plants is where the oxygen COMES FROM. it ISN'T just there. animal diversity is part of the process that keeps the plants healthy.

(considering how the vote has gone so far, i may be, hopefully, merely stating the obvious)

I'm pretty sure he was just screwing around. But anyways, if the problem is identified, good, the hard part is figuring out how to fix it.

Well that does bring up a good point. Some people were concerned that deforestation and die-offs of algae and plantlife in general would reduce atmospheric oxygen production and asphyxiate us. Hence planting trees and trying to halt deforestation.

HOWEVER another solution presents itself. Just kill off the animals! That leaves more oxygen for the rest of us AND we can cut down the forests too.

I see nothing wrong with this plan.

...you do realize that humans are animals too, right?

None of the poll option reflect my opinion.