Here we go! Why not post what you think about Animals rights (whether it be about pets, farms, hunting, or anything else).
Okay, I like pets. I have a Betta Fish right now. I used to have a Bearded Dragon, but I wanted to keep my dog, named Samantha, so I gave him up. However, I couldn't keep Sammy anyway, so I lost both pets (Wah!). Unfortunately, I can not see either of them again. Sammy died near my mom's birthday (almost 9 years old, and she was starting to have problems (she was the runt of the litter, and always looked like an overgrown puppy/mini-poodle)), and I gave my lizard back to the store.
Oh yeah, this is my second fish, Yoshi 2 (but I just call him Yoshi). My Bearded Dragon was also named Yoshi, and if I get another pet... Probably to be named Yoshi again.
Anyway, I myself have a bow and arrows (some target arrows, some hunting arrows), but I doubt that I could kill any animal, even if my life depended on it. It is not that I am against it, it is just that I love them so much. However, I also love meat, so...
Have a nice day.
Animals have the right to be digested in my stomach, worn on my back, tested on with various drugs and devices, and to be kicked if they get in my way.
UNLESS THEY'RE A PET. Pets are family, and you don't mess with someone's family. Eating a stray dog is one thing, but you don't kill and eat someone's pet dog. That's like killing and eating a little sister. You just DON'T DO IT.
Other than pets, though, we're at the TOP of the food chain, and I intend to make it known.
Hm... This is true, but... Doing mean things to animals that are in the wild or harming those that are not bred for being pets... Even I can't do that.
However, it would be nice if cat owners would keep their cats in their houses. Some of them do, but one of these days, their 'family' is going to get hit with a car, or something like that.
Oh, and I would most likely not touch endangered species, even if it meant that I would die of starvation (well, pretty much any animal actually...). However, if I must some day in the future, then I will target those that try to kill me.
Have a nice day.
If a species becomes endangered, there's a reason. Remember that thing called natural selection? Yeah, if they're going to die, and it'd be my fault, then I'd be PROUD to be a shining example of evolution hard at work.
That's right, mook, FEAR MY SUPERIOR GENOME!
Yikes! I would hate to be the reason for a species being extinct... I'd probably kill myself if I were to be the reason for that.
It is a shame to see animals go if you think about it. I know that I have always dreamt of a world where we would see a Parrot in Parliament, hehe, or a Chimpanzee as our Prime Minister. This will most likely never happen, but at least I can dream.
Better yet, I take over the world, and make animals the top (hahaha)!
Have a nice day.
Edit: Now it looks like we are debating about something in an actual debate topic, lol.
I'd rather not be ruled by food. >_>
I don't have any pets because I don't really have time for having one and because my mother doesn't like pets at all but I would love to have a dog or a reptile (like an iguana or a chameleon)...Also I love meat and I would never became an vegeteriam unless it was a case of life or death.Despite this, animals are living beings, so they deserve respect even though most people don't care about them.
Also,about being a reason for a species being extinct... I would hate to be one but sadly we all are more or less passively or not a reason, isn't that right?
Ah, and Salanewt if you want help to take over the world I'll help you out xD
Role: Yeah, I am sure that this is what soem pets think of their owners too.
Sajin: Okay! Sounds like a plan. No wall we need are flashing strobe lights, preferably in different colours (heehee).
Have a nice day.
Well we are at the top of the food chain, and i'm sure any wild animal'd eat us if it had the chance!
I really don't see anything wrong with hunting wild animals for food as thats what us animals do.
(That doesn't mean you can go wipe out a whole species of bear just to "feed your family".)
Hunting animals for fun however, now i think that is completely wrong, same with animal testing.
Also I'd just like to make a min-rant here:
Killing wild cats or dogs for whatever purpose is in no way the same as shooting a domesticated animal!!
oh and despite all that i don't think i could ever bring myself to kill an animal...
I don't agree with animal testing, but it's sort of a necessary evil. We need to make sure those products are safe for people. Heck, some people use such products on their pets as well!
It's a sacrifice on the animal's part to allow hundreds to be safe. Although, I don't think that in the process they should be purposely mistreated or tortured, because experimentation is torture enough. I think they should be treated as pets so they can still be happy. They should be considered heroes rather than throw away test dummies.
I fully support hunting, since it is something that as a species we do to survive. I don't agree with factory farming or anything even remotely similar to it, and whenever I can, I eat meats and eggs produced in places where they take care of their animals and let them roam freely - they're more expensive, but they're also less prone to disease and you know they lived a rather fulfilling life.
Animals do not exist as the sole purpose of them supporting us - we should serve a kind of symbiotic relationship in which the animal gives its love and work to the human in exchange for love and food in return.
Eh, I totally forgot about this topic.
Being in the top of the food chain (although humans are pretty pathetic phisically speaking) IS the problem. I bet someday a crazy scientist invents some animal-controlling-machine-thing and drives the animals to kill everyone....Or not. :p
Hunting "for fun" is plain cruelty but killing some animals due to survival isn't that wrong I guess, but it isn't right either (e.g.: testing on animals).
Why do we need to use animals for testing? unless the research is about that particular animal of course.
People willing to volunteer for trials and stuff aren't too hard to find.
Of course then there's the 1% of things that no one would try...and i guess scientists have to resort to using an animal...
Well, it's not hard but people think like this "if you can test it on animals why test it on humans?". It's wrong but, hey, it's the world we live in.
Yeah, that is unfortunate.
Yes! Several people agree with me! Yay! Of course, I used to even dislike saqying this, but it is the truth. If food is needed, hunt for it (I prefer hunting for sales at stores though, lol).
For that 1%, scientists could find suicidal people for testing, and for the other 99%, it should be easy to find people who can volunteer (or get paid) to test products.
Have a nice day.
Edit: Or better yet, a new punishment for people in prisons... Test products for the innocent.
Prisomers testing products for the innocent? That's a little unfair because you never know if a guy that goes to jail is 100% guilty. It happen already to some that were taken to death penalti and years after police discovers that they were innocent.
But I guess for the ones that are 100% sure that are guilty it's a fine treatment.
Yeah. Of course, it would also only be for a serious crime, if they can guarantee it. For example, a bank robbery or a murder: Yes. Several unpaid tickets: No.
Besides, I think that even some of these "innocent" people deserve them too (of course, only the innocent people who are not actually innocent).
Have a nice day.
Hmmm...I think we got sidetracked Salanewt, because we're getting to Human rights and not Animal rights...
As far as I know, the Humans rights forbid the use of people as tools/objects, so I doubt about using the worst crazy pedophile serial killer to even test a new suine flu vaccine...Which is a shame, really. If he's gonna die anyway, what's the problem?
Well then, now On-topic:
In my country they just have forbidden the reproduction or aquisition of animals for circus, yay! Finally... Now they just need to forbid the stupid bull-killing-in-the-arena-thing (sorry, I don't know how to translate it to english...).
Well, if it is a name, then you do not have to translate it. Also, I know that by animals, we are staying away from humans, but we can talk about humans every once in a while (as long as it is only slightly). Anyway, now we shall stay away from Homo Sapiens for a while.
If hunting were illegalized, that would be perfect. Yes, people do need meat to survive, but that is why we are raising animals in captivity, and hunting the animals in nature takes away from their natural predators (or better yet, people could decide to become vegans, but fungi is kind of disgusting most of the time (all the time for me, yuck!)). I do like meat, but to think that in a different world, the meat hanging in butcher shops would be human meat.
Even then, don't most people believe in "the right to live"? Technically, every single multicellular creature on earth is a serial killer, especially humans. Like Hand Sanitizer? You are killing millions of bacteria, which are living things. Like meat? Killing something so you can have a good meal? That is what packs of wolves do. Want a pet? Unless it is bred 100% in captivity, and you know that it would never be able to survive in the wild, then you are keeping an animal caged up in your own home (and also, cats are indoor pets, not outdoor! They can be let outside, but their owners should really watch where the cats go).
Have a nice day.
I doubt that hunting will be illegal since there are many people that gain profit with it (like tourism for example)...
I understand what you're saying but we kill tons of bacteria and the like but not with a concious of actually wanting to kill them, we simply wash our hands to prevent diseases...It's a lot different from going hunting for plain cruel fun.
If I were to get a pet tough, I wouldn't go buy one. I probably would go to the pound (not intirely sure about the word) and get a dog from there. It's like saving a life, right?
Ah, human meat? >_> :um: :Sweat: Well, cannibals say that tastes like pig meat...
Yes, this is all true, and the pound is correct. Yes, even I wash my hands to prevent disease (however, I am fine with this because there are so many people who do not do this, lol).
However, I have noticed that they rarely have anything else besides mammals at the pound. When I got my dog, my mom purchased her because the breed of dog is harder to find (and also because when I saw her, I knew that she would be the one)... And talking about my dog is a bit off topic, that, and she passed away a little while ago, and I do not want to talk about her too much... Wah!
Well, my uncooked skin almost tastes like a combination of plastic and sand. It is a shame that huntin will most likely never be illegalized. However, there are alternatives that are already illegal, and would be good for the economy... And yes, I was at that Marijuana Party of Canada website for too long, lol. However, pollution affects the environment as well, affecting the lives of animals. there are some people who consider the number 7 to be lucky, and there are plants with 7 points on their leaves... I really have to take a look at some of these other political party websites, lol.
Have a nice day.
As far as i know I only find dogs and cats at the pound.
Oh, your dog died? I'm sorry for you. I remember when my dog died and it's really sad...
Pollution will be the cause of all living things to die...not only animals but human beings as well due to the greenhouse effect (ice melting which leads to the water level to raise).
And I consider the number 7 as lucky. Don't know why but I do. :p
Yeah... She was our princess (literally, we spoiled her). Anyway, I wonder how all of these people who are adding so much to pollution will feel when they have been flooded? Probably will not be in our lifetime, but apparently (was told by one of my teachers last year), Fiji the country will be comploetely flooded in about 40 years. Not to mention, if the ice melts, then fewer species can survive (because animals are trying to find cooler climates, and insects are already further north than they have been).
Have a nice day.
The problem will affect ALL animals. Birds lose their sense of direction, fish die because of the water cooling down and land animals will be forced to enter territories of other species. It will be a total chaos...
I'm not worried about me or our generation but how about the next generation?
Well, let's just hope we still have time to reverse the way that the planet is taking...
Yes, this is unfortunate. Oh well, we might still be able to reverse it, but there are some countries that are doing very little to help (*glares at China*).
Also, it looks like we might have to start a conversation for the Environment, since we could go on forever. I have also noticed that, although it is barely noticable, the Environment and Animal Rights are closely linked, but they both have areas that make them seem completely unrelated to each other.
Have a nice day.
Enviroment issues pretty much affect all other things (humans, animals, future, the world, etc).
And China isn't even moving a single finger to help the enviroment. Damn those coal mines. :fury:
Yes. This is unfortunate. Oh well, I suppose there has to be at least one country that is almost making things worse. However, there are some other countries that are barely helping as well. I would say that China is helping out the least amount. I wonder who is trying to save the environment the most?
Have a nice day.
It's harder to know who is doing something than the ones who are not doing anything at all...
But I guess maybe Japan? They had idea of the Kioto Protocol,right?
True. Also, for the past little while, it seems that they have been making things that could help the environment.
Ooh, I have an idea for the environment, before I start talking about animals in laboratories again. How about we try to make cars powered on Hemp? Surely, it is possible. We just need to get both the politicians and the scientists in favour of the idea.
Okay then... It turns out that there is a major problem with sharks. There are poachers who are fishing them out of the water, cutting their fins off, and then dumping them back in the oceans. It is one thing to take a shark to eat all of it, but why dump its useless body into the water to die? I hate people who only kill things for parts of their bodies. After all, everything has a use.
Have a nice day.
Yes, I guess Japan actually knows what are we/they dealing with...
Car on hemp? Well, it woud not pollute much but it would make people high while they drive, so it's kind of risky... lol
They could make shark soup or shark beef, why not? But no, they just drop the corpse back to the ocean... :fury: But the same happens ,for example, to elepahnts: poachers only want their ivory (is the word correct?)... Stupid poachers.
Oh yeah, I never thougth about that! Unless they use the actual Hemp, instead of the leaf, since there are parts of Hemp plants that do not make people high (it would be like smoking a rope).
Your English is very good, ivory is correct. Also, this happens to almost every species. Other animals like Dolphins and turtles also get caught in fishing nets.
Have a nice day.
Thank you! I try to type as well as I can so that my posts aren't confusing.
I think they should just create cars that run on solar power...There are already some and perhaps is better than a Hemp-powered-car. :p lol
If I'm not mistaken, some fishing nets are forbidden now, due to being too small for young fish to escape. But dolphind and turtles and some other big ocean creatures will still be caught in those nets...
True. Apparently though, in Australia, they are using nets that allow platypuses to surface for air, so they do not drown. This would be a good idea for the oceans as well, so they can just collect the fish that they want with a different net.
Have a nice day.
Wow, really? Now that's something usefull to be invented. If they can create nets that make it possible for platypuses to breathe than I bet they can easily modify that net into a "Dolphin saving net". Although the problem is someone actually investing in that idea...
Well, if I had enough money, I would definitely do this. In fact, I would probably also invest in Solar cars, or even cars with miniature windmills on it, so the windmills also power up the vehicles. Of course, Solar power and a back-up electric battery would be required, but I would still work for a way to manage it. This was, pollution can eventually be decreased, so the environment is not effected as much, and then the animals are healthier, as well as plants and animals.
Have a nice day.
I would invest too, but it seems that noone actually cares for stuff like this...
All those lunatically rich people that spend money on worthless junk would do better if they invest on solar powered cars and other things that actually help the planet. Or at least some animals (like the special disgned nets).
Oh, and cars with miniature windmills? Seems a good idea,where did you get that?
I forget. I had it a while ago... Around the same time that I thought of boots with a small amount of air and metal in them, so you could attempt to walk on water with better bouancy. I never got around to making them though... Perhaps that can be one of my little projects coming up soon.
There are people who care for animals, but most of them do not seem to have enough money to spend for investing in things that could help (even if they do have a lot of money, they somehow don't have enough...).
Have a nice day.
Quote from: Salanewt on 13, November, 2009, 08:18:44 AM
There are people who care for animals, but most of them do not seem to have enough money to spend for investing in things that could help (even if they do have a lot of money, they somehow don't have enough...).
Have a nice day.
"God gives nuts to those who don't have teeth." :p it's a saying,although it's literally translated from my language.
Investing in new things isn't cheap... But it's worth it. Or atleast to those who care about animals/the planet.
That is logical.
Well, one day, I am sure that everyone will realize how important it is to keep animals alive, but it is sad to think that it might be too late by the time everyone else has this epiphany.
Have a nice day.
...How important it is that we steer Natural Selection in the direction we think it should go?
I'm going to walk over here and laugh as y'all set everything up for the next MEE.
???
I still do not consider cars natural, or guns, knives, drugs, or any manufactured product that can do any harm. They may be made from natural resources, but they themselves are not straight from the environment.
Have a nice day.
...What the hell are you talking about?
QuoteWell, one day, I am sure that everyone will realize how important it is to keep animals alive, but it is sad to think that it might be too late by the time everyone else has this epiphany.
Keeping animals alive? Really? I don't think that's your call, boya. When the time comes for the next Mass Extinction Event (MEE), it's all adapt or die. If you spent all your resources saving all the fscking whales and lame-@#$% polar bears, then when the time comes, we're fscked ourselves. There's nothing we can do, because we lack the resources necessary for how human adaptation has evolved. Thus, unable to adapt to the sudden events brought about by the MME, we become one of the 99% of Ex-species.
SCREW THE ANIMALS, I'll choose the survival of my species over those lesser life forms I prefer to call LUNCH.
To be honest, I would rather risk the life of a human who I do not know than that of an animal. They have done very little, and we are destroying the planet.
Besides, the population of humans used to be in the millions... Now we are in the billions! Besides, adapting to the "next MEE" could be caused by humans or by nature, it is hard to say.
Also, when you say "Screw the animals", you can't forget that WE ARE in the animal kingdom, in the phylum Chordata, Order Mammalia. So, when you say "Screw the animals", you are practically saying to screw humans too, lol. I know that you mean the lower life forms, but we need ot keep them alive because they are what keeps our food chains around.
Besides, if there were no more fish, or no more deer, there would be people who lose jobs. If no more dogs or cats, then there would be none available for training for the blind, or to help fight crime (drug sniffers). What a sad life that would be, if humans were the only members of the animal kingdom left. There would be no lunch unless you become a cannibal.
Have a nice day.
How cute, your argument against me is "but but... you're an animal too!"
NO. I'm a Race. There are Animals, which rely primarily on instinct, and are backed up by rational thought...
Then there are Races, which rely primarily on rational thought, and are backed up by instinct.
Basically, an animal's driving force is instinctual.
A Race's driving force is more 'rational', something requiring more complex thought processes.
There's a point, Sala, where a species transcends from an animal species to a race species. Humans are beyond that point, Sala. We are ruled by Rational (and sometimes Irrational) thought, and our instincts are VERY OFTEN overruled by those logical thought processes. Logic and reason trump our survival instincts all the time. It's what sets us apart - instinct we can just set aside. Other animals are bound by it.
You can see other primates, which are close to the line. Chimpanzees in particular are VERY close to crossing the line from animal to race. When they will is probably several millennia in the future... IF WE LEAVE THEM THE HELL ALONE. If we try to keep them as chimpanzees, and blame any mutations on human interference, then we're PREVENTING THEIR PROPER EVOLUTION. We have been meddling too much. Save the animals? THAT WILL KILL THEM IN THE LONG RUN. Adapt or die. That is the way of natural selection. The weak genes die out, and the strong ones survive. If an animal is about to go extinct, it had WEAK GENES. If it lived, the genes were strong. By preserving weak animals, we preserve weak genes, an this totally screws up the process of natural selection.
SCREW THE ANIMALS. Forget them, they can survive on their own (or if they can't, they didn't deserve to). BILLIONS of years of evolution went into making them lean, mean, survival machines after all! And those processes are still trying to work properly! If we don't interfere and meddle, if we don't say "save the wales" or "think of the polar bears", then they can properly sort out weak vs strong genes. But if we actively try to preserve them, we SCREW EVERYTHING UP.
Well, the animals can survive on their own, but human activity which harms them isn't excactly letting the animals help themselves.
Technically, there are even sub-races in species, so humans as a race... I prefer to call them a species.
Besides, I never said to go out of your way to save them (well, maybe I did), but it is better to avoid doing things to harm them to help them. Some of the things that you say do make sense, but they are paired up with other points that do not mix well together. I agree that keeping them in zoos or in labs to prevent them from going extinct is incorrect, but keeping them alive helps them survive. I barely mind if an animal goes extinct (I would rather see a live specimin first), but I do not agree with humans speeding things up. Killing and testing on animals is not good, but to kill to survive? Sure, why not. However, I would only do so if I were forced to.
In the ideal world, we as humans would be pets, and dogs as our owners.
Have a nice day.
Species refers to organisms as a whole.
Animals refers to organisms in the Kingdom Animalia that override reason with instinct.
Races refers to organisms in the Kingdom Animalia that override instinct with reason.
Humans are a species, yes, but we've evolved past simple animals. Our sentience and complex thought patterns are what proves that we are beyond common animals.
Humans are predators. If it harms them, it's probably because we're going to consume them (one way or another). You know, top of the food chain and all. Also, that testing thing? That falls under KILL TO SURVIVE for our species. We're trying to create medicines to cure illness. But, if we don't test them first, those medicine may kill us instead. This is REASON hard at work. However, reason is a fickle mistress. While reason has allowed us to thrive and bend the world to our will, it has also confused us into thinking that this is OUR planet, rather than we being our planet's species. This isn't our planet. We're just this era's primary renters, but Earth kinda owns it, and without warning, we can be given the boot. However, in our confusion in thinking that this planet is ours, we also foolishly think that the stuff that happens on it is caused by us. Is a species dying out? Natural Selection be damned, we're at fault and have to save it! Polar Bears? SWIMMING?! Nevermind that their numbers are on the rise, we're killing them off! Summer is hot? Crap, global warming! Winter is cold? Crap, climate change!
Doods, seriously. Chill. Do you honestly think that our meager 20000 years of human knowledge can trump 5 BILLION years of natural selection? Really?
Okay, fine, I admit, if we nuke the freaking hell out of everything, we may have fscked up beyond reason, and caused the MEE ourselves. But that doesn't mean that what we're doing now is fscking everything up. Climate change is coming? Don't try to fight it. Adapt or die. You didn't kill the polar bears. Hell, the polar bears seem to love this weather, since THEIR NUMBERS ARE ON THE RISE. Data doesn't like, peeps. Listen to the data, not that hypocritical dumbass Gore. Meat is bad for you and makes you fat? Well, for starters, we're OMNIVOROUS. We need a balance of meats, veggies, fruits, etc... Not eating meat messes up your body chemistry and is actually UNHEALTHY for you if you don't compensate with vitamins and something. And it's CARBS that make you fat, not Meat. You know... PLANTS.
Animals have the right to be in my stomach, worn on my back, and drugged until the companies are absolutely sure that the Excedrin I take for headaches won't kill me instead of the headache I took it for. Oh, and they have the right to struggle to survive, as they have done for BILLIONS OF YEARS.
*reads the humans are subservient to dogs bit*
Oh. OOOOH. Now I get it. You're a PETAphile. Ewwww. Shoo shoo, get away from me you sick furry freak. Take you and your crazy vegan FAIL the heck away from me. I'll eat deer babies in front of you. I mean it. Back, back, foul beast, or Bambi gets it!
I agree with you as a whole Role, but the only thing that irks me is your stress on the fact that animals work mainly on instinct. It's true that instinct is a large factor in their behaviour (and instinct also plays an important role in ours) but most mammals and birds, and other higher organisms are capable of spontaneous behaviour that is not instinct. Go higher up the line, higher mammals such as dogs and many birds are capable of logic, and higher still, corvids (crows, magpies, jays ect) and primates are capable of solving puzzles by developing new tools, like people do.
Yes. In fact, I remember reading that Chimpanzees are supposedly only 1 or 2% different from humans genetically.
As for what you said about testing medicine Role... I thought you once said that the weak deserve to die for being weak?
Also, this instinct bit makes sense, but Charon is right about some animals using common sense (although an underdeveloped strand of it compared to humans).
This is what I think:
Lowest: No instict (like bacteria, etc.). What happens with them just happens.
Medium-low: Have instinct, but not advanced logic compared to other animals (and Medium-low includes my Math teacher from last year).
Medium: Have some thought process.
Medium-high: Have better logic skills, and are able to solve simpler problems (some slightly more complicated than others).
High: Have better memory skills as well as logic, and are better at problem solving, but they are missing things that make humans what they are.
Top: Humans (or maybe Alien Overlords, hard to say right now, heehee!).
By the way, this is not compared to Humans, because Humans are definitely not that smart for being the smartest living things on Earth, but this is based on a general look at each kingdom other than Fungi or Plant (since they are too off topic here).
As for deer babies Role... Go ahead and eat some Venison. I myself am NOT a Vegan, and I love meat (but how the meat is prepared often is cruel itself). Bambi? Hm... Oh, the Disney Deer. Have not seen that in years, so I don't remember it.
Have a nice day.
Quote from: Charon the Ferryman on 15, November, 2009, 11:06:40 PM
I agree with you as a whole Role, but the only thing that irks me is your stress on the fact that animals work mainly on instinct. It's true that instinct is a large factor in their behaviour (and instinct also plays an important role in ours) but most mammals and birds, and other higher organisms are capable of spontaneous behaviour that is not instinct. Go higher up the line, higher mammals such as dogs and many birds are capable of logic, and higher still, corvids (crows, magpies, jays ect) and primates are capable of solving puzzles by developing new tools, like people do.
Remember the part where I said that many species, such as Chimpanzees, are getting close to the point to where reason takes charge, and will overright instinct? The reason I said they act mainly by instinct is because at the moment, when instinct kicks in, it'll override reason. Instead of continuing to solve the problem, they'll act on instinct instead.
However, many are quite close to breaking past that, just as you pointed out. If we try to keep them as 'chimps', 'corvids', etc... then we're actually HINDERING their evolution. We need to leave them be. Then they'll break past Animal and into Race.
@Salanewt: Actually, that bit about venison was me making fun of your little 'perfect world where dogs rule'. Either you got that from family guy, or you heard some idiot say it.
Lol. My my, you do easily find where I get my quotes from. :happy:
Nah, dogs should not actually rule over people, but what I was saying is that if humans treat animals more kindly, then they in return will not be afraid enough of them to try to harm them (of course, what I said before did not even hint at this).
Have a nice day.
Although I don't really agree with you Role, I DO understand what you're saying and you're right to a certain degree...
But leaving them be isn't enough after a lot of species got extinct due to human pollution and exploration. I guess we got to at least help out some animals or else they'll be gone forever and no good can come if species start to disappear because sooner or later that will alter the food chain...
Yes, and if food chains are altered, then you start getting altered ecosystems, and then eventually, things start really messing up.
Think of fit this way:
Seafood for fishing industry. The Coral Reefs are dying, most likely because of humans, so there will eventually be a large loss of habitat for animals. This not only affects the fishing industry, but it could be harder to find creatures (after a while) like oysters for pearls, or Sponges for themselves. On land, more life could die... If there are fewer carnivores, then plantlife is reduced (also vice versa, or any other circumstance). We are sort of talking about the environment now, aren't we?
Oh well, this is Animal Rights, so we can talk about their rights too.
Have a nice day.
You don't need to go that far.
For example, if animal X disappears (due to pollution or/and hunting), animal Y, that eats a lot of animal X daily, would have to change it's diet. In a larger scale, if animals change their diet in a radical way, the ecosystem will collapse some time after.
Also, I recall something that I heard some time ago: if all bees would disappear, human race would also disappear in one year after. But I don't remember where, though.
Well, that would make sense for pollination of plants, but there are other pollinators too (like Butterflies, Hummingbirds, and even some species of flies).
Have a nice day.
I'm sorry, I didn't understand what you meant with that... :Sweat:
When you said that humans will probably die when bees die. This is probably true, but there are pollinators, which could allow for the survival of some humans.
Have a nice day.
Well, yes but I meant it not as being a pollinator but as a specimen. There are other pollinators but bees seem to have something special I guess...
Makes sense. After all, they form colonies, have much larger concentrated populations, and also make honey.
Have a nice day.
Yes, It's very interesting that bees seem to live in a different way than other animals (although their colonies/population are similar to those of ants).
Also, now that we are talking about bugs, they seem to be forgotten when people talk about them...They have the right to have rights just like any other animal but I guess maybe since they are in such large numbers than there's no need to worry about them? What do you think about this?
Quoteif animals change their diet in a radical way, the ecosystem will collapse some time after.
It's that idiot logic that I have a problem with. The ecosystem can survive not one, but at least FIVE MASS EXTINCTION EVENTS. I'm sure it can survive yet another species going extinct. Adapt or die, that is the way of nature. If it only had one source of prey, then perhaps it deserves death after becoming that specialized. If it cannot adapt, sucks to be it.
FACE IT. Animals have been forced to radically change their diet several times over the course of evolution. And the ecosystem still exists, surprise surprise. Try thinking before you type, 'k?
But, as you said, animals have to adapt. To adapt takes time. If there is not enough time to adapt, then there will indeed be dangerous changes to the environment, and that will cause changes in radical ways. Also, evolution did not happen in a day, and major adaptations can take centuries (which [if not centuries] would probably either be years of increasing populations or decreasing food, so they find other sources of food or migrate). It has only really been a few hundred years since humans became the environment destroyers that we are today.
Take a look at some of the things that humans have invented. Some of the nuclear wastes are extremely toxic to everything, yet they can last for thousands of years before they do not cause any harm.
Yes, we do not have to worry about insects as much (except for the ones that help agriculture in major ways) as much as the others, because of their large populations (and some of which have extremely short life spans). However, it is better not to overdo anything like pesticides (which are, very luckily, starting to be illegalized in Canada).
Role? Our point of view may seem idiotic to you, as yours does to us (at least to me), but that is the lovely thing about a debate (as long as we are clear on this, right?). :happy: As for the amount of mass extinction events, this is true, but it also depends on what they are (Forest Fire: Yes, Nuclear Bomb: probably not for a while) as well as their span.
One thing that I noticed... Many people believe in the right to live. Does this mean that everything has the right to live, or for them to choose what can live?
Have a nice day.
Yes, because there's plenty of time to react when a freaking METEOR STRIKES THE PLANET.
Will you try listening to me for once? MEEs do NOT give you time to react. You adapt right then and there or you die. And guess what? The ecosystem is still in tact. After five or six of them (at least). Gee, I wonder why?
We are starting to talk about mass extinction events now, aren't we? Anyway, there is adaptation, as well as planning ahead. I mean, you can not survive a giant chunk of anything falling from the sky at that speed (or even a small object) because if it hit or pierces you, it will kill you. To adapt takes time, to change in dire times takes seconds. Chances are, if an animal has lived one way for their life, and then they change to survive, they will revert back to the way that they were before that change (unless following the natural course of evolution).
Have a nice day.
I believe the canadian goberment is too stupid because they think the solution to the extinction of the elk species is to slaughter the cannis lupus arctos and canis lupus Lycaon(timer and artic wolf). By doing so they are also putting in exctinction the wolf species.
It really depends. If an animal is forced to change its diet, and the original food source isn't available any more, it will adapt or die. Chances are, it adapts, and doesn't eat the original food anymore. Though species like the giant panda are dying out because they're over specialised and can't change their diet.
@Role, we're currently going through the sixth mass extinction.
While I still take the same stance on animal welfare as I did before, governments choose to selectively hunt specific species in order to prevent others. If there is a surplus of deer, letting them all live might reduce the amount of plant matter. If there is a surplus of wolves, they may target animals that have fragile populations. I don't exactly agree with this, but I can easily support it if it will help protect our fragile ecosystems overall.
However, the post before FelixWolf's was uploaded back in 2009, so some could argue that this conversation is dead. Would it be acceptable to revive the conversation, or should the topic be locked?
Agreed. Stop necroposting, especially when I can't understand a word you're saying. Requesting the locking of this topic.
Technically it is not necroposting, as this is still a valid topic of discussion even today. If, on the other hand, this topic were NOT valid, like some of the older Golden Sun Hacking topics, it would be locked.
The post in question is not only illiterate, but has very little to do to the topic prior to the post.
Durza's reply tries to talk about a point I don't even remember because IT WAS TWO YEARS AGO.
Hell, you know what? Point taken. I can't make sense of Felixwolf's post at ALL.
Topic locked, BTW.