A weird conversation, but I think some animals are meant to be extinct and trying to repopulate or conserve a certain population of it is a bit cruel.
Why did we start “saving the animals”?
Why did we start “saving the animals”?
Animal Conservation - Why I’m honestly ok with some animals going extinct.
- Thread starter Cedric_Eff
- Start date
They only do that for the cute ones.
Well, if we take evolutionary theory for granted I can't see any particular long-term problem with extinctions, or even mass extinctions. The geological record shows that it's happened more than once due to a multiplicity of causes and life always finds a way to come back to full force; hell, I heard that no matter how deep humans have dug into the ground, we've always been able to find bacteria embedded in the rock down there (it's also more damp than expected) so we have the basics of life more or less built into the blueprint of the Earth.
Of course, whether or not we would survive is another question entirely, and I think the more pertinent one. It's not a certainty that we can afford to lose too many species before we destroy the food chains in different regions, but on the other hand the only way to feed us sustainably is to raise livestock and crops and not rely too much on the fickle vagaries of nature, so it's by no means certain that we couldn't erase most of the flora and fauna on this rock and just get by on the things we need. Might be a little bleak, but I guess that depends on whether you hold nature or man in more esteem.
I lean towards the latter; I'd never want to hug a crocodile but most children make me pretty damned sentimental and adults can be pretty decent as well. As for why 'we' started conserving the animals I think it's partly a fear that we will, in fact, destroy the environment and snuff ourselves out. Some of it's just misanthropy masquerading as a lofty concern for nature but how much is hard to say, and a lot of it is just rich, frivolous people who don't understand that people want to feed their families and build up the world around themselves, rare river newts and nice views of the mountains be damned.
Of course, whether or not we would survive is another question entirely, and I think the more pertinent one. It's not a certainty that we can afford to lose too many species before we destroy the food chains in different regions, but on the other hand the only way to feed us sustainably is to raise livestock and crops and not rely too much on the fickle vagaries of nature, so it's by no means certain that we couldn't erase most of the flora and fauna on this rock and just get by on the things we need. Might be a little bleak, but I guess that depends on whether you hold nature or man in more esteem.
I lean towards the latter; I'd never want to hug a crocodile but most children make me pretty damned sentimental and adults can be pretty decent as well. As for why 'we' started conserving the animals I think it's partly a fear that we will, in fact, destroy the environment and snuff ourselves out. Some of it's just misanthropy masquerading as a lofty concern for nature but how much is hard to say, and a lot of it is just rich, frivolous people who don't understand that people want to feed their families and build up the world around themselves, rare river newts and nice views of the mountains be damned.
I didn't think the pig licking avatar guy would turn out NOT to be a misanthrope, lol
U
UA 674
Guest
kiwifarms.net
I'm shocked too.
There's literally nothing wrong with poaching endangered animals and anyone who disagrees is gay.
This made me chuckle, when you said that I imagined the "eat da poopoo" guy shooting an elephant calf.
Oh fuck off. I "conserve" them in the fridge until dinner like the rest of America.
Every time I kill a cow, some farmer plants two more.
Marissa Moira
kiwifarms.net
Blessed is the unknown man who first tamed an auroch.
I think there's a matter of principle tied into conservation, OP. I'm not religious, but I think there's significant meaning in the idea that God gave mankind dominion over all the living things on Earth. We have an inherent ability to rule over plants and animals in ways they can't rule over us, which, I think, makes us responsible for their well being. For a species to go extinct because of humans is a failure of some divine or universal duty we inherited merely by existing. I do agree with your sentiment, though. Species go extinct all the time, and the idea that we can save them all is futile at best. Some of them just can't hang, I suppose, and that's just the natural order of things.
Honestly, I just don’t like it when smug a-hole tranny/lesbian/retard starts ranting and raving about how “WE’RE ALL DESTROYING NATURE LOL” and “CARBON TAX IS THE ONLY WAY TO SAVE THE ANIMALS AND US”.
I am all for animal conservation, simply because I believe animals should exist to benefit us. Why would we want to loser an entire species of creature to have around? We are the God of all we can be, and where we can't be God, we are certainly trying to be. That's great imo. It's the purpose of all life, and humanity is winning at it in our known universe. "Natural selection" is selection by the current God, and we become God by taking over the selection process. It's great. It's the only facet of animal justice ideology that makes sense.
They're almost all atheists and misanthropes as well, which is really confusing to me. There's no underlying reason for humanity to exist given a plain statement of the facts of evolution. We're not special in that paradigm and there's plenty of time for life to churn out something equally as intelligent and capable, possibly without our perceived propensity to harm the environment.
It's not likely that we could even do anything catastrophic enough to the planet that would sterilize it, not with our current state of technology. These people should be encouraging us to 'wipe ourselves out' or whatever they're afraid of but I don't think they believe their own rhetoric. Say what you will about how the feeling of deep meaning to life is just some illusion provided by natural selection to make life bearable; it certainly doesn't look that way from the inside looking out.
TL;DR they're enraged crybabies with authoritarian mindsets.
Damn true. A lot of people are really fucking dense when it comes to define humanity and they all go the way of "we are special" and "we can make great things" this and that. But they forget the most essential things on God's green earth: we are just animals like everything else. As much as we try to rationalize it, we are driven by instinct and natural impulses to feel both yearning and aversion towards many things. We can try as hard as we can to tell ourseves we are driven by intellect and superiority, but we cannot fight our nature. And if those people actually wanted to save the enviroment and reduce pollution, they would dogpile on China and India and promote nuclear power. India and China generate most of plastic waste and pollution today and nuclear power is far safer and cleaner than everyone thinks it is. Plus, aggregate industries attached to nuclear power would generate extra employment.
So as far as animal conservation goes, it's a pretty fruitless endeavor. Panda bears are a bunch of inmense retards that can barely reproduce naturally, so why not let them kick the bucket? Or if you want something less extreme, in Australia there are a lot of efforts to preserve the dingo because many of them are being domesticated by proximity to human populations. Therefore, the wild dingo would go extinct. Or better yet, the Albatross is a bird that only reproduces once a year with the same female and if one on the couple dies, the remaining albatross doesn't reproduce anymore nor tries to find another mate. They are going extinct due to low reproduction rates and we can barely do anything about it. Animal extinction is no biggie like many have said already because it can happen due to many factors aside from human intervention and thinking that we are the only ones to blame for animal extinction in this world is a stupid assumption.
O
OB 946
Guest
kiwifarms.net
Animals naturally being choked out is okay. Humanity accidentallying entire species not so much. It causes a genetic bottleneck and lower biodiversity which means that a single virus or parasite or whatever can have a drastically larger impact, which can easily become a positive feedback loop that destroys the ecosystem.
Humans can not give a shit, but that would be incredibly irresponsible. Spouting off about evolution and survival of the fittest doesn't actually make the ecosystem any healthier. That's the problem. It doesn't reduce carbonic acid in the ocean, it doesn't reduce methane pollution, and it doesn't spontaneously create new species, which is what we need.
Humans are animals, it's either them or us.
X
XE 600
Guest
kiwifarms.net
Everything becomes extinct at some point. It's how the world works. Your gay ass polar bears will be extinct and eventually so will humans.
You can try to conserve as much as possible, you're just delaying the inevitable.
You can try to conserve as much as possible, you're just delaying the inevitable.
if you want to talk about how a modern idea evolved then let's use an example, like wetlands.
historically these areas were regarded as the spawning ground of fever and clearing them was progress. given the size of the frontier world, it was a fair assessment for the time. today "miasma" isn't a threat (or a real thing), our world is more finite, and modern science shows us wetlands aren't Grendel lairs but a part of our landscape we've paradoxically always been relying on.
short feature list- the massive spread of plant biomass acts as a sponge and cleans our water. they help prevent flash floods and erosion. they're spawning grounds for fish that will fuel commerce. some pollinating insects rely on them. do you hear birds singing outside? chances are good it's a species that needs wetlands for migration. without birds, enjoy your pest insects- you've destroyed the natural predators.
areas like Cape May NJ are today wealthy tourist locations because the wetlands and beaches are well managed, in part through efforts of conservation societies. it is a beautiful reprieve from the rest of shithole Jersey and NYC. could cape May have turned into a fucking shit hole too? yeah. but some group of people were smarter than that. everyone benefited because they didn't believe sort of folksy, anti-science idiot shit getting posted in this thread.
so there's a simple explanation without even touching upon any emotive, spiritual or philosophical arguments, or our responsibility to posterity, or a broader discussion about the state of the planet.
the point isn't to build noahs fucking arc. civilization is trying to balance the tangible negative side effects of uncoordinated growth. where to draw the line is a discussion with many competing interests, and you'll get nowhere purposefully misunderstanding the other side.
t. actual crybaby
Last edited:
