AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

View Poll Results: Is this sort "fishing" okay?
Yes. They are just animals... 13 33.33%
No. I don't think that is right. 26 66.67%
Voters: 39. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2007-03-14, 20:17   Link #81
no common sense
Resident Asshole
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Phoenix
Age: 28

The seals reminded me of a jody I heard in basic training.

Way up north where the air is cold
People up there ain't got no gold
The only way to earn a living is killin the baby seals
Roast em toast em rototill em kick em in the head until they squeal


That's the way we earn our living
By killin the baby seals
One day while out on the tundra
Saw a baby lyin there
Walked right up and kicked its head in
Left the body and took the fur
__________________
no common sense is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-14, 20:35   Link #82
Sazelyt
F i n
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImClueless View Post
LOL making drugs isn't the same thing at all and thats just about the most ludicrous comparison I heard of regarding the seal hunt. Drugs harm other people, seal hunting does not and in my book the well being of humans comes before animals every time when the animals are not threatened with the danger of extinction.
Even though drugs may harm other people, there is a large group of people who wouldn't mind buying and using that despite the risks. And, using your statement, as long as the produced drugs can be used at moderate levels not threatening the extinction of other people, why bother preventing it. Because it is considered as illegal in many places. Well, hunting like that might also considered illegal in many places.

Quote:
I don't know where you are from, but are you even aware of what kind of place Canada is or do you just believe the news blindly? People who live in those areas are hundreds if not thousands of kilometers away from major urban and industrial centres. What kind of industry do you want them to have? Are they all supposed to go on the dole? Well most of them have more self-respect than that. They have fishing and hunting thats it. You can't even have logging or farming because they are often above the tree line and its too damn cold.
If those people are trying to live thousands of kilometers away from the urban regions, and they have self-respect(!) (Regarding what by the way? Cause people hunting like that don't look like the kind of people that would have self-respect, probably, the self-respect of the weapon or drug lords... Respectable (!)), then they should live the way they are supposed to be. In harmony with the nature, not harming the nature.

The main reason that I gave drug example is to show that it might be possible to live using other means, i.e., avoiding the sweet money coming from the furs of that seals, which make it easier for them to live. Using other means, they would encounter difficulties. Who is not encountering difficulties? By living thousands of kms away from the other people, they should be more than prepared for that.

Quote:
As for believing in the government, what makes you think that the environmentalists are oh so innocent and altruistic? Don't kid yourself because the environmental movement is a major industry. There are thousands of people being employed by the environmental lobby and thousands more becoming rich off of it. Frankly I'd rather believe in scientists whose research is being funded by public tax dollars than those whose research is being funded by organizations with fundamental ideological agendas (like PETA).
If there are thousands of people being employed by the environmental lobby, then there are hundreds of millions other people employed by the non-environmentalist industry, millions of that becoming richer and richer every day. I should say here so what? If you are referring to environmentalist telling lies, then that means for each lie of the environmentalists, there would thousands of lies coming from the non-environmentalists. This doesn't seem like a good ratio.

And, you are telling me don't believe the environmentalists, believe the industry and government supported scientists. Sorry but there is common sense. If you kill some creature unnecessarily in that large numbers, it will end up hurting the life cycle in the nature globally. If you spread poisonous gas continuously it will end up hurting us all sooner or later. And, I'd make sure to check multiple times if someone paid, supported, and used by the government say otherwise.

By the way, why would someone get paid to say what the environmentalists are saying? I guess, the millions who are thinking of the lives of others rather than the thickness of their wallet should be considered as being paid to think so. Well, I am not.
Sazelyt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-14, 21:16   Link #83
ImClueless
Rawr
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
I am sorry if you are simply naive or your believe in the things you say, but it is honestly (to be fair IMO) some of the most ignorant things I have heard anyone say. I truly am speechless that you persist to make this analogy between drug use and the seal hunt. If you can't understand the difference in nature between a legal activity such seal hunting and the drug trade there isn't much I can say to convince you otherwise.

As for the people living in remote areas. Well where are they supposed to go? Your family has lived there for generations and you have to move because some guy you have never met before and has done nothing for you said so? Even if they wanted to move, most people don't have the means to give up everything they have to start from scratch somewhere else. Are YOU going to help them and pony up the cash? Then to add insult to injury they get compared to drug lords? I mean come on, these aren't gangsters peddling dope on the street or cooking meth in a lab. These are regular people trying to make the lives of their families a bit better.

Living in harmony with nature!!! I mean thats the most most hypocritical thing someone can say who is siting in front of a computer somewhere and typing this stuff. I mean do YOU live in harmony with nature? Have you ever considered where any of the stuff you use in life comes from? How much it hurts the environment to power that computer and to manufacture it? Unless you are a hunter gatherer, humans DO NOT live in harmony with nature and never have. Yes millions of people make a living off of industry. That is called CIVILIZATION. With the present human population humans will never be able to "live" in harmony with nature without some quantum leaps in technology. From the kind of things you say I would assume that you live in a developed country. Well, what do you tell the billions of others that want the same luxuries as you? No you can't because we have to save the environment instead? Are you prepared to give up the things that you take for granted like a computer or a car or even a house?

As for the comments about scientific bias, you obviously do not know how the science industry operates. It takes enormous capital to perform scientific research. Yes government funds research. However, if the government in a open and democratic country like Canada tried to influence the results, its going to inevitably come out in the media and the government will get nailed. Also, scientists on the government payroll are unionized and can't get fired even if they produce research contrary to government policy. Also, since it is public money anyone can request to see where it goes and where it comes from. People funded by the environmental movement don't nearly have that much freedom. If you ask to see the financial records of environmental organizations will they show you? What if you come out and say that the environmentalists are wrong? Well you would get immediately cut off. Afterall, why would the environmentalists fund someone who doesn't agree with them? It is all high and mighty to say that you are above the dollar, but when you are about to lose your source of income and you have mortgage payments to make suddenly those scientific ideals might not seem as absolute. Science is all about debate and constructive criticism so it would be foolish to dismiss the environmentalists, but it is just as stupid if not more so to blindly believe them and then vilify government.

Man this is the longest post I've made here
__________________

Last edited by ImClueless; 2007-03-14 at 21:28. Reason: Grammer issues
ImClueless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-15, 00:13   Link #84
aohige
( ಠ_ಠ)
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere, between the sacred silence and sleep
Yes, it's perfectly ok for westerners to tourture and kill chickens, pigs, and cows every day.
Have you seen how chickens are handled in the US? Those KFC videos?

But it's absolutely horrible for those "weird asians" to kill animals not familiar to them.
That's all there is to it.

Not to mention that australian animal rights "pirates" have been attacking Japanese sailors, in attempt to hurm them and have said they would keep threatening these fishermen of their lives. In their mind, human lives are nowhere near as important as fish they catch to eat.

This is coming from a country known for tourturing and maiming animals as well as Aborigines living on their turf.
Hypocricy at large? Very much so.

Let me add one more thing.
In Japan (and other asian countries as well, I assume) it's considered very bad manner to leave food to be wasted.
And the fishermen and hunters give prayers and thanks to the animals they catch every year.
I don't know much about Chinese culture, but when I went to a chinese restaurant, they made it a point to let me know to leave as little food as possible, and finish what you order, so I assume this culture is in China also.
To me, the way Americans waste their food and throw away whatever they don't finish are much, much, MUCH worse than us eating whatever.
The best you can do for the animals you kill is to make sure and you eat them. Killing an animal and not eating it is far worse, IMO.

For as long as we existed, we humans have eaten other animals. Other animals eat other animals too.
Give thanks to the animals for giving you food, and respect them by not leaving any to be wasted.

Finish your meals, kiddos.
__________________

Last edited by aohige; 2007-03-15 at 01:22.
aohige is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-15, 02:17   Link #85
kiba122
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
well depains on the reson for meat not really but if they are o ver pop and killing other spaces
__________________
we have a site at http://www.mpsguilds.com/index.cfm?p..._main&gid=4432 made by me if you are interested in joining pm me
kiba122 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-15, 05:07   Link #86
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
Quote:
If you kill some creature unnecessarily in that large numbers, it will end up hurting the life cycle in the nature globally.
Yo, what "cycle"? That's one of the biggest bullshits that people say these days.

There's no such thing as a "cycle" in nature. Species are born and die pretty much normally in nature itself. Millions of species that used to exist some thousand or million years ago are extinct now, and million of new species exist now. Nature doesn't care about it, nature is about the survival of the fittest. And the fittest right now are human beings.
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-15, 09:18   Link #87
Fome
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
+1 to WanderingKnight. My thoughts exactly.
Fome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-15, 13:45   Link #88
Danny_river
Kanon Fotter!
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
This is revolting. i had to stop watching when the "butcher" started cutting into the Dolphin's neck.
Danny_river is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-15, 14:31   Link #89
Sazelyt
F i n
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
Yo, what "cycle"? That's one of the biggest bullshits that people say these days.

There's no such thing as a "cycle" in nature. Species are born and die pretty much normally in nature itself. Millions of species that used to exist some thousand or million years ago are extinct now, and million of new species exist now. Nature doesn't care about it, nature is about the survival of the fittest. And the fittest right now are human beings.
I guess you lived long enough to decide that cycle is bullshit. First, don't assume it will happen immediately, it will take time. And, second, don't assume all the other creatures in the world are like humans that can live on almost any kind of food resource. Maybe, you would enjoy living in a world, where the poisonous creatures becoming one of the fittest because we humans destroy the nonpoisonous creatures that feed on that poisonous creatures.

And, I don't think long time ago, when the species born and die normally, there were the kind of things that the humans are doing right now, making the world poisonous each passing minute, using substances that unnaturally destroy the balance in the nature, erasing the species from the nature for "pleasure", etc. I don't think the creatures in the past done anything to destroy the world itself, but, we are doing that right now.

But, you are right about one thing. Nature doesn't care about it. And, when the time comes for the humans to have a lot difficulty in living because of lack of water and food resources, nature will turn us and laughs pretty loudly. I am sure at that time you (or people that think similar to you) will also join its laughter...Maybe you have already started the laughing...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImClueless View Post
If you can't understand the difference in nature between a legal activity such seal hunting and the drug trade there isn't much I can say to convince you otherwise.
There is not only difference between those, there is also a very important similarity. And, I mentioned that in my previous post.
Quote:
Even if they wanted to move, most people don't have the means to give up everything they have to start from scratch somewhere else. Are YOU going to help them and pony up the cash? Then to add insult to injury they get compared to drug lords? I mean come on, these aren't gangsters peddling dope on the street or cooking meth in a lab. These are regular people trying to make the lives of their families a bit better.
Why do you think I will help them? I said the government should provide assistance for them. If you say, your country cannot come up with a single idea, then I really wonder what the researchers in your country are doing.
Quote:
I mean do YOU live in harmony with nature?
I said those rural wild people should live in harmony with the nature, rather than destroying it, if this is their sole goal of leaving the urban places. If they have difficulty in earning money in normal ways so that they would ignore their humanity and kill those species for profit, then they shouldn't mind if the government comes and gives them options. And, don't tell me, those people would mind changing their rural location to move to another one, especially if you assume most places are similar to where they are living.
Quote:
Science is all about debate and constructive criticism so it would be foolish to dismiss the environmentalists, but it is just as stupid if not more so to blindly believe them and then vilify government.
First, science does not always give definite answers. And, each side would evaluate the results based on how they see it based on risks or ignoring the risks. Still, I guess I need to repeat what I said before. There is a common sense, and if we can avoid what we are doing that gives harm to the nature, then we should avoid that. If we can have a clean energy resource to replace oil, then we should replace the oil with that resource. If we can avoid the elimination of some creature unless it is required to do so (lack of food resources or the observable negative impact on other creatures in the food chain, etc.), then we should avoid eliminating them.

Last edited by Sazelyt; 2007-03-15 at 14:53.
Sazelyt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-15, 18:57   Link #90
Jinto
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 33
I'ld say Sazelyt has a valid argument, concerning the extincting species problem. WanderingKnight said:

Quote:
Yo, what "cycle"? That's one of the biggest bullshits that people say these days.

There's no such thing as a "cycle" in nature. Species are born and die pretty much normally in nature itself. Millions of species that used to exist some thousand or million years ago are extinct now, and million of new species exist now. Nature doesn't care about it, nature is about the survival of the fittest. And the fittest right now are human beings.
The question is, do we want to accelerate the process of nature finding something really effective against humanity. Well, actually that already seems to exist, because humans indirectly destroy their habitats. (how clever is that?)
Okay here is an analogy. Lets say you have a large range of possible medical treatment. But you always use the most aggressive medication for every little ailments (e.g. strongest antibiotics against common cold). That is comparable to the influence todays humanity has on global environment.
And you sure heard of the effect of super drug-resistant bacteria (in association with wrong medical treatment - like mentioned aboth). If we draw some parallels between micro biology and macro biology/environment, the only different principle seems to be time.
So what I basically want to say is, moderation is the better strategy (in the long run).
Proclaiming natural cycles are BS and we are the supreme species that can influence global environment as it pleases (bsaically implying that humanity is able to survive completely autarkic from its known environment), is not only short sighted but stupid. (global environment is a little more complex than the brain of anyone here... so according to entropic laws, there should nobody be able to fully predict how the action of humans influence our future environment (that would be a np-complete problem, beyond the "computation" power of anyone)). Since nobody can predict the outcome globally, isn't it wiser to rely on a moderate interaction with nature/environment?
(btw. this is not meant to directly argue the seal or dolphin slaughtering, which is sort of hypocritical (except for the fact, that it is affecting (rare -dolphins) natural resources instead of farm animals)... it is more directed at
Quote:
Yo, what "cycle"? That's one of the biggest bullshits that people say these days.
)
Jinto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-15, 19:11   Link #91
Corn
Gotta kill 'em all!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Denmark
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
Yo, what "cycle"? That's one of the biggest bullshits that people say these days.

There's no such thing as a "cycle" in nature. Species are born and die pretty much normally in nature itself. Millions of species that used to exist some thousand or million years ago are extinct now, and million of new species exist now. Nature doesn't care about it, nature is about the survival of the fittest. And the fittest right now are human beings.
Didn't you learn nothing from lion king?
Corn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-15, 19:54   Link #92
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinto Lin View Post
I'ld say Sazelyt has a valid argument, concerning the extincting species problem. WanderingKnight said:



The question is, do we want to accelerate the process of nature finding something really effective against humanity. Well, actually that already seems to exist, because humans indirectly destroy their habitats. (how clever is that?)
Okay here is an analogy. Lets say you have a large range of possible medical treatment. But you always use the most aggressive medication for every little ailments (e.g. strongest antibiotics against common cold). That is comparable to the influence todays humanity has on global environment.
And you sure heard of the effect of super drug-resistant bacteria (in association with wrong medical treatment - like mentioned aboth). If we draw some parallels between micro biology and macro biology/environment, the only different principle seems to be time.
So what I basically want to say is, moderation is the better strategy (in the long run).
Proclaiming natural cycles are BS and we are the supreme species that can influence global environment as it pleases (bsaically implying that humanity is able to survive completely autarkic from its known environment), is not only short sighted but stupid. (global environment is a little more complex than the brain of anyone here... so according to entropic laws, there should nobody be able to fully predict how the action of humans influence our future environment (that would be a np-complete problem, beyond the "computation" power of anyone)). Since nobody can predict the outcome globally, isn't it wiser to rely on a moderate interaction with nature/environment?
(btw. this is not meant to directly argue the seal or dolphin slaughtering, which is sort of hypocritical (except for the fact, that it is affecting (rare -dolphins) natural resources instead of farm animals)... it is more directed at )
The problem is you're actually basing yourself on a personification of nature, as if it actually was some kind of supernatural being that is trying to maintain a supposed "balance". And you also commit the ignorant mistake of thinking we're not nature. We ARE nature, we're part of the "cycle" you snobbishly believe to have figured out in its entirety. We were born from nature itself, you may actually say all our artifacts and machinery are nature. But no, you, like most humans (sadly), think we're some kind of otherworldly beings that are competing and feeding off the supreme and all-knowing benign being that is nature.

Quote:
The question is, do we want to accelerate the process of nature finding something really effective against humanity.
What, are we some kind of cancer? Nature DOESN'T CARE. Nature IS NOBODY.

Quote:
Proclaiming natural cycles are BS and we are the supreme species that can influence global environment as it pleases (bsaically implying that humanity is able to survive completely autarkic from its known environment)
You're putting words in my mouth.

Do you think I said we shouldn't look for ways of enlarging the life expectancy of our species? I never, ever said anything like that. But, we also know that human beings are the fittest of species and that they may adapt pretty well to all kinds of environments--human settlements lying in almost all climates and lands justifies this exceedingly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sazelyt
And, I don't think long time ago, when the species born and die normally
There's your mistake. You think that humans killing animals doesn't represent a normal death for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sazelyt
there were the kind of things that the humans are doing right now, making the world poisonous each passing minute, using substances that unnaturally destroy the balance in the nature
Oh, so those things that were created by nature are destroying the balance of nature? I'm confused.

"Poisonous", "balance", "destroy" are concepts you're subjectively applying to an object which doesn't have that kind of scale. That's the mistake you guys are making, you're putting mind and thoughts were there are none.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corn
Didn't you learn nothing from lion king?


(I hope you meant it as a joke)
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-15, 19:58   Link #93
Demongod86
Gundam Boobs and Boom FTW
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by wingdarkness View Post
Sympathy from a guy that names himself after a god of demons...Rich...,quite rich...

As I said before it's the natural order of things and honestly right now the only cat that's caught my attention is that damn "Rap-Cat" from the Rally commercials LMAO (www.rap-cat.com) ...Now that kitty's better than half the rap artists out today xD...Rap-artists' that claim to have killed people, but by your own admission that's pennies in the wishing well compared to your compassion for fried felines ...
Indeed. Kittens are cuter than babies. Would you eat a baby?
__________________
Signature stolen by a horde of carnivorous bunnies. It is an unscientifically proven fact that they are attracted to signatures which break the signature rules.
Demongod86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-15, 20:00   Link #94
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
Quote:
Indeed. Kittens are cuter than babies. Would you eat a baby?
So, "cuteness" is what only matters?

Man, you're shallow.
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-15, 21:22   Link #95
ImClueless
Rawr
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sazelyt View Post
There is not only difference between those, there is also a very important similarity. And, I mentioned that in my previous post.
Ok Sazelyt you simply don't seem to understand the difference between drugs and sealing. DRUGS HARM OTHER HUMANS! Sealing does not. HARD DRUGS ARE ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE! Sealing is entirely legal. Does that make it clear enough for you? The similarity you illustrated is pure sophistry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sazelyt View Post
Why do you think I will help them? I said the government should provide assistance for them. If you say, your country cannot come up with a single idea, then I really wonder what the researchers in your country are doing.
Why would you help them? Well you are the one making a big fuss about changing their way of life. Why should the Canadian government and the Canadian taxpayer do anything when they are doing something that is entirely legal and acceptable? Why should I as a Canadian taxpayer shell out to stop something that I find completely acceptable and logical?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sazelyt View Post
I said those rural wild people should live in harmony with the nature, rather than destroying it, if this is their sole goal of leaving the urban places. If they have difficulty in earning money in normal ways so that they would ignore their humanity and kill those species for profit, then they shouldn't mind if the government comes and gives them options. And, don't tell me, those people would mind changing their rural location to move to another one, especially if you assume most places are similar to where they are living.
OMG "wild" people, I think that kind of illustrates the kind of prejudices that you have. Who the hell says they "left" urban areas. You seem to have gone and completely ignored or didn't understand my previous post. Most of these people either have lived there for generations or a large portion of them are Natives. Perhaps they don't want to leave their homeland. You seem to think that everyone wants to be like you and live the way you do. What arrogance. Also, you bring up "harmony" again and chose to ignore the points I brought up. Since you keep on referring to them as "rural" people I would assume that you live in the city. LOL, city dwellers are the worst offenders. Like I said, consider where your food, water, electricity, toilet paper and ad nauseam comes from and how much it damaged the environment to get it to you. Since the advent of agriculture and humans gave up being hunter-gathers we have stopped living in "harmony" with nature. We clear forest to build things and to clear land to plant food. I really think you should take a good close look at your own life first and determine whether or not you live in "harmony" with nature before you go out and advocate how to change the lives of others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sazelyt View Post
First, science does not always give definite answers. And, each side would evaluate the results based on how they see it based on risks or ignoring the risks. Still, I guess I need to repeat what I said before. There is a common sense, and if we can avoid what we are doing that gives harm to the nature, then we should avoid that. If we can have a clean energy resource to replace oil, then we should replace the oil with that resource. If we can avoid the elimination of some creature unless it is required to do so (lack of food resources or the observable negative impact on other creatures in the food chain, etc.), then we should avoid eliminating them.
Its all nice and idealistic to go and say if it is possible then we should do it. Yes, go ahead and ignore all the social and economic realities. I would love to see green technology everywhere too. However, until the political and economic realties appear then it simply won't happen. Do you participate in the political process and invest in green technology for yourself?

I sincerely, hope that you are either young or have led an very idyllic sheltered life. Some of the things you say display a level of naivete and arrogance that is frightening. I would've included hypocritical in there too, but I obviously don't know the way you lead your life. Then again you watch anime and surf the web so I don't know how much in "harmony" with nature you are.

The most annoying thing that I find about people who preach about environmentalism is that they don't subscribe to their own teachings. I truly hope that you do and that you are truly speaking from a position for someone who is worthy of criticizing others.

I would jump in the cyclical nature of Nature thing, but I'm getting tired just from debating this with you
__________________
ImClueless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-15, 22:07   Link #96
Jinto
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
The problem is you're actually basing yourself on a personification of nature, as if it actually was some kind of supernatural being that is trying to maintain a supposed "balance". And you also commit the ignorant mistake of thinking we're not nature. We ARE nature, we're part of the "cycle" you snobbishly believe to have figured out in its entirety. We were born from nature itself, you may actually say all our artifacts and machinery are nature. But no, you, like most humans (sadly), think we're some kind of otherworldly beings that are competing and feeding off the supreme and all-knowing benign being that is nature.
Hm, maybe its my bad english... but you somehow totally did not understand what I said. Actually it doesn't matter if you or me were or were not part of nature (I never claimed something in this direction).
Besides, I said nobody (that includes me) can completely predict, how human induced environmental influences affect humanity's/environment's future.
I did say however, that no other species on this world knows better how the survival of fittest works. But according to this law, at the moment there is only one species that is able to defeat us... humanity. If we change the environment fullforce (not moderate), made changes are less reversible (if ever)/adaptable. Humans are known to adapt best to the environment, yet they are also the ones that can alter the environment best. If we were clever enough to just alter it to degree, where we are able to adapt to it, then everything is okay... otherwise we indirectly extinct ourselves. This is a abstract view on a blackbox model, where I only observe inputs and outputs. The system in between is unknown to me (therefore unpredictable).
I suppose you are the one, who forgot that we are part of a system which generates (in)direct feedback to everything we do. Though if we were clever, we would not fullforce drive this system with input, so that we can hardly handle the feedback. Actually it is even more complicated, since the feedback isn't always provided at input time... there are certain lead times or follow-up times regarding the feedback (that sounds techy... well, it is an abstract view. And I hope it helps you better understand, what my concern is)

Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
What, are we some kind of cancer? Nature DOESN'T CARE. Nature IS NOBODY.
I don't know why you make this comparison. I rather see the whole system. And I want that this system works for the future generations of this world. Again, we change environment very fast, maybe too fast. Once we cannot keep up adapting to the feedbacks of the environment we overtook ourselves (extinction or something near to extinction). The problem is, that many feedbacks have delays. So when we did something, and sometime later we finally receive the feedback for it, it could be too late to reverse it and too catastrophic to adapt to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
You're putting words in my mouth.
You too. Besides I was just logically resovling a consequence to your thought. And you are free to think different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
Do you think I said we shouldn't look for ways of enlarging the life expectancy of our species? I never, ever said anything like that. But, we also know that human beings are the fittest of species and that they may adapt pretty well to all kinds of environments--human settlements lying in almost all climates and lands justifies this exceedingly.
The question is, can you truely predict everything? Do you really have this foresight? You could easily underestimate the destructive powers we have on ourselves. Moderation doesn't hurt or does it? I mean, if we were clever we would force ourselves to change environment not too fast, so that we can better handle possible catastrophic feedbacks.
We are not supreme to our own species after all (or are you?).

Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
There's your mistake. You think that humans killing animals doesn't represent a normal death for them.
May I answer to that one too? Its just that rate at we are doing it, can be problematic for ourselves. Since neither of us knows, you could also underestimate our powers to alter the environment and overestimate our powers to adapt to the feedbacks. We just don't know. Yet one principle should sound logical... if we do not alter the environment too much, we don't have to adapt to the feedbacks that much. (now I am using this argument the 3rd time. Starts to get boring right? )
Jinto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-15, 22:24   Link #97
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
Quote:
Humans are known to adapt best to the environment, yet they are also the ones that can alter the environment best.
You never stopped to think that it might be because we can alter the environment, we can adapt ourselves so much to it?

You see, I agree with you when you say that we must take whatever precautions are needed to maintain the species (I hope that didn't sound too much 1984ish... ), but you're overlooking the main power humanity has: science (hence why I defended 'logical thinking' vs 'instinct' some posts ago). I believe in it and in its power, for good or for bad, but I believe humanity has the power to use it, and that given the conditions, humanity might figure out the way to make it work. Science is, actually, the power to 'foresee', as you said in your post.

BUT, you still seem to think nature is trying (personification, hint hint) to keep the balance at the cost of humanity, something I've stated before as a load of bullshit.

Quote:
if we do not alter the environment too much, we don't have to adapt to the feedbacks that much.
And we won't be able to feed as many people (which touches the main point of the topic anyways).
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-15, 23:16   Link #98
Sazelyt
F i n
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImClueless View Post
Ok Sazelyt you simply don't seem to understand the difference between drugs and sealing. DRUGS HARM OTHER HUMANS! Sealing does not. HARD DRUGS ARE ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE! Sealing is entirely legal. Does that make it clear enough for you? The similarity you illustrated is pure sophistry.
I do understand the difference, but do you understand the similarity? Doing something so cruel just so that they can earn money, even though they can earn money using different methods, which might be more difficult but less problematic. Yes, they chose the easy way to earn money, similar to those drug makers, and do not care about the lives of whom they are hurting "unnecessarily".
Quote:
Why would you help them? Well you are the one making a big fuss about changing their way of life. Why should the Canadian government and the Canadian taxpayer do anything when they are doing something that is entirely legal and acceptable? Why should I as a Canadian taxpayer shell out to stop something that I find completely acceptable and logical?
Ah, these rich countries trying to get richer using any method legal according to them even if it doesn't show no respect whatsoever towards the weak. This reminds me the support for weapon firms even if they sell the weapons to countries that violate human rights. Yes, the the right to earn money, and it is perfectly legal in your country...

Quote:
OMG "wild" people, I think that kind of illustrates the kind of prejudices that you have.
Imagine you see someone torturing a cat or dog, hitting its head over and over again, while the cat or dog screams in pain, while our guy tries to earn some money to save his life. Maybe you would go and congratulate his humanistic efforts to earn money!

Quote:
Who the hell says they "left" urban areas. You seem to have gone and completely ignored or didn't understand my previous post. Most of these people either have lived there for generations or a large portion of them are Natives.
Interesting, for generations they were torturing those seals and selling the furs? Or maybe it has become a business in a more recent period, not something happening for many many generations. And, even if they are doing it for generations, it doesn't make any difference, for me.

Quote:
Perhaps they don't want to leave their homeland. You seem to think that everyone wants to be like you and live the way you do. What arrogance. Also, you bring up "harmony" again and chose to ignore the points I brought up. Since you keep on referring to them as "rural" people I would assume that you live in the city. LOL, city dwellers are the worst offenders. Like I said, consider where your food, water, electricity, toilet paper and ad nauseam comes from and how much it damaged the environment to get it to you. Since the advent of agriculture and humans gave up being hunter-gathers we have stopped living in "harmony" with nature. We clear forest to build things and to clear land to plant food. I really think you should take a good close look at your own life first and determine whether or not you live in "harmony" with nature before you go out and advocate how to change the lives of others.
First, I have lived both in the city and in rural areas. And, the people in the rural areas were more humanistic than the city people. Well, that is for my country. It doesn't have to be true for every country. Considering the choice the people living in rural areas in your country made, I doubt they are similar to the people in my country.

And, don't think I do not criticize what happens around me. I do. But, at least, I do not go out and defend the wrongdoings using petty excuses like money, especially if this excuse comes from one of the richest countries.

Quote:
Its all nice and idealistic to go and say if it is possible then we should do it. Yes, go ahead and ignore all the social and economic realities. I would love to see green technology everywhere too. However, until the political and economic realties appear then it simply won't happen. Do you participate in the political process and invest in green technology for yourself?
I am not an active environmentalist. And, if the government in my country approves of completely environmentalists laws, and tell us that it will cost us more money, I would still approve and wouldn't mind losing some money. And, this comes from a person who lives in a still developing, hence not rich, country.

Quote:
I sincerely, hope that you are either young or have led an very idyllic sheltered life. Some of the things you say display a level of naivete and arrogance that is frightening. I would've included hypocritical in there too, but I obviously don't know the way you lead your life. Then again you watch anime and surf the web so I don't know how much in "harmony" with nature you are.
You are pretty good at ignoring common sense. Why, you may ask. Because of a part of your post, where you mention that you wouldn't mind your tax dollars to be cut to bring appropriate industry for that people so that they can both live in acceptable conditions and avoid "unnecessary" massacres. That is not much different than those people cutting the trees at abnormal amounts so that they can earn more money. Yes, that is right, those trees belong to you, and you do not want to share the money the they can earn with it with the others, whereas the sea belongs to no one, hence, anything in it, can be nuked, as long as it will help someone earn some money.

Quote:
but I'm getting tired just from debating this with you
It is nice, sharing the same opinion, that is.
Sazelyt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-16, 00:04   Link #99
wingdarkness
Retweet Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: ニュー・オーリンズ、LA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demongod86 View Post
Indeed. Kittens are cuter than babies. Would you eat a baby?
I betcha in the alternate parrallel universe of "Cat-World" kittens eat babies all the time...

To a starving lion a baby is just food...to the starving baby whose parents purchased boiled kitty I suspect that's nothing more than grub aswell...I guess that sucks to some extent, but in the meanwhile the world keeps turning ....
__________________
Fly since ...
wingdarkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-16, 00:06   Link #100
Demongod86
Gundam Boobs and Boom FTW
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
So, "cuteness" is what only matters?

Man, you're shallow.
Do you know how much stress it relieves simply to sit down with a purring kitten on your lap and pet it?

Dolphins have always made me smile since they're naturally smiley and playful and smart.

There are reasons why people like cute. Psychological, healthy reasons.
__________________
Signature stolen by a horde of carnivorous bunnies. It is an unscientifically proven fact that they are attracted to signatures which break the signature rules.
Demongod86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:02.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.