Rebecca 0 #76 November 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteMan is capable of many things, from wanton cruelty to irrational indulgent self loathing. We all have the capacity for this inside but many of us choose to live and act and think well. To take an isolated incident of the most horrible abhorrent kind of behavior and use that to tar us all as a species in support of your agenda when most of us are repulsed by this doesn't even approach rational thought. Bravo! Oh yeah, I forgot to respond to that out-in-left-field post. First of all, I don't have an agenda. I'm simply railing against the 'wanton cruelty' exhibited by people on a daily basis, with this as the latest example. This is not an isolated incident. Of course we're all repulsed by this. I don't go around clubbing seals or puppies or helpless children, and neither do you, and neither does anyone else here (I hope to God). But, people do. They club seals, they light firecrackers in puppies mouths, they rape little girls as a war tactic, they put to death entire races of people, for reasons that are purely human. Not to mention, that just by being here, steadily increasing our numbers, we are causing irreparable damage to the planet. By the way, this is just a discussion for me. I've taken a position based on my emotional reaction to the news, and now I'm arguing that position. I'm not some kind of human-hating tree-hugging hippy. But I think I'm making a valid point. In case you wondered. you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #77 November 5, 2004 Quote no other species attacks any other in the manner we do... you will never see lions 'waging war' and exterminating cheetas for example... they only compete as individuals when theyre territories overlap and threaten each other... Male lions fight for ownership of the pride. So do many other species. Primates definitely fight for control and territory. We're just one of them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rebecca 0 #78 November 5, 2004 QuoteQuote no other species attacks any other in the manner we do... you will never see lions 'waging war' and exterminating cheetas for example... they only compete as individuals when theyre territories overlap and threaten each other... Male lions fight for ownership of the pride. So do many other species. Primates definitely fight for control and territory. We're just one of them. That's directly survival-related. It's not an ego thing, it's fighting for the right to impregnate the females and pass on their genetic material, a fundamental instinct. Primates also fight for optimal territory to improve their survival chances. you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #79 November 5, 2004 QuoteThink that is violent... Ever seen a Hawk swoop down and grab a squirrel only to begin ripping its gut out and start eating eat before it is dead? Nature is Violent.... we are part of the mix. Yes we are, but we can reason, we know right versus wrong. A hawk doesn't, it was hungry and a squirrel was food. Orcas do play with pups and kill them, but I doubt Orca's have the capacity to stop and think and say "hey buddy this is cruel", we do. The people that did this derived some sick pleasure in torturing 60 seals and killing them. That is not nature. I wouldn't say nature is violent, it's just nature. When a new lion takes over a pride he seeks out cubs of the former male and kills them. Why? Genes, preservation of his genes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #80 November 5, 2004 QuoteThe people that did this derived some sick pleasure in torturing 60 seals and killing them. Not that I suport the activity in any way, but you can't prove that.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #81 November 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe people that did this derived some sick pleasure in torturing 60 seals and killing them. Not that I suport the activity in any way, but you can't prove that. It's a pretty sound logical conclusion. Do you have any other explanation for going out of your way to kill animals in painful and torurous ways besides wanting to do it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #82 November 5, 2004 Quote It's a pretty sound logical conclusion. Do you have any other explanation for going out of your way to kill animals in painful and torurous ways besides wanting to do it? They eat the fish I want to catch myself? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #83 November 5, 2004 So you're claiming it was revenge? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #84 November 5, 2004 QuoteQuote Male lions fight for ownership of the pride. So do many other species. Primates definitely fight for control and territory. We're just one of them. That's directly survival-related. It's not an ego thing, it's fighting for the right to impregnate the females and pass on their genetic material, a fundamental instinct. Primates also fight for optimal territory to improve their survival chances. So how different really is that from what man does? I've been to "Monkey City" in Thailand, the city of Lop Buri. It has two bands of monkeys - those that live on an old church grounds and those who live in the buildings nearby. They fight each other on the borders. They were once one group until a faction split off. I don't see the improvement in survival chances, just the more classic human example of two groups no longer wanting to play together. It's one thing to say that with our brains we should "know better," but claims that the other creatures in nature actually do is false. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #85 November 5, 2004 QuoteSo you're claiming it was revenge? Self interest. Something fisherman are all too good at. Who knows what we'll be eating in 30 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rebecca 0 #86 November 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteSo you're claiming it was revenge? Self interest. Something fisherman are all too good at. Who knows what we'll be eating in 30 years. I'll buy self-interest, sure, but they disembowled them. And shot nails into their heads. Not exactly the most cost-effective, efficient, not to mention humane way to destroy a "pest". you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #87 November 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe people that did this derived some sick pleasure in torturing 60 seals and killing them. Not that I suport the activity in any way, but you can't prove that. oh yea thats right nail guns are a real effiecient, effective means of extermination... why bother if you didnt think it was "cool"... asshats....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #88 November 7, 2004 You know, I agree with the idea that you shouldn't kill animals without a good reason - especially protected ones. But I don't understand the criteria by which people choose which animals to get angry about. Rats are mammals as much as seals are; they're a fair bit smarter too. Yet put out rat poison at a DZ and most people think "cool, we'll get rid of that vermin." I think a lot of it is that seals are cute (to most people) and rats are not (again, to most people.) But often we confuse cuteness with importance to an ecosystem, and they're not generally the same thing. If we had a choice to lose all the seals in the world or all the bees, we'd be a lot better off with no seals. (Of course, in an ideal world, we'd coexist with both.) >we're nothing but a virus to this planet, just like stupidhead Agent Smith said. I found that statement very interesting. The whole quote is: ---------------------- I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I've realised that you are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment. But you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. ------------------------- It's especially interesting since the matrix was filmed in Australia, a continent devastated by the introduction of rabbits - and partially repaired by humans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #89 November 7, 2004 QuoteIf we had a choice to lose all the seals in the world or all the bees, we'd be a lot better off with no seals. (Of course, in an ideal world, we'd coexist with both.) I'd like to get rid of all the damned mosquitoes and I'd be willing to risk whatever would happen up the food chain just to kill all those friggin' things and end the torment they bring! Shortsighted? Maybe. But wouldn't it be sweet to be packing up your last jump an hour or two after sundown and not be eaten alive the whole time?! Quote>we're nothing but a virus to this planet, just like stupidhead Agent Smith said. I found that statement very interesting. The whole quote is: ---------------------- I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I've realised that you are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment. But you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. It's especially interesting since the matrix was filmed in Australia, a continent devastated by the introduction of rabbits - and partially repaired by humans. I think that what's most interesting is that Agent Smith's conclusions are INCORRECT. He claims that "Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment," but that's utterly false. When a herd of antelope on the plains breed to a certain point, there is not enough grazing land to sustain all of them in normal health. SOME WILL STARVE. That is not "instinct" telling them to stop breeding. They'll breed when able just like any other species. It is the environment which beats back their numbers, just like with deer here, or with fish, or even frogs. THAT is the equilibrium of nature: there will be only as many of a given species as their food supply will support. End of story. Humans are no different. Essentially, we breed and increase our numbers even as circumstances (disease, disaster, hunger) whittle them down. NO different from other mammalian species, unlike what Agent Smith so arrogantly but incorrectly asserts. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 0 #90 November 7, 2004 QuoteI'd like to get rid of all the damned mosquitoes and I'd be willing to risk whatever would happen up the food chain just to kill all those friggin' things and end the torment they bring! Shortsighted? Maybe. But wouldn't it be sweet to be packing up your last jump an hour or two after sundown and not be eaten alive the whole time?! In jest I know, but might I suggest some products which contain DEET. QuoteHumans are no different. Essentially, we breed and increase our numbers even as circumstances (disease, disaster, hunger) whittle them down. NO different from other mammalian species, unlike what Agent Smith so arrogantly but incorrectly asserts. The only problem is that Man has become so adept at overcoming what natural problems he encounters that we shall soon enough overpopulate to the point that mothernature our we ourselves will bring about a decimation of Mankind to restore balance... Or perhaps even extinction. ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414 Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #91 November 7, 2004 Quote[He claims that "Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment," but that's utterly false. When a herd of antelope on the plains breed to a certain point, there is not enough grazing land to sustain all of them in normal health. SOME WILL STARVE. That is not "instinct" telling them to stop breeding. They'll breed when able just like any other species. It is the environment which beats back their numbers, just like with deer here, or with fish, or even frogs. THAT is the equilibrium of nature: there will be only as many of a given species as their food supply will support. End of story. Humans are no different. Essentially, we breed and increase our numbers even as circumstances (disease, disaster, hunger) whittle them down. NO different from other mammalian species, unlike what Agent Smith so arrogantly but incorrectly asserts. actually the only thing incorrect about his statement is it should have been "every species develops" now we can argue about 'instincts' as it related to a species, but non human species do maintain equilibrium with the environment, by starvation if necessary. (obviously this is not a conscious choice, but a manifestation of the basic pattern of the species behavior ..aka instinct) humans however change the environment (often in a shortsighted very destructive manner) to adapt to our needs... other species move, die off etc until the environment can support them again… disease, disaster and hunger are in no way bringing the human race to equilibrium with the environment, for the most part we've conquered those factors as well as natural selection and the effects are minimal to the species as a whole... War, Famine, Pestilence and Disease may be the Four horsemen, but a Fifth holds the door open and leads the way in…. Overpopulation…____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #92 November 7, 2004 QuoteQuote no other species attacks any other in the manner we do... you will never see lions 'waging war' and exterminating cheetas for example... they only compete as individuals when theyre territories overlap and threaten each other... Male lions fight for ownership of the pride. So do many other species. Primates definitely fight for control and territory. We're just one of them. Ahh, I feel obliged to point out thet male lions are much worse than this. They'll slaughter the cubs of any lone female lion they encounter in the hope of mating. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #93 November 8, 2004 QuoteThink that is violent... Ever seen a Hawk swoop down and grab a squirrel only to begin ripping its gut out and start eating eat before it is dead? Nature is Violent.... we are part of the mix. "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #94 November 8, 2004 QuoteYou know, I agree with the idea that you shouldn't kill animals without a good reason - especially protected ones. But I don't understand the criteria by which people choose which animals to get angry about. Rats are mammals as much as seals are; they're a fair bit smarter too. Yet put out rat poison at a DZ and most people think "cool, we'll get rid of that vermin." I think a lot of it is that seals are cute (to most people) and rats are not (again, to most people.) But often we confuse cuteness with importance to an ecosystem, and they're not generally the same thing. If we had a choice to lose all the seals in the world or all the bees, we'd be a lot better off with no seals. (Of course, in an ideal world, we'd coexist with both.) >we're nothing but a virus to this planet, just like stupidhead Agent Smith said. I found that statement very interesting. The whole quote is: ---------------------- I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I've realised that you are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment. But you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. ------------------------- It's especially interesting since the matrix was filmed in Australia, a continent devastated by the introduction of rabbits - and partially repaired by humans. Yea, I have thought of that a few times myself...... Humans are Darwin ideas in action. Like the dinosaurs, we will roam the earth and leave our marks long after we are gone-extinct from a super volcano, bolide from space, virus or nuclear war. "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rebecca 0 #95 November 8, 2004 QuoteYou know, I agree with the idea that you shouldn't kill animals without a good reason - especially protected ones. But I don't understand the criteria by which people choose which animals to get angry about. Rats are mammals as much as seals are; they're a fair bit smarter too. Yet put out rat poison at a DZ and most people think "cool, we'll get rid of that vermin." I think a lot of it is that seals are cute (to most people) and rats are not (again, to most people.) But often we confuse cuteness with importance to an ecosystem, and they're not generally the same thing. If we had a choice to lose all the seals in the world or all the bees, we'd be a lot better off with no seals. (Of course, in an ideal world, we'd coexist with both.) Here is why this upset me: 1.) They're protected, meaning they're already dangerously close to being gone for good. 2.) They were in their natural habitat, minding their own business, unlike rats infiltrating our living and work environments. 3.) They weren't culled to control numbers to limit salmon feeding. An entire generation was wiped out. 4.) They were killed viciously. Nailguns and disembowelment. Sicker yet, they had to plan to bring the tools to do these things - it's not like the seals were hanging out on some beautiful accessible sandy beach. I don't care what it is, tiger, eagle, beetle, naked mole rat, bees, plankton, or cute fwuffy widdle baby seals, I'd still be pissed. Regardless of importance to the ecosystem (which, if that were a criterion for keeping a species around, would put us holding the short straw) As for the virus thing, I think Zenister said it best. We have no natural enemies, no control on our population - we're supposed to reach 9 billion by 2030 according to latest estimates. The only thing that's going to control our population is ourselves. you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PeteH 0 #96 November 8, 2004 QuoteYou know, I agree with the idea that you shouldn't kill animals without a good reason - especially protected ones. But I don't understand the criteria by which people choose which animals to get angry about. Rats are mammals as much as seals are; they're a fair bit smarter too. For most people there's of course the cuteness factor, but some people are actually trying to protect certain species from manmade extinction. And I'm pretty sure rats will outlive humans on this planet, so there's no need to worry about their fate. Quote But often we confuse cuteness with importance to an ecosystem, and they're not generally the same thing. If we had a choice to lose all the seals in the world or all the bees, we'd be a lot better off with no seals. (Of course, in an ideal world, we'd coexist with both.) The ecosystem is one of things you won't miss until it's gone. How many people know that the big fishes are reducing really fast. Or that the coral reefs are dying because of human actions. And what do pet cats eat after there's no fish? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PeteH 0 #97 November 8, 2004 Quote"People have suggested it could have been fishermen," Beades said. "But I can't imagine that a fisherman would have been involved." That sanctuary person doesn't seem to know much. At least my first suspects would be local fishermen, especially those who have fishing nets close to the site. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #98 November 8, 2004 QuoteI think a lot of it is that seals are cute (to most people) and rats are not (again, to most people.) Funny you should mention killing rats. We have a bit of a rat problem at our house right now because I have been unable to bring myself to kill them. (Yeah, I know I probably don't fit into the "most people" category ;) They don't actually come into our house though because we have two cats. I have slightly less of a problem killing the ants because they do come in the house and cause more of a problem - and because they are not mammals, but I still feel somewhat bad for killing them (which seems kinda silly). Quote---------------------- I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I've realised that you are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment. But you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. ------------------------- It's especially interesting since the matrix was filmed in Australia, a continent devastated by the introduction of rabbits - and partially repaired by humans. Is it not possible for a virus to do some things that are beneficial? Viruses are currently being used as a way to deliver gene therapy, so I don't think that calling something a virus necessarily means that it is 100% harmful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rebecca 0 #99 November 8, 2004 QuoteViruses are currently being used as a way to deliver gene therapy, so I don't think that calling something a virus necessarily means that it is 100% harmful. No, it doesn't necessarily mean that. But, in the context given, it does. Now, if we could harness our own destructive nature and put it to productive use, like a virus in gene therapy destroying the bad instead of the good, well, that would be something amazing. I was trying to come up with a reason, an example, anything to support the premise that humans have not been unequivocally bad for Planet Earth. Yes, I know that if we weren't here, no one would appreciate its wonder and beauty. But, if you play Earth's lawyer, say in a lawsuit against Mankind for all the damage we've wreaked, could you come up with one opposing argument that you couldn't defend? you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricTheRed 0 #100 November 8, 2004 QuoteWe have no natural enemies, no control on our population - we're supposed to reach 9 billion by 2030 according to latest estimates. The only thing that's going to control our population is ourselves. Or maybe this: http://www.who.int/csr/don/2004_10_29/en/ BTW Wars are a great wasy to spread disease as well. Many attribute much of the widespread prevalence of HIV in Africa to a combination of war and famine. Like it or not HIV will have a dramatic effect on the population of Africa. Those who use condoms will be much more likely to live, and less likely to reproduce.illegible usually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
