Protection for rare mammals

[nacho]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-hs.briefs19bjan19,0,5375206.story?coll=bal-health-headlines

[David M]

I'm all for it. I would not want to see any specie go extinct that was caused by man. If it is a natural occurance, then so be it.

[troysvihl]

Why do you consider an extinction event caused by man to be unnatural or less preferable than non-human induced extinctions?

[heyhey]

Why do you consider an extinction event caused by man to be unnatural or less preferable than non-human induced extinctions?

because man has the capacity to know better. man is equipt with the consciousness to prevent it. man has the problem solving skills to fix things not destroy them . man has a choice that nature doesn't.. problem is people like you who condone the irresponsible choices brought on by greed to the responsbile ones brought on out of thought and appreciation of the life we and the rest of the creatures on this planet have been afforded.

[troysvihl]

Oh, if only we could all be as enlightened as you heyhey.

[heyhey]

geez troy your apathetic views brought on I suspect by your unrelentless devoted worship of the free market and the almighty dollar pisses me off.

I do not share your Hobbesian-like philosophy that man is destined to self-destruction.

Man has been afforded the critical thinking skills (either through evolution of conciousness or by mandate of a higher power or a combination of each, depending on one's religious perspective) and spiritual soul to do aspire to make the life they leave for future generations of man and other creatures on earth for that matter to be better then theirs. I suppose that is the fundamental difference between liberals and today's conservatives who have no problem destroying our environment, killing off entire species or for that matter running up tremendous deficits to be dealt with by our children and grandchildren... all for the immediate gratification of acquiring more wealth.
I just do not share your pessimism in our collective humanity because I know we can do far better. .. we have a choice and you obviously have made yours... shame on you.
Tell me do you have children? What kind of a world do you want to leave them if you do?

[mbossman2]

ecologies are in constant and never ending flux. there are far too many who believe that the mere presence of Man is the cause of an extinction. Never mind that a natural shift in rain patterns, a natural change in migratory habits, a natural depletion in soil nutrients, a natural constructive geologic event or naturally occurring fire can have the same impact upon any indigenous plants and animals.

while it is wrong to hasten the decline or destruction of a species, it is equally wrong to attempt to prevent the naturally occurring decline of a species as we are not sufficiently wise or knowledgeable of the repercussions of our actions. remember, species were born, rose, declined and became extinct long before the advent of Man and will continue to do so long after we pass into history.

In addition, Man is just as much a part of the ecosystem as the speckled blue throated backward flying periwrinkled warbler...

[heyhey]

ecologies are in constant and never ending flux. there are far too many who believe that the mere presence of Man is the cause of an extinction. Never mind that a natural shift in rain patterns, a natural change in migratory habits, a natural depletion in soil nutrients, a natural constructive geologic event or naturally occurring fire can have the same impact upon any indigenous plants and animals.

while it is wrong to hasten the decline or destruction of a species, it is equally wrong to attempt to prevent the naturally occurring decline of a species as we are not sufficiently wise or knowledgeable of the repercussions of our actions. remember, species were born, rose, declined and became extinct long before the advent of Man and will continue to do so long after we pass into history.

In addition, Man is just as much a part of the ecosystem as the speckled blue throated backward flying periwrinkled warbler...

man is more then part of the ecosystem. technology changed that. Technology is not part of the ecosystem. It's not the same as a beaver made dam. you cannot argue that point.
I'm not talking about trying to mainpulate any natural process. My arguement is that industry, technology and most of all the desire to collect "wealth" has led to an unnatural disturbance in the ecosystem on just about every front. Combating it doesn't mean going back to the stone age, it only takes the same inguinity it took to develop the technologies that destroy the enviornment to develop technologies that are both industry and eco-friendly. But of course this will cost treasure that the greedy are not willing to forgo. Free markets are great, but those who profit from free markets in my opinion are also responsbile to certain entities. This includes the enviornment, our future society, labor, etc. The problem with unbridled capitalism is that in a completely unregualted market the world is run on a "how can I make the MOST money now" philopsohy with total disregard to the untangible things like air, water, wildlife, climate and even our own children and grandchildrens future. Seeing a role for government as an equilbrium here as a monitor so to speak is the difference between liberals and modern day conservatives who really do not look past their own lifespans and what sort of a legacy this generation needs to leave for the future.

[troysvihl]

God you're tiresome. I ask David a simple question, and you jump in with your unsupported conclusions and assinine assumptions.

btw, you can't forclose argument of a point simply by announcing "you can't argue that point." That's junior league.

It doesn't really matter whether you think our intelligence and the ability to manipulate our world were derived by natrual processes or bestowed on us by a higher power. Either way, we are part of this universe as much as anything else. Iif we chose to use our abilities to create a nuclear power plant, preserve a section of rainforest, or wipe out the Dodo bird it would only be possible because nature, god, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster set mankind in motion in the first place.

Therefore, humans and the technology they develop, are every bit as "natural" as anything else in this universe. You're arbitrary declaration that we are "higher" or somehow more special than all the other evolutionary forces in this universe is pretty damn conceited and simultaneously smacks of more than just a bit of self-hatred. Either way, you don't make a very persuasive point, IMHO.

[troysvihl]

The problem with unbridled capitalism is that in a completely unregualted market the world is run on a "how can I make the MOST money now" philopsohy with total disregard to the untangible things like air, water, wildlife, climate and even our own children and grandchildrens future. Seeing a role for government as an equilbrium here as a monitor so to speak is the difference between liberals and modern day conservatives who really do not look past their own lifespans and what sort of a legacy this generation needs to leave for the future.

What bullshit. Governments are the worst stewards of natural resources and we've got the track records of the USSR and thier puppet states to prove it. Take a big guess which of North or South Korea has a cleaner environment.

[heyhey]

What bullshit. Governments are the worst stewards of natural resources and we've got the track records of the USSR and thier puppet states to prove it. Take a big guess which of North or South Korea has a cleaner environment.

Government doesn't equate with communism.... and it is pretty black and white thinking to think so.

Capitalism is a good thing. But it has to have some restraints. Without some restraint, people with the philosphy of "make all the money I can now" with only intrest in their own lifespan will ultimately create as much chaos as comminusm or anarachy even.

Human beings have responsbility to humanity and the palnet just because they are capeable of responsbility.

Creating nucelar weapons that could ultimately destroy the planet are only a natural occurrance in a fatalistic Hobessian world that offers no real credit the the capabilites of the human race. Destruction through technology is not part of any natural order. Because our consciousness has evolved to the point of creating the postive aspects of technolgy it is also capeable of overcoming the negative aspects of it. One has to let go of the Hobbesian model however and actually have faith in the inherritant possibilty of goodness in our species...it also involves those with power thinking beyond their own lifespan and the willingness to make the sacrifices needed to act on that thinking.

I guess it is a spiritual belief.... that our purpose here on earth is more to then just acquisition of wealth and consumption of what the fitest in the scientific notion of survival of the fitest are able to grab up. Really ownership of natural resources is a pretty abstract notion when one considers natural order. Much more significant then survival of fitest models and fundamental in the heirachy of needs of the human race is the process of self-actualization which involves the acceptance of responsiblity of purpose, morality and the ability to actually think beyond self-gratification and yes one's own lifespan.

Just as humans go outside the natural order to destroy they can also do the same to love and find a purpose towards things that will outlast them.

It is sad there are people as cynical as you. Looking into your heart and finding some faith in something beyond your own lifespan may actually become you and bring you great joy.

That hope is there in you... as it is in all of us... just look to find it.

NAMASTE.

[David M]

Why do you consider an extinction event caused by man to be unnatural or less preferable than non-human induced extinctions?

Because man cannot and should not select what specie he can wipe out and which specie to keep. If man can justify wiping out one specie then he can justify wiping out any and all species. Where would this ultimately leave us if we start wiping out species? With a dead planet. Therefore, lets not even start down the road of wiping out species. Let nature take its own course.

Additionally, mankind can wipe out species faster than they can evolve to adapt to new man made conditions.

On a more qualitative level.....It's just stupid to unnecessarily wipe out entire species. What does it accomplish? How does this benefit man? Isn't is more interesting to have greater biodiversity than to have fewer species?

This comes from my liberal side.. :)

[troysvihl]

On a more qualitative level.....It's just stupid to unnecessarily wipe out entire species. What does it accomplish? How does this benefit man? Isn't is more interesting to have greater biodiversity than to have fewer species?

Who is calling for unnecessarily wiping out entire species? I haven't seen anyone that has voiced such a proposal.