Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 10/27/2010 8:15:49 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/27/2010 8:18:32 AM EDT
Cost benefit analysis, and it should be done carefully. You'd need to look at the ecosystem, determine what the species in danger of extinction actually brings to it, and then see if it makes sense to spend the resources to save them. In many cases, it may not be, but I'd argue it's not a decision to make lightly.
Link Posted: 10/27/2010 8:21:12 AM EDT
No.

Signed,

Charles.
Link Posted: 10/27/2010 8:23:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/27/2010 8:30:20 AM EDT
Ask Penn & Teller:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Also there is a ton of profanity, but good points! Mother nature is a cold heartless bitch!
Link Posted: 10/27/2010 8:30:36 AM EDT
I had this discussion with my young daughters recently. My stance is that we should try to protect large land mammals like tigers, gorillas and rhinos, if for no other reason than their coolness factor. Everything else is survival of the fittest.
Link Posted: 10/27/2010 8:30:42 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/27/2010 8:32:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Zhukov:
I'd also like to see an honest assessment of which species are going extinct directly because of human intervention and which ones aren't. Obviously, species went extinct all the time even without humans around.


Save the mammoths.
Link Posted: 10/27/2010 8:32:42 AM EDT
99% of the species that have ever existed on this planet are extinct.
Link Posted: 10/27/2010 8:32:43 AM EDT
yes! if only human arrogance and wanton disregard for the environment hadn't killed off the dinosaurs
Link Posted: 10/27/2010 8:34:13 AM EDT
Extinction is the natural way of things, if a species cannot adapt it dies off making way for those that can. Be they small, large or human adapt or die.
Link Posted: 10/27/2010 8:34:53 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/27/2010 8:36:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/27/2010 8:37:56 AM EDT by RogerBall]
Save the passenger pigeon!
wiki link


My opinion, take each case individually-act compassionately, but not go over board. There are tons of species going extinct every day. And more originating.
Link Posted: 10/27/2010 8:38:52 AM EDT
I resigned myself long ago to the fact that we were going to completely wreck this place.

Too many people not to.

Link Posted: 10/27/2010 8:44:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Zhukov:
Let me start by saying that yes, we need to look out for the environment and that we shouldn't be callously looking to destroy any particular species.

HOWEVER...

Is it OK to spend virtually unlimited resources to protect EVERY species we know about? Take that fish in California that's shut down irrigation in the central valley (I think that's where it is). What is the real damage caused to people vs. the possible extinction of this fish? We have something similar here in Austin with the Barton Creek salamander - who would really care if that thing was gone other than some hippies?

Where do we draw the line, and who decided that EVERYTHING is worth protecting no matter how much damage it causes humans?

Save the Salamander,, get rid of the Hippies.

Link Posted: 10/27/2010 8:47:10 AM EDT
Save the Horny Toad!



Why is it that things we'd like to see go extinct never will? Black Widows, nutria, skunks, militant libtards...
Link Posted: 10/27/2010 9:00:49 AM EDT
FUCK NO. When you consider the fact that so many liberals believe in Darwinism and yet
they want to intervene and save those who are not fit enough to survive.

Stupid fucking liberals.
Link Posted: 10/27/2010 9:09:49 AM EDT
If it's an endangered species of rat lice or something, no. If it's pandas, some sort of eagle, etc., sure, but it should be a private effort, not government-funded. If the government funds it, it will be used as an excuse to take more freedoms.
Top Top