True to a point, but it should be noted we are one of the only sentient forms of life on the planet. And almost certainly we’re the only ones to recognize the effect on the world around us.
I remember watching a National Geographic special about an dying watering hole populated by Elephants and Hippos. The end result was that the Elephants increased the rate of the evaporation (or whatever else did the place in) and ended up speeding up the death of the hippo population of the hole (one survived out of somewhere around 20 or so).
Frankly, I’m gung ho over preserving endangered species, but just because a species is endangered doesn’t mean that everything should be done to save them. I include mankind in this too, because if we wipe ourselves out, that’s our fault.
I just feel that human life is, if not sacred, at least somewhat precious. Some of us, anyway.
And getting back to human sacrifices briefly, what about Congress?
Although I wouldn’t risk my life for a single animal, I might for an entire species. I am not so self centered that I think my life is worth more than a dog or a cat or a fucking sewer rat just because I was the ‘lucky’ one that was born human.
Think about this: Near where I live, there was a heated debate a couple of years ago about building a new bridge. It seems like where the new bridge would go there lived quite a large number of an endangered species of turtle. Now, what is more important? A new bridge to ensure quick and easy human transportation, or a lowly turtle?
Personally, I think the bridge should have been built somewhere else to ensure the turtles survived. Sure, all animals become extinct eventually, but it seems to me humans are often to happy to help this along.
peace,
jb (a tree hugging, dandelion sniffing, hippy)
I think she was referring to the fact that you were asking whether it was proposed that humans die to save “an entire species,” THEN, in your hypothetical quote, told your list of SDMB posters that they were going to be killed for a single animal. Two different things there.
But at any rate, I wanted to address Superdude’s point that “if it was meant to happen, why not let it.” That would be a fine point, if our dumping chemicals into the environment and wantonly destroying habitats were part of nature’s plan, or is somehow natural, which I don’t think it is. Perhaps the Master Plan is to have one species grow so powerful that they can destroy all the others, so that species can die off and let the Earth get on with its life, but somehow I doubt it…
Mankind has run roughshod over animals since before corporations even existed. We have always exploited other animals and the environment to suit our needs. There’s even some theories that human actions helped cause the extinction of the Wooly Mammoth. The only difference now is the scale of our actions not the actions themselves.
**
The trouble is some environmentalist care about the environment for the sake of the environment. I care about the environment because of the effects it has on human beings. If a couple of species go extinct what’s the big deal? Do you miss the dodo, the sabertooth tiger, or the wooly rhinocerous? Probably not.
Very true. The problems are a) the scale that you mentioned, which is much more than ever, and b) the fact that there’s a difference between “exploiting other animals and the environment to suit our needs,” i.e. survive, and killing them because big companies just don’t give a damn, or because the problems of overpopulated Third World countries are so ignored by the First World that they have to cut down acres of rainforest (which rarely works out as well as is hoped, BTW) just to feed their families.
I wouldn’t know. I never had the chance to find out just how neat those animals were before they were taken away. That’s the problem; future generations will never know how wonderful, or useful, those species could have been.
And the further problem is that it’s just not a “couple.” It’s 25 a day, if I recall that link earlier on that thread. (And while humans don’t cause 'em all, I’d guess that a significant number ARE because of human neglect or destruction; aren’t those unnecessary?) Isn’t it more than likely that a lot of potentially useful species are dying out as we speak?
Plus, you can never tell just how fragile an ecosystem is; yank out one card, and the whole house could collapse, or at least a big wing of it, which would be bad for everyone. I don’t think natural extinction is ever an issue; it’s the ones that we could prevent by not doing simple/selfish things that is the concern, here. If we CAN prevent it, why SHOULDN’T we?
Is this position clearer? Or at least more understandable?
Well, your cunning debate skill have shown me the errors of my ways. I will now go out and kill me some condors, eat some eagle eggs, run over sea turtles with my dune buggy, pee on a spotted owl, BBQ some buffalo, club some baby seals, carve my name in an elephants side, and set fire to the zoo. How dare these species exist? Long live Homo sapiens!
If your neighbour had a choice between saving HIS dog or saving your son, would you think it ethical or moral for him to save his dog and let your son be killed? If he pulled his dog out of the way of the truck and let your son be crushed to applesauce, would you think “Hey, that’s his call,” or would you sue the son of a bitch?
If you think his decision was the wrong one - why would you make that decision yourself?
IF someone HONESTLY believed that animal lives were equal to human lives, I think they’d be weird but it’s their moral position to take. But I’ve never met such a person, because when their neck’s on the line, all of a sudden the animal takes a pretty low priority.
I forgot to add the extreme silliness of arguing using hypotheticals. Why and when would a situation ever arise in which you had to choose between one’s pet or a group of people? How in the hell can a person claim that they know how they would react in an outlandish situation?
Even the idea mentioned in the OP is a classic example of a False Dilemna. Who said you had to choose 800 bald eagles OR 75 million humans? I’ll take both, thank you kindly.
Oooh, wait, I can play hypothetical games too:
What would you do if your head wasn’t up your ass?
What everyone needs to realize is that there is sufficient evidence that a majority of the species that ever existed on Earth have become extinct. Not by man, but by rocks from space. And floods. And earthquakes, tsunami, volcanoes, bad weather…
Current theories discussed elsewhere on this board state that Sol’s (our sun) passage through the galaxy may take us through denser sections of interstellar matter, making the probability of an impact increase.
Mankind will eventually be destroyed unless steps are taken. This means that we cannot return to our “natural state”, because we need to develop the technology to escape or to fight back.
But this does not mean we should destroy the environment with short-sightedness. Instead of fighting over every endangered species, battling over every issue as if life depends on it, we should listen to each other and compromise. Species can be transplanted. The Earth’s surface is not permanent, it can be shaped to make environments for any purpose. We need to look for solutions that keep both the 800 eagles and the 75 million people alive and happy.
It has always bothered me that the animal-rights people seem to gravitate toward “cute” species, and ignore other species. Why is there no one picketing for the smallpox virus? the Norway rat? the mosquito? These examples may sound silly, but a previous poster made the point about not knowing which species would be most useful to mankind.
It’s stupid to risk your life to save someone or something which you value? Would you think a mother stupid for running into a building to save her child? What is the intrinsic value of that child? There are millions of children in the world, and she could even have another one of her own.
Some people value their pets as highly as family members. What is stupid about that? Maybe their pets provide them the companionship and love which other people receive from family members.
It is neither stupid nor noble. The man trying to save his cat, and the mother trying to save her child, are being as selfish as the person casually standing outside the building watching it burn. They simply have different priorities in life.
I see you put in someone in rebuttal, which is fucking stupid. Saving someone while risking your own neck is noble. Risking your life for a pet is stupid.
What the fuck are you talking about??? Talk about a strawman.
It’s a fucking cat. Cats can be replaced. I like cats, but that is truly stupid. You realize the guy died trying to save it?
Let’s use unbalanced.
If you heard someone weeping about the death of their child that happened a couple of years ago, you’s probably understand. Maybe even empathize.
If they wept about the puppy they lost a couple of years ago, you’d probably think the elevator didn’t stop at all the floors.
