Should The Great White Shark Be Culled From Planet Earth??

Jason Todd

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Animals like to eat other animals.

Damn who knew??


I think we should kill all the animals and then proceed to kill ourselves. Then animals wouldn't need to kill other animals ... becouse they would be all dead


I am actully embarressed for the OP


/tread/

The OP is against a cull.

Chuck Stone

ScumLord wrote: »

Humans are nature all our killing is as natural as a snake venom or tornadoes.

So WWII is as natural as a snake killing rat? Dropping a nuke on a city is like a fox catching a rabbit?

Jesus c'mon.

Our behaviour is still basic mammalian behaviour, the stuff that makes us assholes is the stuff that's been with us for millions of years.

Only now we've developed the technology to self-extinct.

That is proof, there's no proof we would have wiped out the human race in a full on nuclear war, in fact we made provisions to survive such an occurrence.

A full scale exchange between east and west would have probably been the end of the human race and it would have contaminated the entire planet for generations - a few elite living in a nuclear shelter for a decade or two can hardly be described as 'we' (the human race).

Humans have shown that there's very few places we cannot survive. Not even cockroaches can survive in all the environments we can.

You're confusing environmental adaptability with species survival.

1ZRed

Why would any one want to cull them? There is very few of them left compared to a hundred years ago. In fact, all shark species have declined around 90% over the last 150 years because of us over fishing, being damaging and wasteful!

Yeah cull the sharks but that'll just leave a gap wide open for another dangerous shark species to fill. Do people not realise there are loads of dangerous sharks swarming the waters there, or is it the fact that it's "The Great White" that have some people up in arms?

Anyway, it's not the shark's fault, it's mistaken identity and they do not hunt humans so I think it's just very mindless of humans to drive yet another species into extinction just so spare a hand full of surfers lives that should know the risks.

PieForPi

The suggestion is indescribably retarded.

Don't want to risk dealing with a shark? Swim in a swimming pool. We don't have gills and fins, it's not our natural domain, it's theirs so leave them to it.

It's like suggesting that we should ban air travel people a tiny proportion of people die doing it every year. Retarded.

ScumLord

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Techonological advancment is two fold. There can be very negative outcomes if the whole of society isn't mature with the advancments.

That's life I'm afraid. There's also the fact that saying lets nuke them is as good as saying lets nuke ourselves. There would be unavoidable mutual destruction. That's why it never happened. Everyone involved knew it was as good as putting a gun to your own head and pulling the trigger.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So WWII is as natural as a snake killing rat? Dropping a nuke on a city is like a fox catching a rabbit?

Yes, it happened therefore it's natural. Ants go to war with with other ant colonies even other species (termites) Hornets go to war with bees, Lions go to war with hyenas, Elephants and humans have a long standing battle and often the elephants are the ones that roll into towns during the middle of the night for surprise raids.

Human behaviour isn't all that unique in many ways, all animals cause destruction we're just particularly good at it.

A full scale exchange between east and west would have probably been the end of the human race and it would have contaminated the entire planet for generations - a few elite living in a nuclear shelter for a decade or two can hardly be described as 'we' (the human race).

If that's all that's left then they're the human species. I think if we had to, we'd find a way. some underground bunkers where literally city sized and designed to be lived in for a long time. Humans are survivors, we've been on the brink of real extinction many times.

You're confusing environmental adaptability with species survival.

You'll have to clarify what you mean by that. We adapt to new environments it's how we survive where other species die out.

Mickeroo

Considering humans as a seperate entity from the natural world is probably the biggest contributing factor to our collective screwing over of the planet there is imo. Humans are natural, our actions are natural otherwise we wouldn't be here.

MadsL

splashthecash wrote: »

I love the "YEOO HOOO HOOO!!"...a real once in a lifetime experience to be that close

:pac:

Nope, sure sign of a mentally deficient idiot with too much money.

Oh, you want to dive with sharks? Oh, you don't want to go to the effort of learning how to dive and having respect for the natural ecosystem and getting the experience and confidence to dive with sharks for real? Fine. Pay us lots and we'll chum the water and make it easy for you.

That is not a "once-in-a-lifetime" experience, it is a fake, manufactured piece of shit being passed off as entertainment for lazy-assed idiots.

In my view they should open the cage and say "YEOO HOOO HOOO" now, motherfucker!

Seriously, people could I urge you to stop encouraging this. Don't do it yourself, and treat people who come back boasting of this as morons. Oh, you went cage-diving, you must be so brave. :rolleyes:

Chuck Stone

Mickeroo wrote: »

Considering humans as a seperate entity from the natural world is probably the biggest contributing factor to our collective screwing over of the planet there is imo. Humans are natural, our actions are natural otherwise we wouldn't be here.

We've gone way beyond what could be considered natural if you're talking about us being part of the environment. We can manipulate our environment in ways no other creature comes close to.

The Three Gorges Dam in China is going to shift the poles by 2 centimetres. We're pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere year on year. We've built weapons that, if used, would cause a nuclear winter that could last for years which would dramatically change life on earth and cause wide scale mass extinction.

Yes we are natural creatures in that we are primates but what we do can hardly be described as natural.

Mickeroo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

We've gone way beyond what could be considered natural if you're talking about us being part of the environment. We can manipulate our environment in ways no other creature comes close to.

The Three Gorges Dam in China is going to shift the poles by 2 centimetres. We're pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere year on year. We've built weapons that, if used, would cause a nuclear winter that could last for years which would dramatically change life on earth and cause wide scale mass extinction.

Yes we are natural creatures in that we primates but what we do can hardly be described as natural.

Of course what we do is natural, just because our actions have negative consequences doesn't make them unnatural imo.

Also just because we can manipulate our environment (to the extent some are calling this a new epoch known as the Anthropocene) doesn't make what we do any less natural. We are natural, what we do is natural to us therefore it is natural to the planet we are a product of. Just because something is natural doesn't make it good.

If the majority of people actually realised this I think we would be a lot quicker to look after the environment as it wouldn't be seen as looking after this thing we're seperate from it would be seen as looking after ourselves.

Chuck Stone

ScumLord wrote: »

Yes, it happened therefore it's natural. Ants go to war with with other ant colonies even other species (termites) Hornets go to war with bees, Lions go to war with hyenas, Elephants and humans have a long standing battle and often the elephants are the ones that roll into towns during the middle of the night for surprise raids.

You're trying to equate ants going to war with each other with a nuclear exchange in an attempt to make the point that what we do is entirely natural?

Seriously?

Human behaviour isn't all that unique in many ways, all animals cause destruction we're just particularly good at it.

Humans are unique in that we can destroy ourselves and other species render the planet uninhabitable.

You'll have to clarify what you mean by that.

It's self explanatory.

We adapt to new environments it's how we survive where other species die out.

I challenged the claim (in the daft OP) that humans are the most superior animal and you attempted to make a counter argument by saying that humans are adaptable - being adaptable doesn't make us superior.

Foxes are more adaptable than Gorillas - does that make them superior? No.

ScumLord

MadsL wrote: »

Oh, you want to dive with sharks? Oh, you don't want to go to the effort of learning how to dive and having respect for the natural ecosystem and getting the experience and confidence to dive with sharks for real? Fine. Pay us lots and we'll chum the water and make it easy for you.

Kind of, yeah.

In my view they should open the cage and say "YEOO HOOO HOOO" now, motherfucker!

There's no need to open the cage, the funny thing is those cages aren't actually fully shark proof. I

Chuck Stone wrote: »

We've gone way beyond what could be considered natural if you're talking about us being part of the environment.

Everything that happens is natural, that's just a fact whether you like it or not.

We can manipulate our environment in ways no other creature comes close to.

That you know of, there could be aliens at the same craic we are all over the universe, maybe worse, some may have found a balance for a brief time (like native Americans did) but even if they did their world will change and they'll have to change to suit. If the easiest option for their survival is wiping out species left right and centre that's exactly what they'll do.

We've built weapons that, if used, would cause a nuclear winter that could last for years which would dramatically change life on earth and cause wide scale mass extinction.

This has happened naturally before, it's basically the same thing as a large asteroid. Life will continue on regardless, maybe we won't be taking part in it any more but that's life.

Yes we are natural creatures in that we are primates but what we do can hardly be described as natural.

It happened it's natural, there's no such thing as unnatural.

crazy cabbage

ScumLord wrote: »

That's life I'm afraid. There's also the fact that saying lets nuke them is as good as saying lets nuke ourselves. There would be unavoidable mutual destruction. That's why it never happened. Everyone involved knew it was as good as putting a gun to your own head and pulling the trigger.

I agree that it would be mutual destruction however that isn't to say that will not happen in the future. And that is just one advancment in techonology. If we were to say... decode DNA that would present many challeneges and we may wipe our selves out but if we didn't we could engineer ourselves to be 'fault free'.

ScumLord wrote: »

So WWII is as natural as a snake killing rat? Dropping a nuke on a city is like a fox catching a rabbit?

Yes, it happened therefore it's natural. Ants go to war with with other ant colonies even other species (termites) Hornets go to war with bees, Lions go to war with hyenas, Elephants and humans have a long standing battle and often the elephants are the ones that roll into towns during the middle of the night for surprise raids.

I dont agree with this.

I believe that there is two types of 'animals'. Adaptors and manipulators.
Intelligent species who gain dominance over their planet do so by becoming the most efficient predators. There are many intelligent species who do not evolve to dominate the planet. Like dolphins they adapt perfectly to the environment rather than take our course, which is to manipulate the environment.Unfortunately for the dolphin, theirs is a dead end. They may outlive the human race but will never escape the bounds of planet earth - not without our help at any rate. Only those who can manipulate the world they live in can one day hope to leave it.

However that is not to say that droping a bomb on a city is natural becouse it isn't. That techonology is just one of many techonologys that we must learn to live and use for benifical purposes for the earth and its inhabatants.
But no. Droping a bomb is not natural whereas a fox catching a rabbit is. The differince which i believe is important lies in that in one case there is manulipatation and in there other there is adaptation.

ScumLord wrote: »

Human behaviour isn't all that unique in many ways, all animals cause destruction we're just particularly good at it.

Again there is Adaptors and manipulators. fundamantly different imo but yes there is some simalarities. That is not to say that we are any better than a rabit or ant.

ScumLord wrote: »

If that's all that's left then they're the human species. I think if we had to, we'd find a way. some underground bunkers where literally city sized and designed to be lived in for a long time. Humans are survivors, we've been on the brink of real extinction many times.

And so has alot of other speices. Just becouse we have survived so far doesn't mean that we will not evently hit a self distruct button. And who is to say where techonology may lead us. Bunkers may not be any good.
And saying that we are survivers implies that other speices aren't. I dont think this is the case.

ScumLord wrote: »

You'll have to clarify what you mean by that. We adapt to new environments it's how we survive where other species die out.

I kinda agree. We are very adaptoble but i think the reason we have survived thus far is due to us malupalating the enviroment rather than adapting to it.

Edit: i am not saying that we arn't natural. I believe that we are no 'better' than anything else in this planet/not in this planet

Mickeroo

crazy cabbage wrote: »

i am not saying that we arn't natural. I believe that we are no 'better' than anything else in this planet/not in this planet

Fully agree with that.

ScumLord

crazy cabbage wrote: »

There are many intelligent species who do not evolve to dominate the planet. Like dolphins they adapt perfectly to the environment rather than take our course, which is to manipulate the environment.

They can't manipulate their surroundings though, maybe the right brain but unfortunately for them in the wrong body. They have no hands, this leads to not being able to manipulate and carries onto not being able to try out ideas.

Humans are much more than a freak of the mind, it takes the human body to make the whole equation work. Without this particular body we'd still be just another Ape no matter how smart we seemed to be. Humans can come up with a theory(mind), make a real world experiment (body) and change their view of the world based on the outcomes. Every other animal is stuck inside it's own head.

Scanlas The 2nd

IMO dropping bombs is natural just like a spider building a web is natural. We evolved naturally the ability to use materials to build stuff, much like a beaver evolved naturally to learn how to build a dam.

Mickeroo

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

IMO dropping bombs is natural just like a spider building a web is natural. We evolved naturally the ability to use materials to build stuff, much like a beaver evolved naturally to learn how to build a dam.

Yup, and Beavers can have devastating effects on woodlands.

Chuck Stone

This exchange of views encapsulates my stance on our 'superiority'.

Solair wrote: »

You'd really wonder about our species' suicidal and self-destructive tendencies though and how they are compatible with intelligence.

We put vast resources into building devices that could destroy all life on Earth i.e. Nuclear Weapons.

We spend the rest of our time gambling on ridiculous things (stock markets), fighting over utter nonsense and ensuring half of our population lives in dire circumstances.

So, I'm not entirely sure that you could define our lot as all that intelligent.

We can discuss things abstractly, but we're a bit loopers!

I quote the above and add this.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This is true.

There is no evidence that intelligence adds to survivability.

LF quotes me with the below.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Precisely, if anything it diminishes it as there appears to be a direct correlation between human's concept of advancement and a removal of oneself from the actual environment in which we live and a lessening of the prevalence of the skills needed to survive in it.

We got smart enough to get soft.

Sums it up for me.

Chuck Stone

Mickeroo wrote: »

Yup, and Beavers can have devastating effects on woodlands.

If humans wipe out their natural predators?

crazy cabbage

ScumLord wrote: »

They can't manipulate their surroundings though, maybe the right brain but unfortunately for them in the wrong body. They have no hands, this leads to not being able to manipulate and carries onto not being able to try out ideas.

That was my point They have adapated rather than manepulating which is the road we are going down.

ScumLord wrote: »

Humans are much more than a freak of the mind, it takes the human body to make the whole equation work. Without this particular body we'd still be just another Ape no matter how smart we seemed to be. Humans can come up with a theory(mind), make a real world experiment (body) and change their view of the world based on the outcomes. Every other animal is stuck inside it's own head.

+1

but at the same time if there is other intelegent lifeforms out there i dont think that they nessaraly would need our body (or something similar) in order to gain domonanince over there 'world/section of the universe'.

aaabbbb

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Another Great White Shark attack off the coast of Australia, 5 in total have died this year in Western Australia and now these fatal attacks have prompted a call to lift ban on killing great white sharks.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/aug/25/great-white-shark-attacks-australia?newsfeed=true

The lastest victim was only swimming 200 metres off shore in Western Australia. Many arguments are now in favor in killing Great White Sharks to reduce their numbers, some are even calling for a potential worldwide cull, calling for them to face extinction if possible because they are such disgusting bastards.

Many people are proud humans and believe the human race should dominate throughout the world to the point where if almost every animal became extinct apart from humanity, then thats a job well done as humanity has proven to be the most superior and so be it. If its affecting tourism potentially and driving away numbers then the argument is that sharks should be killed. Humanity should come first is the claim.

I'm obviously in favour of keeping great white sharks and think the tourists should go and f*ck themselves since its the sharks natural habitat anyway. Although of course I have a great deal of sympathy for those who died.

You thoughts? Time for a cull??

Great whites provide a vital role in the oceans ecosystem, removing them along with other species would just create a domino effect that would be much more negative than a small number of individuals being attacked , as tragic as it is.

Mickeroo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

If humans wipe out their natural predators?

Probably although I'm not sure if that's actually happened in many places, most animals that predate on Beavers would be protected. Elephants are also known to destroy vast tracts of land too. The point I was trying to make is that we're not the only animal that can have a negative effect on our surroundings. The fact that we're an apex predator makes us worse than most though.

crazy cabbage

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

IMO dropping bombs is natural just like a spider building a web is natural. We evolved naturally the ability to use materials to build stuff, much like a beaver evolved naturally to learn how to build a dam.

So if one day we discover a code written in nature and we could malipluate that so the whole universe was at our fingertips, would that be natural? By your argument it would be but i dont think so. I dont know if it would be a good or bad thing but that is besides the point.

If we then pressed self destruct on the universe would that be natural?

Wait. Will pick a simpilar idea. If we grow a human baby in a lab 1000% faster than normal methods would that be natural?

I am not saying that if something isn't natural it is automatically bad.

i think we will have to define natural at somestage

1.
existing in or formed by natue.
2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.

3. of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.

4. of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments.

5. in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.

Colmustard

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

IMO dropping bombs is natural just like a spider building a web is natural. We evolved naturally the ability to use materials to build stuff, much like a beaver evolved naturally to learn how to build a dam.

Not really, could you build a plane make bombs find your way there and drop them.

Or could the culture build a plane, make bombs, find its way there and drop them.

Take away the culture and we are the same beast that roamed the savannah. It could be taken away, quite easilly and then we are all in a Mad Max world.

Mickeroo

crazy cabbage wrote: »

So if one day we discover a code written in nature and we could malipluate that so the whole universe was at our fingertips, would that be natural? By your argument it would be but i dont think so. I dont know if it would be a good or bad thing but that is besides the point.

If we then pressed self destruct on the universe would that be natural?

Wait. Will pick a simpilar idea. If we grow a human baby in a lab 1000% faster than normal methods would that be natural?

I am not saying that if something isn't natural it is automatically bad.

i think we will have to define natural at somestage

It all depends on your own ppersonal opinion of what is and is not natural but I would say all that is natural. With the baby it could just be seen as us evolving to breed more efficiently.

It could very much be that life anywhere in the universe that evolves to the level it has on earth behaves similar to us. This is just the natural run of things as far as i can see.

crazy cabbage

Mickeroo wrote: »

It all depends on your own ppersonal opinion of what is and is not natural but I would say all that is natural. With the baby it could just be seen as us evolving to breed more efficiently.

It could very much be that life anywhere in the universe that evolves to the level it has on earth behaves similar to us. This is just the natural run of things as far as i can see.

Fair enough. We will take different definitions on what natural means. I will take the accepted dictionary definition

shruikan2553

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ-4jCS9ky8

If we kill sharks then what will happen to the species that sharks eat? Will they become over populated and require culling too?

The amount of time and money needed to cull them all would be better spent trying to find a way to repel sharks from beaches with people.

Bullseye1

17 people voted yes LOL. It would be more effect to prevent stupid people procreate.

Chuck Stone

What was the question again?


:pac:

mathepac

TeddyTedson wrote: »

... Respect the power of sharks and crocks. ...

Oh Yeah? Tell the feckers in the NCT centre that, they just failed me car again, the big fecken feckers.

Mickeroo

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Fair enough. We will take different definitions on what natural means. I will take the accepted dictionary definition

Now now the dictionary only reflects the generally held views of modern society (humans seperate from nature) which I've already made my views clear on (it's wrong :pac:). I meant definition of nature in the philosophical sense. Either way I've enjoyed this discussion.