Do most people not care that some humans are making whole species extinct?

ford2600 · 21-09-2013 12:07AM

Just a few points. Efficency leads to increased gross usage.
The reason population have increased is our better efficency at producing food energy etc.
Population will only increase with further improvements in efficiency.

Ireland's population decline is most likely associated with exporting our youth throughout first few decades of State, 80's and now.

bizmark · 21-09-2013 12:08AM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

But look at the cost so far already. Deforestation, extinction all so we can survive. I don't doubt that we could get 50 billion people or far more on earth but that would mean turning it into a giant farm. Is that worth it though? I don't think so, I think a balance has to be struck at some point soon wiry good regulation to keep our planet going as smoothly as possible.

I dont think such a population level will ever be seen on earth outside a judge dredd comic.
Tbh though i seem dismissive of such things i do admire your view of earth i just firmly believe that all those problems will be solved by socialite and technological progression much of our forest lost atm is in the developing world in Europe and america forest is regrowing when (hopefully when) they reach our level of development they to will start regrowing their forest area letting it reclaim what technology has rendered unnecessary technology could in time allow us to clone meat wide scale which would cut down on land useage for animal farming perhaps multi level farms could be constructed farming high yeild crops instead of being huge sprawling things like they are now in places like america our citys are a tiny footprint on the surface etc.

We will solve the fossil fuel problem to purely because it makes sense to do so

I just dont buy into the doom mongering iv read about it to much iv seen the cycles of them over and over in history and never played out and i have the utmost faith in our species to survive cause we are REALLY good at it and we are equaly as good at pulling technology out of our asses specially when we have 7.2 billion chances of a single spark of genius

Gbear · 21-09-2013 12:10AM

The gut reaction is to say "Poachers should be shot on sight".

The details can be a little harder to deal with. How can you tell a starving family that no, they can't eat that rhino/gorilla/etc meat and they have to go hungry?
Even in the case of poachers, they earn what is a fortune from their perspective selling items harvested from elephants, bears and tigers.

A huge problem is the trade in ivory and other "luxury goods" like it - there's just no ****ing point - we have enough nice shiny things without murdering elephants by the boat load.

Another problem that's a bit broader is superstition and other bull****.
Animals aren't the only ones under threat. In some countries (I think there was a documentary about such cases in Uganda) albino people are murdered and butchered so they can be used in "witchcraft".
Then of course there's the "raping babies cures AIDS" thing.

Governments in Africa and Asia and their populaces are understandably a bit behind in dismissing the sort of bull**** that was mostly done away with in the western world hundreds of years ago. But there needs to be pressure from the west on governments that aren't doing enough to tackle this and resources to help them when they can't do it themselves.

Ultimately over time the level of education in the third world will increase but I don't doubt that by the time it gets to the state where the stranglehold of superstition is removed there'll be a long casualty list of people and species of animals.

greedygoblin · 21-09-2013 12:17AM

Gbear wrote: »

Ultimately over time the level of education in the third world will increase but I don't doubt that by the time it gets to the state where the stranglehold of superstition is removed there'll be a long casualty list of people and species of animals.

Education is the key here. But as you say, it'll be too late for many species by the time that happens.

Also, the UN have estimated a world population of about 10.8 billion by the year 2100 which isn't as big an increase as I would have expected (Linky).

Karl Stein · 21-09-2013 12:19AM

Gbear wrote: »

How can you tell a starving family that no, they can't eat that rhino/gorilla/etc meat and they have to go hungry?

Which highlights the perverse extremes of access to food that's considered quite normal. On the one hand you have people in western countries dying from obesity related illness while people starve. You have hundreds of millions of dollars chasing a baldness 'cure' for fat old men while young children die for want of a 10 cent pill.

Gbear wrote: »

Governments in Africa and Asia and their populaces are understandably a bit behind in dismissing the sort of bull**** that was mostly done away with in the western world hundreds of years ago.

Understandably is it?

Help me understand. Explain it to me if it's so understandable.

Gbear · 21-09-2013 02:02AM

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Understandably is it?

Help me understand. Explain it to me if it's so understandable.

Because centuries of enslavement and oppression from the west. Them being a bit behind was obviously going to be the result. It's not a reason to give up or to accept it, but it is easy to understand how some African, Asian and, to a degree, Middle Eastern countries are as ****ed as they are.

bizmark · 21-09-2013 02:17AM

That was 70 years ago or multiple generations give or take that old chestnut really should be put to bed at this point and those country s judged on their own merits and failures you dont see people explaining Greece problems away on them being subjugated by the ottoman empire back in the day or spains on being under the thumb of the caliphate

Cookie_Monster · 21-09-2013 02:23AM

Gbear wrote: »

The gut reaction is to say "Poachers should be shot on sight".

thankfully, in a lot of African countries they now are

Mark Tapley · 21-09-2013 02:54AM

bizmark wrote: »

We are better than animals proofs in the fact they are dead and we are not

By this logic if I killed you and ground down your nails as a cure for gout I would be better than you.

bizmark · 21-09-2013 02:59AM

Mark Tapley wrote: »

By this logic if I killed you and ground down your nails as a cure for gout I would be better than you.

Definitely more wealthy and sneaker than me anyway

steddyeddy · 21-09-2013 11:40AM

bizmark wrote: »

Nice over the top reaction there champ

I wouldn't support or allow killing any animal for no reason which includes witch doctory nonsense or to provide for materials we have alternatives to however when it comes down to survival then they lose thats nature

HIV, cancer, diabetes, PKU and TB. They're also nature and many humans are the "losers" to use your line of thinking. As an animal possessed of empathy surely we can't allow the extinction of a species, a human dieing of cancer or HIV to boil down to "they lost"?

steddyeddy · 21-09-2013 11:43AM

bizmark wrote: »

Regulate yourself then get off the internet and stop using massive amounts of power to write out a few lines of text if you truly believe that .

Our species has survived doom mongers about over population and resource collapse since at the very lest the 1800s

Oh just fyi humans havent really relied on a natural egosystem for christ knows how long we have 7 billion people cause of our technology not the good earth apon which we are so mean to

FYI that's rubbish. Wipe out the honey bee and you'll find out how much we rely on nature.

steddyeddy · 21-09-2013 11:49AM

true-or-false wrote: »

You seem quite sure of yourself.

Are you sure you're not contributing to the demise of these species yourself? Species go extinct for many reasons, and the responsibility for that falls on many more people than just the person with their finger on the trigger of a gun.

Why is it only intelligent life that's deemed important to you? You say you cringe when you hear people say that humans are better than animals, but you're committing a very similar ego-based mistake by judging the worth of a species by it's intelligence. What about plant, insect and micro-organism species? What is your definition of intelligence anyway?

Well I find it particularly disturbing that one species may kill off another with cognitive abilities similar to their own without remorse.

Intelligence relies on spindle cells and encephalization quotients amongst other things. I take it you haven't checked out the journals of neuroscience lately as it's quite clear that some animals are more intelligent than others.

srsly78 · 21-09-2013 11:51AM

Extinction is never a happy event, but the OP should realise it has happened throughout history even when there are no humans around.

steddyeddy · 21-09-2013 11:56AM

srsly78 wrote: »

Extinction is never a happy event, but the OP should realise it has happened throughout history even when there are no humans around.

Indeed it has. The point being missed here is that the reasons for extinction are now totally different. Humans some of whom have a trait of empathy (it is a fact some have more than others by the way) are wiping out a species because they think the horn will make them horny.

As a member of the species (granted several times more "human") wiping them out this is not something I am happy with.

Do most people not care that some humans are making whole species extinct?

Comments