The post that was quoted here has been removedI was looking for your honest opinion, nothing more. However, if you had said that you wouldn't support the mass immigration of hungry Africans, then I would have accused you of not truely caring enough to put yourself out for hungry children.
Why? Because people are hungry because the land they live in can't support them, due to many reasons, could be war/drought/whatever, but the way ecosystems work is that when there isn't enough food to feed a population(of whatever animal, including humans, or vegetable), then the population will reduce allowing the habitat to regenerate, and so produce more food, and so allow the population to grow again. That's scientific fact, excluding emotions.
The way we are helping people now is generally to dump food on them, while rejecting their requests to leave their homeland which can't support them. This is misguided in my direction, 1) they deskill, 2) the habitat never has a chance to regenerate, and 3) the population actually continues increasing, instead of letting nature take it's course.
Case in point, Live Aid is viewed as one of the great charity events. It saved millions from death at the time. Longer term however, there are at least twice as many people on the brink of starvation now as opposed to then.
The best way to help hungry children is to tackle your own government, and get them to stop selling weapons to A. N. Other murderous despot. While Britain, France, U.S. and Russis keep dumping arms into Africa, there will always be hunger.
Also, our civilisation is set up in such a way that there will always be rich people, financially secure people, and poor people. Fact! Name one group of people based on our "civilised" model which hasn't gone according to the above class divisions. The fact of the matter is that as soon as food is placed under lock and key, there will be hungry people (and population explosion due to over abundance of food leading to more hungry people)
As for your initial post in your thread... why shouldn't I take an interest in something that I am passionate about? Surely, things will only ever get done if people work in fields in which they are passionate?
As for Raj's initial question? "Why is this a sad day for humanity?" Personally, I think that it's sad that we are only a destructive force on this planet. In a few short years, we have managed to destroy forever things that have been on this planet for millenia. The gorillas are just one instance of this, but we are getting better and better at killing our co-inhabitants, and we approach the day when we reach wajoma's profit making dream of only humans and cows on the planet.
I also think that humanity's superiority complex over other animals is pretty sad. If we can slaughter animals that differ only slightly from humans for profit, then I see only a tiny step to killing other humans for profit.
D
Originally posted by mdhallThere may yet be light at the end of the tunnel
You raise a good point.
The last thing we need is for preserving our environment to become a class war, because it is an imminent threat Humanity faces together.
If you do not understand why recycling is so important to all people despite income levels please do some research on a land fill near you, or maybe take a cruise to see one of Humanity's wonde ...[text shortened]... manity can and has lived with since the beginning. Landfills poisoning our own habitat is not.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/07/26/ji.semakaulandfill/
Might not be ideal, but it sure beats most trash heaps
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakDoobistan
... we are only a destructive force on this planet... the day when we reach wajoma's profit making dream...I also think that humanity's superiority complex over other animals is pretty sad.
What the hell is the liberal use of the word 'we'. I don't give a hoot about gorillas, that's true, but that dosen't mean I'm destroying them, the best hope for gorillas is that they take on some kind of value. and please spare us the catch phrase "intrinsic value" things don't have value unless they can be valued by beings capable of the concept 'value'. Their best hope IMHO is private game parks, the public reserves are regularly raided by poachers and have a poor record. People that visit the park can contribute and so can you.
I'm guessing you must be blind, because every which way I look I see what man has created and compared to a bird nest or gorilla nest, it is nothing short of awe inspiring, so sure, things get destructed, right where the house that I live in is sited their used to be some critters, leaves, grass, maybe a tree or two and some rock shaped rocks but, man, am I glad the abode took precedence over the plants.
I revel in our superiority over the dumb beasts, again, look around you, or use your white stick, which dumb beast can produce anything so complex as a biro pen. Dig a hole in the ground, not just any hole but in the right position on this planet, remove a certain type of material, refine it, shape it, polish it, assemble it (and we're only talking about the tiny ball in the nib) then distribute the completed product all over the world.
The more value, and therefore, the more profit that can be derived from gorillas the safer their continued existence will become.
Do you want me to google up some parks for you to send your donation to?
Originally posted by WajomaGorillas, like all life, have value in that they are not replaceable once extinct. Thus they have a sort of potential value. For example, maybe someday a gorilla gene can be used to make humans resistant to HIV or something, but we don't know it yet.
Doobistan
What the hell is the liberal use of the word 'we'. I don't give a hoot about gorillas, that's true, but that dosen't mean I'm destroying them, the best hope for gorillas is that they take on some kind of value. and please spare us the catch phrase "intrinsic value" things don't have value unless they can be valued by beings capable of the conce ...[text shortened]... become.
Do you want me to google up some parks for you to send your donation to?
Originally posted by WajomaThe potential gain in wild gorillas far outweighs the short-term gain in the destruction of their habitat. The more we live for the short-term, the more fragile our civilization is in the long term.
Doobistan
What the hell is the liberal use of the word 'we'. I don't give a hoot about gorillas, that's true, but that dosen't mean I'm destroying them, the best hope for gorillas is that they take on some kind of value. and please spare us the catch phrase "intrinsic value" things don't have value unless they can be valued by beings capable of the conce ...[text shortened]... become.
Do you want me to google up some parks for you to send your donation to?
There is much more to life than the economy. It is an important factor, yes, but solely being concerned with money and profits is a very slippery slope to be on.
Originally posted by mrstabbySo don't get on that slope mcstabby, it was a suggestion for saving the gorillas, you can just send them some best wishes via the cosmic stream since I don't really believe you, a ATY or Dooosher are actually going to put your money where your mouth is.
The potential gain in wild gorillas far outweighs the short-term gain in the destruction of their habitat. The more we live for the short-term, the more fragile our civilization is in the long term.
There is much more to life than the economy. It is an important factor, yes, but solely being concerned with money and profits is a very slippery slope to be on.
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaIt's a very good perspective, but with a completely biased perspective. The numbers he presents are nothing more than futurology, and that's where he bases his ordering on.
catfoodtim,
Have you got the hi-speed connection, you may be interested in this talk given by Bjorn Lomborg on setting priorities where they will do the most good.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/62
Originally posted by WajomaI already subscribe to the world land trust which buys rainforests and other areas of ecological importance. Donating for flagship species tends to ignore the ecosystem, which is much more important.
So don't get on that slope mcstabby, it was a suggestion for saving the gorillas, you can just send them some best wishes via the cosmic stream since I don't really believe you, a ATY or Dooosher are actually going to put your money where your mouth is.
Originally posted by mdhallGood King Kong wont take out Japan then. (Its dumb I know.)
Gorillas head race to extinction
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website
Gorillas, orangutans, and corals are among the plants and animals which are sliding closer to extinction.
The Red List of Threatened Species for 2007 names habitat loss, hunting and climate change among the causes.
The World Conservation Union (IUCN) has i ...[text shortened]... .stm
-------------------------------
Very sad times we live in.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungGodzilla would win, He has teeth and claws so, Tokyo is in big trouble. Both tring to kill each other. That should leave like 15 buildings highly damaged.
King Kong wouldn't dare get near Godzilla's stomping grounds unless he was made into a giant Kong like in King Kong vs Godzilla.
Originally posted by Sargent CarpfaceI thought we addressed this in Rampage the classic arcade game where King Kong and Godzilla (and the giant Werewolf) all team up in a free-for-all brawl against humanity.
Godzilla would win, He has teeth and claws so, Tokyo is in big trouble. Both tring to kill each other. That should leave like 15 buildings highly damaged.