I People, Animals, Response to Smebro's Story On Animal Conservation.


Hi smebro, heres another part of you that thinks you were just a little over the top with your response to thetardydodo…C’mon Smebro! Just because you can hold an opinion for awhile and argue the other side of any argument, doesn’t mean you should go plastering your controversial opinions all over the show. So here I am, to tell you just how wrong you are.

Firstly, are we to care for the lesser minded relatives? Duh! Are you stupid? Of course we are! We are the only ones who have the capability to even feel responsible for the damage we do. The least we can do is try and reverse some of it. Just because we are smart, doesn’t mean our every action should be leading towards Humans dominance. We will likely be long lived whether we help the animals and environment anyway. So why not do the best we can to help the earth now, its better to be safe then sorry. As for your repetitive references to the Galapagos tortoises, I think you’re dismissing their importance. Like every animal on this earth those tortoises are a part of intertwining systems which have far reaching effects you could not even imagine. Perhaps those tortoises are the main reason anything grows on those islands at all, helping through fertilisation or something like that.

As for your idea that we could just ‘set up humanity for as long as possible’ well, it’s a nice idea, but how easy is it to implement a global strategy like that? Just look at some of the strategies to combat climate change or aid endangered species. The world is still too fragmented to combine in such a mutually beneficial way. You are a dreamer for imaging such a utopia. No matter what strategies we come up with, it will be the individual groups that follow through with localised action, it's too big an ask to implement a global strategy. On that note, how could you stop all the programs that have been run for a long time by biologists that have a passion for nothing more then conservation? Would you have them shifted into other work? Doesn’t that seem a little communist? What?…are you going for a communist globe?

And to argue your point on the ‘glory’ of genetic variation after each extinction, well, you’re about as bad as the religious people you argue against in that regard. It’s almost like you’re hoping for a big extinction even though you will not be conscious to see the results. How can you provide that as a reason for not putting effort into conserving animals…’oh, that’s okay, let the cheetah die, there will be something different to take its place soon enough.’…come on man! That’s not a even a reason for not trying. If anything it’s a reason to not worry about the animals we’ve already killed through our wicked ways.

As for what you say in regards to human society ‘transforming’ our materials…I think that’s pure rubbish, and I have rubbish to prove it. If all we’re doing is transforming the earth, then why are we leaving huge piles of waste in our dumps? Covering it up with grass so we can pretend it’s not there. That is wasteful, and the only way that waste will be recycled is if a few hundred years pass so it is mostly degraded. Even then I probably would not eat food from those areas. It’s nice that some companies are transforming materials instead of simply wasting them, but it is too small and effort and your lack of evidence has me thinking that what you said is largely anecdotal and you might have even been lulled into believing it through anti-global warming propaganda.

Peak oil is a bigger problem then you realise, smebro, what about all your precious plastics? Our whole western lives seem to revolve around plastic, what readily available alternative is there for plastic? See, you’ve missed the point, market forces might deal with the transport and electricity that some oil provides, but it will take a lot of pressure and research before we have some viable plastic alternatives, current possibilities are based on bio-fuel and they still need true plastic as an ingredient. whether you think so or not, peak oil will be a big fat problem for awhile, whenever that is (Current estimates between now and 2030). So your ‘good feeling’ is only because you don’t have to think about it yet.

We might create niches for ourselves, but we are far from ‘above’ other biological organisms. Our brains are only one advantage we have, other animals have many more and higher chances of surviving disasters where we would surely die. Just because we made a few leaps in development throughout our history, does not mean we aren’t subject to the systems of the earth. The environment has allowed us to make those massive growth spurts, but what if it holds us back now? Knocks us back? I do agree with what you say as to our intelligence giving us the option to consider the implications of our actions, we need to use that part now more the ever as our population nears what might be the carrying capacity of the earth.

Yes, we should assume that we are the protectors of the earth, we are the only ones around with the will or ways to change our species progress and point us down a more beneficial path, we should seriously consider how we can keep the earth alive and healthy, so that we might benefit from its wisdom and resources. And yes, we should care for every animal, regardless of look, size or classification. They are all suffering due to oiur heedless use of their resources, so we must look out for their best interests also.

What do you mean take away the technology and everyone will die, that’s hardly a solution anyone is suggesting! What we might do instead is fine-tune our technologies and cities to be more environmentally neutral. Obviously the only long-term solution for the environment to continue as usual is the complete eradication of our species, but no-one is going that far yet. Let’s just tidy up around the edges and keep everything else in status quo. Our biological existence and success depends on the world we have NOW, lets look after this world.

Ah, but smebro! You are wrong, the changes are irreversible, and how could they be reversible? If we are not careful, we might destroy our only chance at success, and I think you would agree that that would be a foolish path indeed. If we aren’t careful we will make that ‘too late for anything’ point ourselves with our heedless use of the environment, not to mention our continued idiocy with our war-efforts. We have a bomb that could get us to that ‘too late’ point quite easily.

I’m sure you are right about people surviving, but what would their life be like? Knowing that it was their forebears that destroyed the planet?

Supply and demand? How could you even bring that up in a situation like this? Supply and demand is set up for application in human systems, primarily economical. It is not the same to call the environment an economy, because we are the only species with such a thing. And economy pre-supposes you can gain wealth, there is no wealth in the animal kingdom or the environment, only systems that work in specific parallels, we should do our best to keep those systems running smoothly, for our own good.

Oh smebro, how foolish of you to dismiss intergenerational equity when you seem so keen for a long-lived human race. Can you not see that they are basically the same concepts? The whole reason we’re helping the earth is so that our children can live in it like we have. Any less and we are to blame.

As for helping current humans across the globe, your argument fails in the same area as your dreams for the global nation. It would require a massive shift in our systems, funds being taken from some places and put towards helping people instead of more selfish endeavours. There is no reason we cannot try and save the earth while at the same time helping our fellow man. Also, some people have a passion for helping the environment, while some people have a passion for helping other people, do you want to try and change what people are passionate about? That’s very short-sighted of you.

We are sloppy, again, look at the dumps smebro!

In closing, your argument fails in some very important areas Smebro, you claim that we should ensure a long running human species, while at the same time you say we should ignore the systems that are keeping us this way. Most of your strategies belong in Sci-fi utopian/dystopian stories, the time it would take to set the human race down a common track of self preservation is unimaginable, and by doing that we would be forgetting our room-mates on this blue ball. We should always remember that as a part of the environment, as a result of the environment, and as the only intelligent species we know of; we are responsable! To think anything less is foolish. The animals we seek to preserve are only endangered because of our destruction, it is our moral imperative to help them and sustain their species for as long as we are able. I hope you will reconsider your position on conservation, and thankyou for allowing me the time to express my opinions.

smebro smebro
22-25, M
1 Response Jul 18, 2007

hmmm, good points