http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1291024,00.html
The address above shows a news item not about Japanese being fused into walls but about their killing of a gentle creature. An unassuming, never hurt anyone sea creature that could never believe what is about to happen to it. If the former event raised your emotions then it will be numbed by what I have seen on UK TV today. When will they ever learn? perhaps when there are none left.
I am ashamed of my fellow humans, humanity has been forgotten.
Little Tone
QUOTE (ARtone+Nov 1 2007, 08:57 PM)
The address above shows a news item not about Japanese being fused into walls but about their killing of a gentle creature. An unassuming, never hurt anyone sea creature that could never believe what is about to happen to it. If the former event raised your emotions then it will be numbed by what I have seen on UK TV today. When will they ever learn? perhaps when there are none left. I am ashamed of my fellow humans, humanity has been forgotten. Little Tone
So Tuna is O.K. but Dolphins are not...not that (I) side with it but, (I) would ask - why?
So Tuna is O.K. but Dolphins are not...not that (I) side with it but, (I) would ask - why?
Cows too.
QUOTE (occidental+Nov 3 2007, 09:56 AM)
Cows too.
YUMMY
YUMMY
Well i would say that dolphins are considered one of the brightest creatures of this world :) And they seem to be able to communicate quite well. And it's no real need for dolphin 'meat'. but then again, the same could be said for a lot of other activity's we 'humans' seem to engage in. But customs do change with time, as the Japanese Government well know. So all in all, some BS to keep the 'tourists' coming and some obscure custom to continue. And yeah, i find it a shitty 'sport'.
So, by your standards, it's OK to eat the severely retarded, the comatose and the autistic? You sicko!
The Tudor's ate dolphin. The Victorians ate eel. Tastes change, but when you try to hide your prejudices under a fig leaf of logic, the resulting picture is usually more distasteful. (Pun not intended.)
The Tudor's ate dolphin. The Victorians ate eel. Tastes change, but when you try to hide your prejudices under a fig leaf of logic, the resulting picture is usually more distasteful. (Pun not intended.)
While this seems cruel and unnecessary, I dare say that if people really knew or thought about how the nice, neat, plastic wrapped meat at the grocery store got there, they'd be equally appalled.
QUOTE (rpenner+Nov 3 2007, 11:30 PM)
So, by your standards, it's OK to eat the severely retarded, the comatose and the autistic? You sicko!
I agree, the less intelligent are less human.
I agree, the less intelligent are less human.
Now that's a shoddy way to win debates.
// Edit: Gah! Now HP Sauce is politically loaded. Who knew?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_Sauce
QUOTE
Alan Greenspan: The federal government must either raise taxes or reduce services in order to balance the budget.
Simplicio: I know! The government can just print more money without raising taxes or reducing services. It's foolproof.
Alan Greenspan: Please pass the barbecue sauce.
In England, you can substitute HP Sauce.Simplicio: I know! The government can just print more money without raising taxes or reducing services. It's foolproof.
Alan Greenspan: Please pass the barbecue sauce.
// Edit: Gah! Now HP Sauce is politically loaded. Who knew?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_Sauce
QUOTE
Well i would say that dolphins are considered one of the brightest creatures of this world
Intelligence/sentience is the criteria for the argument for most people. But cows are considered not just sacred but wise to millions. And many people die as hunted prey. For many personal povs dolphin hunting or bullfighting or buffalo trophy shootings are unsavory to say the least. In a broader pov though hunting/killing anything may or may not be reprehensible; perhaps no culture has the right to impinge on the traditions of another. It's all relative, because we are selective about what we believe should be exempt from slaughter.
It's not just about dolphins and whales. Chickens are real dumb and they taste good so lots of chickens are farmed. But is their tastiness and relative lack of intelligence acceptable criteria for the miserable living/eating conditions the creatures have to endure, and by the billions?
Virtually every animal we can see, down to 6+ legs, can feel pain.
Hi All,
It is regrettable that we eat other animals as a species. Perhaps one day it will be possible to grow "meat" in more efficient ways without the suffering of the animals. Really it is now a case of expense vs. convenience that we still need to perform these acts on defenseless animals. People kid themselves they are different from animals. It has been shown that even fruit flies share the same emotional attributes we value a "unique" including "free will" which we hold as being "supreme". Another study shows even ants have an appreciation of their own mortality and behave as though they know they are going to die and want to "pass on" in the most "useful" way to their clan. All they lack is a big ponderous brain.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18684016/from/RS.5/
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3052357.ece
If such small things have such a big appreciation of life... where is our claim to "preference"?
Gross human ignorance cannot be used as as excuse for killing "stupid" animals. It is only an indication that mankind "wants" to remain in ignorance of the facts concerning those species that have a common genetic line and share most of their genes on this planet with us...
Anyway we may soon become extinct since nature has not "blessed" creatures with big brains to survive and humans along with a couple of primates are the only ones with such an attribute. If it was a successful evolutionary strategy then you would expect a lot more intelligent species on the planet that would have survived according to their great intellect. This is not the case and certainly we have had enough geological time passing to have produced quite a few. It seems we are evolutions "flash in the pan" and we are doomed to destroy ourselves. In the meantime we inanely and senselessly continue to destroy cohabiting species and eat even our nearest neighbors on the evolutionary tree of life. It would seem that only taboos and the law is preventing us eating each other right now and in certain "faraway places" these habits still continue in secret. There is no plumbing the depths of human depravity since it appears to be bottomless.
I admit to being a hypocrite regarding the eating of meat but I understand why it is necessary for the moment. I also see why it is necessary to drive my car and burn gas while the world increasingly becomes embroiled in Global Warming. We are trapped by economic imperatives and the increasing inability to fend for ourselves in a world of shrinking horizons and increasing resource shortages. More and more we place ourselves into the hands of technocrats and politicians because of the increasing complexity of our lives and driven by a need to eat, provide shelter, medical attention and earn a living to do so. For many on this planet these necessities are denied to them as their right by their ideologically driven overlords whose sole incentive is money.
To solve all these problems a totally different paradigm is required to implement changes in society. Don't look to Christians for that they are waiting for "someone else" to do it all for them. My main concern is like frogs in an ever warming saucepan we are all going to suffer a fate that is the consequence of all our past actions and we will unwittingly be boiled in our own juices. Who is the smart creature then?
Above all the Japanese are sufficiently cleaver enough to understand the argument behind sparing these creatures from mass slaughter. One should also be able to argue similarly about the unnecessary sport killing of animals for "pleasure" throughout the rest of the World. These humans (including some royalty) take great pleasure in killing in the same way a fox in a chicken coop slaughters everything in sight while at the same time extolling conservation on the basis of this virtue is for others to indulge but it is not not for them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,,2202160,00.html
Still the number of animals we eat ensures the continuance of these species at least until we develop better means in which to indulge our "tastes". Perhaps the answer lies in the enforced farming any species we want to eat and develop a "taste" for highly endangered species simply to protect them. What we must surely do is prevent anyone hunting in the wild and/or putting further environmental pressures on any endangered species we choose not to breed for consumption. Further down the track we can solve the bigger problems. In the meantime we should also ensure that we deal with these animals with humanity and respect if we take their lives as a "convenience" to eat. They have a right to a certain quality of life and to live without fear and suffering until they are euthanized humanely without suffering pain as I am sure those dolphin are subjected to in the wild by the Japanese. It only brings back remembrance of atrocities committed before and during WWII by their grandparents on all the "sub-human species" they dealt with around them. It should be used as a reminder to not only the Japanese but the Chinese and their dealings with the Tibetans and on and on it goes.
One need only cast our memory back to the way the Japanese were depicted in the West by the propaganda of the time, as I recall they were thought of as only monkeys and this image was used to justify the way soldiers were indoctrinated and were taught to kill them mercilessly. Our treatment of animals reflects our treatment of other humans and lets not forget it. I can only say that every Japanese should know in his or her heart that a dark shadow over all our pasts stalks all of us and this does not help in inter-continental understanding. I know many Japanese and Chinese individuals personally and I judge them as being equal to any and in some ways even more sensitive that we in the West. I judge people on their commonality of spiritual experience (not religious experience) and certainly not on their intelligence as I would do all of you. I would not want to know Josef Mengele no matter how cleaver he was ... The same goes for a lot of other "cleaver" people in history... So it is with humans and should be also with animals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele
Cheers
It is regrettable that we eat other animals as a species. Perhaps one day it will be possible to grow "meat" in more efficient ways without the suffering of the animals. Really it is now a case of expense vs. convenience that we still need to perform these acts on defenseless animals. People kid themselves they are different from animals. It has been shown that even fruit flies share the same emotional attributes we value a "unique" including "free will" which we hold as being "supreme". Another study shows even ants have an appreciation of their own mortality and behave as though they know they are going to die and want to "pass on" in the most "useful" way to their clan. All they lack is a big ponderous brain.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18684016/from/RS.5/
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3052357.ece
If such small things have such a big appreciation of life... where is our claim to "preference"?
Gross human ignorance cannot be used as as excuse for killing "stupid" animals. It is only an indication that mankind "wants" to remain in ignorance of the facts concerning those species that have a common genetic line and share most of their genes on this planet with us...
Anyway we may soon become extinct since nature has not "blessed" creatures with big brains to survive and humans along with a couple of primates are the only ones with such an attribute. If it was a successful evolutionary strategy then you would expect a lot more intelligent species on the planet that would have survived according to their great intellect. This is not the case and certainly we have had enough geological time passing to have produced quite a few. It seems we are evolutions "flash in the pan" and we are doomed to destroy ourselves. In the meantime we inanely and senselessly continue to destroy cohabiting species and eat even our nearest neighbors on the evolutionary tree of life. It would seem that only taboos and the law is preventing us eating each other right now and in certain "faraway places" these habits still continue in secret. There is no plumbing the depths of human depravity since it appears to be bottomless.
I admit to being a hypocrite regarding the eating of meat but I understand why it is necessary for the moment. I also see why it is necessary to drive my car and burn gas while the world increasingly becomes embroiled in Global Warming. We are trapped by economic imperatives and the increasing inability to fend for ourselves in a world of shrinking horizons and increasing resource shortages. More and more we place ourselves into the hands of technocrats and politicians because of the increasing complexity of our lives and driven by a need to eat, provide shelter, medical attention and earn a living to do so. For many on this planet these necessities are denied to them as their right by their ideologically driven overlords whose sole incentive is money.
To solve all these problems a totally different paradigm is required to implement changes in society. Don't look to Christians for that they are waiting for "someone else" to do it all for them. My main concern is like frogs in an ever warming saucepan we are all going to suffer a fate that is the consequence of all our past actions and we will unwittingly be boiled in our own juices. Who is the smart creature then?
Above all the Japanese are sufficiently cleaver enough to understand the argument behind sparing these creatures from mass slaughter. One should also be able to argue similarly about the unnecessary sport killing of animals for "pleasure" throughout the rest of the World. These humans (including some royalty) take great pleasure in killing in the same way a fox in a chicken coop slaughters everything in sight while at the same time extolling conservation on the basis of this virtue is for others to indulge but it is not not for them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,,2202160,00.html
Still the number of animals we eat ensures the continuance of these species at least until we develop better means in which to indulge our "tastes". Perhaps the answer lies in the enforced farming any species we want to eat and develop a "taste" for highly endangered species simply to protect them. What we must surely do is prevent anyone hunting in the wild and/or putting further environmental pressures on any endangered species we choose not to breed for consumption. Further down the track we can solve the bigger problems. In the meantime we should also ensure that we deal with these animals with humanity and respect if we take their lives as a "convenience" to eat. They have a right to a certain quality of life and to live without fear and suffering until they are euthanized humanely without suffering pain as I am sure those dolphin are subjected to in the wild by the Japanese. It only brings back remembrance of atrocities committed before and during WWII by their grandparents on all the "sub-human species" they dealt with around them. It should be used as a reminder to not only the Japanese but the Chinese and their dealings with the Tibetans and on and on it goes.
One need only cast our memory back to the way the Japanese were depicted in the West by the propaganda of the time, as I recall they were thought of as only monkeys and this image was used to justify the way soldiers were indoctrinated and were taught to kill them mercilessly. Our treatment of animals reflects our treatment of other humans and lets not forget it. I can only say that every Japanese should know in his or her heart that a dark shadow over all our pasts stalks all of us and this does not help in inter-continental understanding. I know many Japanese and Chinese individuals personally and I judge them as being equal to any and in some ways even more sensitive that we in the West. I judge people on their commonality of spiritual experience (not religious experience) and certainly not on their intelligence as I would do all of you. I would not want to know Josef Mengele no matter how cleaver he was ... The same goes for a lot of other "cleaver" people in history... So it is with humans and should be also with animals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele
Cheers
See this is why I try not to look at the world...
Even vegetables must die in order to be eaten.
No Zarabtul, this is why we must look at the world...
It is in the little things of the world that a man defines himself and the big things follow on from them...
Cheers
QUOTE
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing... [..]...
When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
Edmund Burke
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke
When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
Edmund Burke
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke
It is in the little things of the world that a man defines himself and the big things follow on from them...
Cheers
Do you think we should only eat dumb animals?
Good Elf Posted: 11/31/07 at 7:36 PM
No it's not! The food chain is required for the survival of all.
QUOTE
It is regrettable that we eat other animals as a species.....
No it's not! The food chain is required for the survival of all.
QUOTE (xtrmn8r+)
No it's not! The food chain is required for the survival of all.
I never said we should not eat... Clearly you have no depth of understanding and prefer to provide glib one liners to in depth insight. Human Beings are "beyond any natural food chain"... Time may prove that mankind is "wrong" and the flesh and ashes of humanity may feed generations of unthinking worms due to your lack of perception. I would prefer to pet my dog than argue the point about your right to kill.
I never said we should not eat... Clearly you have no depth of understanding and prefer to provide glib one liners to in depth insight. Human Beings are "beyond any natural food chain"... Time may prove that mankind is "wrong" and the flesh and ashes of humanity may feed generations of unthinking worms due to your lack of perception. I would prefer to pet my dog than argue the point about your right to kill.
Good Elf Posted on 1/3/07 at 9:03 PM
No we're not. Parasites and viruses prey upon humans just as we prey upon other animals. It is as natural as anything in the universe.
QUOTE
Human Beings are "beyond any natural food chain"...
No we're not. Parasites and viruses prey upon humans just as we prey upon other animals. It is as natural as anything in the universe.
Hi Derek1148,
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
Do you think we should only eat dumb animals?
It is not what I would do ... What would you do?... Would you breed other humans to eat or would you breed chimpanzees or great apes to eat? Perhaps you would prefer to shoot them as "game"? It is a valid and topical question and if you answer "yes" then I really have no further questions since to come to that conclusion a lot of personal compromise as a human being would be necessary. It is not a stupid question since man has done many dark things in the past and will probably do so again in the future. As to eating primates... this is continuing at an accelerated pace in Africa and primates will probably all be gone in the wild very soon.
It is not uncommon for workers in Africa to shoot the Bushmen of the Kalahari as food, they are definitely human and if some men have become that degraded then there is little further you can go in my opinion. Even if we conserved apes and bred them for the dinner table it does not change anything about the morality.
You don't really need to ask me any questions... you all have questions enough to ask yourselves. I have already answered all the questions in what I have already written.
Cheers
It is not uncommon for workers in Africa to shoot the Bushmen of the Kalahari as food, they are definitely human and if some men have become that degraded then there is little further you can go in my opinion. Even if we conserved apes and bred them for the dinner table it does not change anything about the morality.
You don't really need to ask me any questions... you all have questions enough to ask yourselves. I have already answered all the questions in what I have already written.
Cheers
QUOTE (Derek1148+Nov 3 2007, 11:42 PM)
Do you think we should only eat dumb animals?
Only if they are forum mafia members...the iFM or 'Idiot' Forum mafia
Only if they are forum mafia members...the iFM or 'Idiot' Forum mafia
Good Elf, There is a huge difference between your scenarios and mankind eating herbivores like cattle. 
The Aztecs, Mayans, Vietnamese and other cultures raised and ate dogs. They would have preferred to eat your dog than pet it! Cultures evolve somewhat in isolation. Who are we to judge others? Jane Goodall discovered relatively recently that chimpanzees hunt and eat meat. We are omnivores, eating opportunistically all things we consider edible, from raspberries to rattlesnakes, aardvarks to zebras. Vegans and vegetarians sometimes look at meat-eaters as vicious, cruel cavemen. 
But we evolved while eating meat, indeed the cooperative hunt may well have lead to our language and communication abilities. Ponder those things next time you are relaxed, petting your dog. In "The Wizard of Oz", when the evil witch said to Dorothy, "I'll get you, and your little dog too!", that epitomized evil. But past and current cultures do, at times eat them! It may be better to do that, than to hunt and kill endangered forest creatures.
Mr. Robin Parsons, Get a Life! Comment with directness and insight, or post at http://answersingenesis.com.
Who could rightly be classified as "'Idiot' Forum mafia?"
"The Judge in the house of science!
The Aztecs, Mayans, Vietnamese and other cultures raised and ate dogs. They would have preferred to eat your dog than pet it! Cultures evolve somewhat in isolation. Who are we to judge others? Jane Goodall discovered relatively recently that chimpanzees hunt and eat meat. We are omnivores, eating opportunistically all things we consider edible, from raspberries to rattlesnakes, aardvarks to zebras. Vegans and vegetarians sometimes look at meat-eaters as vicious, cruel cavemen. But we evolved while eating meat, indeed the cooperative hunt may well have lead to our language and communication abilities. Ponder those things next time you are relaxed, petting your dog. In "The Wizard of Oz", when the evil witch said to Dorothy, "I'll get you, and your little dog too!", that epitomized evil. But past and current cultures do, at times eat them! It may be better to do that, than to hunt and kill endangered forest creatures.Mr. Robin Parsons, Get a Life! Comment with directness and insight, or post at http://answersingenesis.com.
Who could rightly be classified as "'Idiot' Forum mafia?""The Judge in the house of science!
Perhaps this is the answer.
QUOTE
Inedia is the alleged ability to live without food. Breatharianism is a related concept, in which believers claim food and possibly water are not necessary, and that humans can be sustained solely by prana (the vital life force in Hinduism), or according to some, by the energy in sunlight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia
QUOTE (photojack+Nov 4 2007, 10:45 AM)
Who could rightly be classified as "'Idiot' Forum mafia?"
QUOTE (Derek1148 Nov 3 2007+ at 11:42 PM )
only eat dumb animals?
QUOTE (photojack+Nov 4 2007, 10:45 AM)
"The Judge in the house of science!
QUOTE (photojack+Nov 4 2007, 02:45 PM)
In "The Wizard of Oz", when the evil witch said to Dorothy, "I'll get you, and your little dog too!", that epitomized evil. But past and current cultures do, at times eat them! It may be better to do that, than to hunt and kill endangered forest creatures.
What? "forest creatures"?
What? "forest creatures"?
Hi Photojack, xtrmn8r et al,
QUOTE (Photojack+)
Good Elf, There is a huge difference between your scenarios and mankind eating herbivores like cattle. The Aztecs, Mayans, Vietnamese and other cultures raised and ate dogs. They would have preferred to eat your dog than pet it! Cultures evolve somewhat in isolation. Who are we to judge others? Jane Goodall discovered relatively recently that chimpanzees hunt and eat meat. We are omnivores, eating opportunistically all things we consider edible, from raspberries to rattlesnakes, aardvarks to zebras. Vegans and vegetarians sometimes look at meat-eaters as vicious, cruel cavemen. But we evolved while eating meat, indeed the cooperative hunt may well have lead to our language and communication abilities. Ponder those things next time you are relaxed, petting your dog. In "The Wizard of Oz", when the evil witch said to Dorothy, "I'll get you, and your little dog too!", that epitomized evil. But past and current cultures do, at times eat them! It may be better to do that, than to hunt and kill endangered forest creatures.
I don't think so unless you never read what I wrote in the first place (... Or more likely never understood it). In xtrmn8r's case I am sure he understands his argument too well and you need not attempt to "help him out". Are you still beating your wife?... I only want you to answer yes or no!... You like he seem to take a perverse pleasure in stupidity and refuse to act in a responsible and adult way when confronted by other adults who are doing their best to make this as simple for you as possible (...but no simpler). There is no purpose in trying to explain to you your otherwise idiotic motives for such a dumb statement. Expressions of regret did not mean that I was not going to eat animals bred expressly for that purpose. Of course that is what I said... but maybe if I drew it into a cartoon strip that you may understand better. When I said that I would rather pet my dog than argue about someones right to kill... that is my choice and it suggests that if people do not want to think and put a sane argument forward then I am not prepared to listen. This is an open forum and the sooner everyone learns that neither I nor anyone else are part of a "captive audience" or your personal "stand-up clown" prepared to take a pie in the face for your amusement... the better it is for you.
Someone who hunts wild endangered species with repeating rifles for sport or even use complex composite technological bows to hunt from the back of their Four Wheel Drive RV's are in a different class to the Bushman of the Kalahari that take several days to run down on foot their prey simply to put food on their table for their family. The rednecks with RV's and high powered repeating rifles are not part of "Natures Plan"... Capisci? Neither are Thermo-Nuclear Weapons, Nerve Gas or a host of other technologies that have the potential to be misused. That goes doubly for hundreds of villagers mass slaughtering Dolphins in traps using a bludgeons. They can find their "kicks" in some other way, it is protein they can harvest in some other way that they specifically provide for their own purposes. These people who are encouraged by their degenerate governments use long line netting practices that span the entire Pacific Ocean clearing everything away leaving a barren waste behind. They are not the first to do this... the British did it with herring and mackerel on the Dogger Banks and the Canadians did it with Cod to the Grand Banks. These fish are gone now and they were in such quantities that on the Grand Banks thirty years ago you could scoop the fish out of the water by hand with a basket.... None left now.... Extinct. The Japanese have done it to their surrounding waters and they are moving into waters as far south as the Antarctic (this is simply because there are few fish left anywhere else due to their activities)... They will not stop because it is simply too easy to do as they please. Not only fish but also whales. They are the proverbial fox in the chicken house. I need not mention what is happening in the forests of South-East Asia and the clear felling of the timbers for pulp or scaffolding. The Chinese have taken to aquaculture and are able to supply the requirements of large areas using artificial ponds and advanced techniques in production without harming the local fish on the high seas. Agreed... that practice is out of a necessity but it does show what can be done if you need to do it.
If I wanted to eat "endangered forest creatures" why do you suppose I said the things I did?... Oh that's right you never read it! I think some people should "wise up" or I will feel the need to put them on my "regrettable" list of edibles as well as suitable "dumb animals".
What Jane Goodall discovered does not justify the extinction of endangered animal species including our closest neighboring primates. I am pretty certain that what chimps eat should be of no concern to any of you other than it should be available for them to hunt as they always have done in a balanced ecological environment. It is still debatable that in a "balanced ecological environment" would there be a need for the chimps to supplement their diet with the protein of other apes? If it was a common event it would have been noticed years ago ... in fact it is a rare phenomenon and apes usually eat other things but obviously require protein in their diets (like us) from time to time.
This is exactly why I think people have a very big problem associating animal morality with human morality and then justifying the slaughtering of anyone or anything that crosses their path. I would like to ask you "personally" how many giraffes, zebras, and aardvarks you "personally" have eaten lately in the wild? This indicate that people kill not necessarily out a need to eat but for simple childish amusement caring nothing if they extinguish an endangered species in the process.
That question indicates the level of awareness of the problem if we do not comprehend the bigger picture. Then we must see how such blindsighted morality in smaller things soon leads almost naturally to the treatment of other humans as "vermin". Once you make these pathetic excuses we begin to argue in the petty terms used by the legalistic Tobacco Industry for the continuance of the slaughter of millions of gullible people each year in third world countries through their drive for increased profits through the sale of this addictive drug. They do not care if they sell their cigarettes to children or adults or if a single cigarette cost the price of three meals on their family's table. How much easier it is to legalistically claim that these people are simply exercising "free will" while they rake in money over their deaths. It could also be an argument for the Oil Industry and why we need to keep burning oil and need to ransack other nations to gain access to their reserves.
Getting back to the problem of animals in the wild state... It is not how many specific creatures we kill that is critical it is your solution you have developed to provide for the future of the species that matters. It is not someone else's problem, it is "our" problem since we are the specific cause of the imbalance in the first place... We place an intolerable burden on the resources of the planet and know in our hearts that the fate of the Earth and it creatures is our fate in the bitter end. After all they are the only creatures in the Cosmos that carry our DNA... there is nothing in the animal kingdom in the genetics that we have in any special way other than that over developed brain. In actual fact we have fewer Genes than most other species and it is a wonder how we ever got on top at all.
Cheers
Someone who hunts wild endangered species with repeating rifles for sport or even use complex composite technological bows to hunt from the back of their Four Wheel Drive RV's are in a different class to the Bushman of the Kalahari that take several days to run down on foot their prey simply to put food on their table for their family. The rednecks with RV's and high powered repeating rifles are not part of "Natures Plan"... Capisci? Neither are Thermo-Nuclear Weapons, Nerve Gas or a host of other technologies that have the potential to be misused. That goes doubly for hundreds of villagers mass slaughtering Dolphins in traps using a bludgeons. They can find their "kicks" in some other way, it is protein they can harvest in some other way that they specifically provide for their own purposes. These people who are encouraged by their degenerate governments use long line netting practices that span the entire Pacific Ocean clearing everything away leaving a barren waste behind. They are not the first to do this... the British did it with herring and mackerel on the Dogger Banks and the Canadians did it with Cod to the Grand Banks. These fish are gone now and they were in such quantities that on the Grand Banks thirty years ago you could scoop the fish out of the water by hand with a basket.... None left now.... Extinct. The Japanese have done it to their surrounding waters and they are moving into waters as far south as the Antarctic (this is simply because there are few fish left anywhere else due to their activities)... They will not stop because it is simply too easy to do as they please. Not only fish but also whales. They are the proverbial fox in the chicken house. I need not mention what is happening in the forests of South-East Asia and the clear felling of the timbers for pulp or scaffolding. The Chinese have taken to aquaculture and are able to supply the requirements of large areas using artificial ponds and advanced techniques in production without harming the local fish on the high seas. Agreed... that practice is out of a necessity but it does show what can be done if you need to do it.
If I wanted to eat "endangered forest creatures" why do you suppose I said the things I did?... Oh that's right you never read it! I think some people should "wise up" or I will feel the need to put them on my "regrettable" list of edibles as well as suitable "dumb animals".
What Jane Goodall discovered does not justify the extinction of endangered animal species including our closest neighboring primates. I am pretty certain that what chimps eat should be of no concern to any of you other than it should be available for them to hunt as they always have done in a balanced ecological environment. It is still debatable that in a "balanced ecological environment" would there be a need for the chimps to supplement their diet with the protein of other apes? If it was a common event it would have been noticed years ago ... in fact it is a rare phenomenon and apes usually eat other things but obviously require protein in their diets (like us) from time to time.
This is exactly why I think people have a very big problem associating animal morality with human morality and then justifying the slaughtering of anyone or anything that crosses their path. I would like to ask you "personally" how many giraffes, zebras, and aardvarks you "personally" have eaten lately in the wild? This indicate that people kill not necessarily out a need to eat but for simple childish amusement caring nothing if they extinguish an endangered species in the process.
That question indicates the level of awareness of the problem if we do not comprehend the bigger picture. Then we must see how such blindsighted morality in smaller things soon leads almost naturally to the treatment of other humans as "vermin". Once you make these pathetic excuses we begin to argue in the petty terms used by the legalistic Tobacco Industry for the continuance of the slaughter of millions of gullible people each year in third world countries through their drive for increased profits through the sale of this addictive drug. They do not care if they sell their cigarettes to children or adults or if a single cigarette cost the price of three meals on their family's table. How much easier it is to legalistically claim that these people are simply exercising "free will" while they rake in money over their deaths. It could also be an argument for the Oil Industry and why we need to keep burning oil and need to ransack other nations to gain access to their reserves.
Getting back to the problem of animals in the wild state... It is not how many specific creatures we kill that is critical it is your solution you have developed to provide for the future of the species that matters. It is not someone else's problem, it is "our" problem since we are the specific cause of the imbalance in the first place... We place an intolerable burden on the resources of the planet and know in our hearts that the fate of the Earth and it creatures is our fate in the bitter end. After all they are the only creatures in the Cosmos that carry our DNA... there is nothing in the animal kingdom in the genetics that we have in any special way other than that over developed brain. In actual fact we have fewer Genes than most other species and it is a wonder how we ever got on top at all.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Nov 5 2007, 04:04 AM)
(SNIP) In actual fact we have fewer Genes than most other species and it is a wonder how we ever got on top at all. Cheers (SNoP)
Good post - thanks 
......Oh yes, it is because we - can 'talk' or read - write - draw - communicate abstract ideas by simple vibrations of the Air.
And Cheers to you too!
......Oh yes, it is because we - can 'talk' or read - write - draw - communicate abstract ideas by simple vibrations of the Air.And Cheers to you too!
Hi Mr. Robin Parsons, Photojack, xtrmn8r, Artone, Derek1148 et al,
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+)
Good post - thanks ......Oh yes, it is because we - can 'talk' or read - write - draw - communicate abstract ideas by simple vibrations of the Air.
We have a big brains and big mouths to match... That's why we all get ourselves into real problems... Including yours truly.
Alex the South African Grey Parrot did "almost" all of those things and he had a vocabulary that is considered bigger than many normal humans. He died at the age of 31, that's a lot earlier than he should have... My wife's grandma had "inherited" a parrot that traveled around the world a couple of times on sailing ships and had been passed down generationally and lived to a ripe old age of nearly 100 years before it croaked it... I put poor Alex's demise down to the fact that he was being looked after by humans who try hard but in the end usually stuff things up...
Alex the Talkative African Grey Parrot Dies at Age 31
Bruce
Sorry, completely irrelevent, I know, but I couldn't resist. You'll get it if you've watched "Finding Nemo"....
Anyway, yeah. I think that it's mainly tradition that's keeping us killing intelligent animals. In the beginning it was instinct - evolution caused us to kill, and eat. We've been doing that for thousands of years, and it would seem odd to stop. Now, we kill for fun and prizes (e.g. Monet, ivory... ). Which, of course, is bad. But I don't see how we can get people to stop.
- Gehn
But they do learn. ie pigs learn from the 'noises' made by their brethren ahead of them that the slaughterhouse is not where they want to go, even if they do not know what a slaughterhouse is.
No matter what the rationale, there is no winning the simple argument that a creature does not want to die, does not want to feel pain, because life seeks to continue, individually and en masse. While the arguments remain tentatively viable that we as omnivore mammals require some meat, why does it extend to having creatures live brutal lives to that end? To 'keep costs down' while feeding America? As if we'll die if the food creatures are not brutalized?
But they do learn. ie pigs learn from the 'noises' made by their brethren ahead of them that the slaughterhouse is not where they want to go, even if they do not know what a slaughterhouse is.
No matter what the rationale, there is no winning the simple argument that a creature does not want to die, does not want to feel pain, because life seeks to continue, individually and en masse. While the arguments remain tentatively viable that we as omnivore mammals require some meat, why does it extend to having creatures live brutal lives to that end? To 'keep costs down' while feeding America? As if we'll die if the food creatures are not brutalized?
As with most food animals, if the desired usage becomes large enough, they will be husbanded and ensured survival.
What a way to stay...
Alex the South African Grey Parrot did "almost" all of those things and he had a vocabulary that is considered bigger than many normal humans. He died at the age of 31, that's a lot earlier than he should have... My wife's grandma had "inherited" a parrot that traveled around the world a couple of times on sailing ships and had been passed down generationally and lived to a ripe old age of nearly 100 years before it croaked it... I put poor Alex's demise down to the fact that he was being looked after by humans who try hard but in the end usually stuff things up...
Alex the Talkative African Grey Parrot Dies at Age 31
QUOTE (Wikipedia+)
Pepperberg bought Alex in a regular pet shop when he was about one year old. The name Alex is actually an acronym for Avian Learning EXperiment.
Before Pepperberg's work with Alex, it was widely believed in the scientific community that birds were not intelligent and could only use words by mimicking, but Alex's accomplishments indicated that birds may be able to reason on a basic level and use words creatively.
Wikipedia: Alex The Parrot
I would like to remind everyone that Alex's brain would not be bigger than a walnut. Oh... and he could fly too...
Still no matter how many tests you perform on "animals" there will always be some humans who will find some reason to set them aside from the credit they are rightfully due. Birds are also one of the few creatures that can use tools. If intelligence is a criterion then we should not be killing parrots or many birds for sport or "recreation" either.
Anyway we should judge others not on sheer intelligence but on other qualities that relate to more than gross brain power. The domestic dog or the humans association with wolves dates back according to some more than 60.000 years to a time when Homo Sapiens (Cro-Magnons) and Neanderthals were still struggling to survive. I believe that without the dog mankind would not have survived to the present day. Neanderthals did not have dogs to hunt for them, Neanderthals had big brains, language, music, they were not too different from ourselves and if dressed in a business suit and shaven could pass in a crowd as "one of us", and yet they didn't make it. We Homo Sapiens adopted dogs because of their selflessness and their devotion and also their other qualities such as a sense of smell and their speed as well as the ability to follow orders I think were the main contributers that took us over the line to survival. Dogs did all our sniffing for us while we developed a flatter face and vocal cords suitable for efficient communication. Our Neanderthal neighbors were hampered by not being freed of these essential traits required in the hunt.
The bones of Neanderthals all have signs of scarring and fractures, they lived very painful lives, this was due to their direct approach to hunting large game without assistance. On the other hand the bones of Cro-Magnon Man, our "smarter" bigger brained ancestors, bigger than modern man, had much fewer such injuries than Neanderthals and lived on average longer lives and sometimes were buried along with their dogs... I would suppose for reasons they considered very valid to them.
This was a period in which we were on the edge of survival and needed to hunt for our meals. I would not begrudge those humans their daily meal of meat. The dogs also needed some too. This bond has continued in some countries admittedly stronger in some than others. I guess we westerners were closer to the savage than we like to admit and the tradition of the dog continues. I could go on and describe the almost regular occurrence of dogs saving the lives of their human pack members at great risk to themselves. They can perform these tasks hardly taking their own safety into account.
http://www.physorg.com/news92339486.html
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc97/6_28_97/bob1.htm
Oh... one last thing... "Dog" is "God" spelt backwards!
Cheers
Before Pepperberg's work with Alex, it was widely believed in the scientific community that birds were not intelligent and could only use words by mimicking, but Alex's accomplishments indicated that birds may be able to reason on a basic level and use words creatively.
Wikipedia: Alex The Parrot
I would like to remind everyone that Alex's brain would not be bigger than a walnut. Oh... and he could fly too...
Still no matter how many tests you perform on "animals" there will always be some humans who will find some reason to set them aside from the credit they are rightfully due. Birds are also one of the few creatures that can use tools. If intelligence is a criterion then we should not be killing parrots or many birds for sport or "recreation" either.
Anyway we should judge others not on sheer intelligence but on other qualities that relate to more than gross brain power. The domestic dog or the humans association with wolves dates back according to some more than 60.000 years to a time when Homo Sapiens (Cro-Magnons) and Neanderthals were still struggling to survive. I believe that without the dog mankind would not have survived to the present day. Neanderthals did not have dogs to hunt for them, Neanderthals had big brains, language, music, they were not too different from ourselves and if dressed in a business suit and shaven could pass in a crowd as "one of us", and yet they didn't make it. We Homo Sapiens adopted dogs because of their selflessness and their devotion and also their other qualities such as a sense of smell and their speed as well as the ability to follow orders I think were the main contributers that took us over the line to survival. Dogs did all our sniffing for us while we developed a flatter face and vocal cords suitable for efficient communication. Our Neanderthal neighbors were hampered by not being freed of these essential traits required in the hunt.
The bones of Neanderthals all have signs of scarring and fractures, they lived very painful lives, this was due to their direct approach to hunting large game without assistance. On the other hand the bones of Cro-Magnon Man, our "smarter" bigger brained ancestors, bigger than modern man, had much fewer such injuries than Neanderthals and lived on average longer lives and sometimes were buried along with their dogs... I would suppose for reasons they considered very valid to them.
This was a period in which we were on the edge of survival and needed to hunt for our meals. I would not begrudge those humans their daily meal of meat. The dogs also needed some too. This bond has continued in some countries admittedly stronger in some than others. I guess we westerners were closer to the savage than we like to admit and the tradition of the dog continues. I could go on and describe the almost regular occurrence of dogs saving the lives of their human pack members at great risk to themselves. They can perform these tasks hardly taking their own safety into account.
http://www.physorg.com/news92339486.html
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc97/6_28_97/bob1.htm
Oh... one last thing... "Dog" is "God" spelt backwards!
Cheers
Millions of children can read and learn to write at early ages, one parrot or one dog (Or two) that is the 'exception to the rule' does not invalidate that rule as all rules have exceptions.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+)
Millions of children can read and learn to write at early ages, one parrot or one dog (Or two) that is the 'exception to the rule' does not invalidate that rule as all rules have exceptions.
Ah!... So you are advocating schools for "gifted" parrots are you?
He he he!
Ah!... So you are advocating schools for "gifted" parrots are you?
He he he!
QUOTE (Good Elf+Nov 5 2007, 10:51 AM)
Ah!... So you are advocating schools for "gifted" parrots are you? He he he!
He he he!No - (I) am not so prejudiced - so (I) would want to include dogs ....too.
Long time ago the local shopping plaza had a large grey parrot sitting in it's very large cage in the commons area. It too had quite a vocabulary, made ever more colorful by the parrot's bright young tutors passing by. Was the end of an era when the authorities felt obliged to remove from the premises this fellow and his 'sage and lucid' commentary to all the shoppers.
Yeah even chickens aren't all that dumb, not when it comes to their world. If I even started walking towards the shovel, they'd all stop what they were doing and come racing - some to me and some to the compost heap where they knew the shovel would bring up great juicy worms.
A pheasant appeared one day, scared into the yard by a hunter. The chickens accepted it, and for months it appeared content living like a chicken, accepting food from the hand.
The more animals you have experience with the more their intelligence resonates in you. The greater your experience of dealing with them as creatures, and not food, the less inclined you are to want to eat them. Even a fish or reptile, if they are domesticated and used to you, will respond to affection. If you petted enough cows, to know that they really like it on the soft fur behind their ears, could you eat them?
Yeah even chickens aren't all that dumb, not when it comes to their world. If I even started walking towards the shovel, they'd all stop what they were doing and come racing - some to me and some to the compost heap where they knew the shovel would bring up great juicy worms.
A pheasant appeared one day, scared into the yard by a hunter. The chickens accepted it, and for months it appeared content living like a chicken, accepting food from the hand.
The more animals you have experience with the more their intelligence resonates in you. The greater your experience of dealing with them as creatures, and not food, the less inclined you are to want to eat them. Even a fish or reptile, if they are domesticated and used to you, will respond to affection. If you petted enough cows, to know that they really like it on the soft fur behind their ears, could you eat them?
Animals can only learn from their immediate surroundings, they have no distal capacity (They haven't a clue that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris - unless they live there) as they have no 'words' (only Noises) and do not - cannot learn such things from pictures either....
Is intellectual capacity the determining factor in assessing whether an animal is to be used for food?
I have wondered where some people draw the line to determine what is "dumb enough to eat".
Other species do not have this problem.
Why do humans have the digestive system that allows for a huge range of useful food items unless we are allowed to use it to our benefit.
Every person draws this line for themselves!
Gross societal pressures do play a part, but not always. (Jeffrey Dahmer)!
This line is a choice made with reasons that not everyone agrees with.
I could easily start a rant about my boss and her morning cup of coffee with 2 sugars and cream.
Poor baby coffee seeds! Think of the calves not getting their nourishment because we steal cows milk...and a waxed paper cup to boot!!
Oh, the exploitation of the dumb!
As with most food animals, if the desired usage becomes large enough, they will be husbanded and ensured survival.
Bruce
Other species do not have this problem.
Why do humans have the digestive system that allows for a huge range of useful food items unless we are allowed to use it to our benefit.
Every person draws this line for themselves!
Gross societal pressures do play a part, but not always. (Jeffrey Dahmer)!
This line is a choice made with reasons that not everyone agrees with.
I could easily start a rant about my boss and her morning cup of coffee with 2 sugars and cream.
Poor baby coffee seeds! Think of the calves not getting their nourishment because we steal cows milk...and a waxed paper cup to boot!!
Oh, the exploitation of the dumb!
As with most food animals, if the desired usage becomes large enough, they will be husbanded and ensured survival.
Bruce
QUOTE (egnorant+Nov 5 2007, 08:07 PM)
Bruce
Sorry, completely irrelevent, I know, but I couldn't resist. You'll get it if you've watched "Finding Nemo"....Anyway, yeah. I think that it's mainly tradition that's keeping us killing intelligent animals. In the beginning it was instinct - evolution caused us to kill, and eat. We've been doing that for thousands of years, and it would seem odd to stop. Now, we kill for fun and prizes (e.g. Monet, ivory... ). Which, of course, is bad. But I don't see how we can get people to stop.
- Gehn
QUOTE (Derek1148+Nov 5 2007, 03:34 PM)
Is intellectual capacity the determining factor in assessing whether an animal is to be used for food?
Actually it is far more the Public Relations Cuddle factor, if you can show an animal to look - or be seen - as 'Cute' you have a winner for the - Not food - lineage.
Worked to help to eliminate the Spring Bear Hunt - Here in Ontario Canada - as they showed-used Pictures of Small 'Baby' (Cuddly=cute) bears to promote a ban on it (The spring hunt) even if it wasn't per-say the healthiest thing to do for the actual Population of Bears respective of their available food supplies.
Actually it is far more the Public Relations Cuddle factor, if you can show an animal to look - or be seen - as 'Cute' you have a winner for the - Not food - lineage.
Worked to help to eliminate the Spring Bear Hunt - Here in Ontario Canada - as they showed-used Pictures of Small 'Baby' (Cuddly=cute) bears to promote a ban on it (The spring hunt) even if it wasn't per-say the healthiest thing to do for the actual Population of Bears respective of their available food supplies.
QUOTE
Animals can only learn from their immediate surroundings, they have no distal capacity
But they do learn. ie pigs learn from the 'noises' made by their brethren ahead of them that the slaughterhouse is not where they want to go, even if they do not know what a slaughterhouse is.
No matter what the rationale, there is no winning the simple argument that a creature does not want to die, does not want to feel pain, because life seeks to continue, individually and en masse. While the arguments remain tentatively viable that we as omnivore mammals require some meat, why does it extend to having creatures live brutal lives to that end? To 'keep costs down' while feeding America? As if we'll die if the food creatures are not brutalized?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Animals can only learn from their immediate surroundings, they have no distal capacity |
But they do learn. ie pigs learn from the 'noises' made by their brethren ahead of them that the slaughterhouse is not where they want to go, even if they do not know what a slaughterhouse is.
No matter what the rationale, there is no winning the simple argument that a creature does not want to die, does not want to feel pain, because life seeks to continue, individually and en masse. While the arguments remain tentatively viable that we as omnivore mammals require some meat, why does it extend to having creatures live brutal lives to that end? To 'keep costs down' while feeding America? As if we'll die if the food creatures are not brutalized?
As with most food animals, if the desired usage becomes large enough, they will be husbanded and ensured survival.
What a way to stay...
Hi All,
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+)
Animals can only learn from their immediate surroundings, they have no distal capacity (They haven't a clue that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris - unless they live there) as they have no 'words' (only Noises) and do not - cannot learn such things from pictures either....
I hate to say this but "shooting from the hip" to support prejudices is really showing humans up for what we are.. pretty stupid...
It is irrelevant for animals to have a knowledge of the Eiffel Tower in Paris ... all animals need is an understanding of where to find the things they need in their own hunting grounds. Ancient man had no idea of what was beyond his immediate territory and these were the "happy hunting grounds" and not required as a real place. Ask an untarnished native in the Amazon where is Paris and I doubt if he knows or cares either. Yet they are humans. Are you suggesting we eat them because they have no "distal capacity"? Take for instance bees... You would argue that their brains are too small to have language well you would be wrong. They use this language to determine where food sources can be found through a "dance".
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/.../BeeDances.html
It is also obvious that the signaling bee must "somehow know" the coordinates of the food source in order to signal them to the others.
Dogs at least also have an internal "map" of the countryside and instinctively know the shortest distance and direction to travel when they are required to return to "base" quickly. I would also propose that a internal "mental map" of their world is an absolute requirement for guide dogs aiding the blind.
Are we Aware of Consciousness - Dogs internal "map" of their world
I would also say dogs (at least) have a "Theory of Mind"... That is dogs "think" they understand what humans want them to do. Most of the time they are right in their guesses and this has been the case since early cave men began to utilize their talents. Dogs understanding of us shows us in a small way that they are in many ways like us.
I would not kid you on this next story... It is the whole truth... I have a personal experience of this phenomenon or something like it. My sister had a German Shepherd called Lady. She and her husband had to move from Brisbane in Queensland to Canberra in the ACT in Australia, a distance of 1270 Km (as the crow flies). It was doubtful that my sister would be allowed to keep a dog in the accommodation available in Canberra at the time (a fairly long time ago) so they decided to give the dog away to friends. This they did and then moved by car to Canberra the following day. Three weeks later Lady went missing from her "foster home" and she could be found nowhere. Three months later Lady turned up on my sister's doorstep in Canberra with matted fur and bleeding paws (...literally exhausted but obviously knew where she was in the block of flats). She had obviously traveled the entire distance on foot fending for herself along the way. I doubt if Lassie could have done it any better. To this day nobody can tell me how she did it considering she had never been to Canberra in her life and the extended interval of time between the car leaving and traveling all those long distances along busy highways or through rural fields. This feat surely would have been an impossible trail to follow even for a bloodhound. I can only say she must have had some extra sense beyond normal senses that allowed her to navigate that long journey over that distance and time "back to her new home". Needless to say my sister soon found appropriate accommodation for themselves and for Lady. This story is not unique and I have heard of other "Lassie Come Home" stories even with cats. If that does not show some kind of innate "distal capacity" I don't know what would.
Cheers
It is irrelevant for animals to have a knowledge of the Eiffel Tower in Paris ... all animals need is an understanding of where to find the things they need in their own hunting grounds. Ancient man had no idea of what was beyond his immediate territory and these were the "happy hunting grounds" and not required as a real place. Ask an untarnished native in the Amazon where is Paris and I doubt if he knows or cares either. Yet they are humans. Are you suggesting we eat them because they have no "distal capacity"? Take for instance bees... You would argue that their brains are too small to have language well you would be wrong. They use this language to determine where food sources can be found through a "dance".
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/.../BeeDances.html
It is also obvious that the signaling bee must "somehow know" the coordinates of the food source in order to signal them to the others.
Dogs at least also have an internal "map" of the countryside and instinctively know the shortest distance and direction to travel when they are required to return to "base" quickly. I would also propose that a internal "mental map" of their world is an absolute requirement for guide dogs aiding the blind.
Are we Aware of Consciousness - Dogs internal "map" of their world
I would also say dogs (at least) have a "Theory of Mind"... That is dogs "think" they understand what humans want them to do. Most of the time they are right in their guesses and this has been the case since early cave men began to utilize their talents. Dogs understanding of us shows us in a small way that they are in many ways like us.
I would not kid you on this next story... It is the whole truth... I have a personal experience of this phenomenon or something like it. My sister had a German Shepherd called Lady. She and her husband had to move from Brisbane in Queensland to Canberra in the ACT in Australia, a distance of 1270 Km (as the crow flies). It was doubtful that my sister would be allowed to keep a dog in the accommodation available in Canberra at the time (a fairly long time ago) so they decided to give the dog away to friends. This they did and then moved by car to Canberra the following day. Three weeks later Lady went missing from her "foster home" and she could be found nowhere. Three months later Lady turned up on my sister's doorstep in Canberra with matted fur and bleeding paws (...literally exhausted but obviously knew where she was in the block of flats). She had obviously traveled the entire distance on foot fending for herself along the way. I doubt if Lassie could have done it any better. To this day nobody can tell me how she did it considering she had never been to Canberra in her life and the extended interval of time between the car leaving and traveling all those long distances along busy highways or through rural fields. This feat surely would have been an impossible trail to follow even for a bloodhound. I can only say she must have had some extra sense beyond normal senses that allowed her to navigate that long journey over that distance and time "back to her new home". Needless to say my sister soon found appropriate accommodation for themselves and for Lady. This story is not unique and I have heard of other "Lassie Come Home" stories even with cats. If that does not show some kind of innate "distal capacity" I don't know what would.
Cheers
Interesting post.
Do you have a problem with the hunting and eating of dolphin?
Do you have a problem with the hunting and eating of dolphin?
Hi Derek1148,
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
Do you have a problem with the hunting and eating of dolphin?
Yes... Especially since they were not bred to be eaten, they are part of the balance, are very highly intelligent mammals and the people involved are not "noble savages", are not euthanizing them painlessly but bludgeoning them death and take them not out of need but out of a sense of "fun" and contempt of the west and it's values. 21,000 dolphin a year are allowed to be taken by the authorities. I think that is far too many.
The Japanese still consider dolphin as "dumb fish" and they use this ignorance to conceal the real nature of this moral problem to even their children whom they encourage in that charade. Would they bludgeon their pet dogs or even their cattle to death in this way? They are the most technologically advanced nation in the world why do they need to hide behind this fiction that they are "great hunters". Lets face it folks a dolphin can tear a fully grown shark to pieces with its strong jaws, why do you think they do not attack those people in the water trying to kill them? I am not going to answer that question for you.
Why is it that people ask me what I think... it is far more important what you really think. As I have said, when we compromise our morality in small ways we eventually lead to really big concessions in very serious matters. There is a lot of blood on everyone's hands and it does not help when these matters come to the surface. They could at least have controlled shooting of them if they thought that it was necessary. No... this is a "family affair", something to teach the kids.
Cheers
The Japanese still consider dolphin as "dumb fish" and they use this ignorance to conceal the real nature of this moral problem to even their children whom they encourage in that charade. Would they bludgeon their pet dogs or even their cattle to death in this way? They are the most technologically advanced nation in the world why do they need to hide behind this fiction that they are "great hunters". Lets face it folks a dolphin can tear a fully grown shark to pieces with its strong jaws, why do you think they do not attack those people in the water trying to kill them? I am not going to answer that question for you.
Why is it that people ask me what I think... it is far more important what you really think. As I have said, when we compromise our morality in small ways we eventually lead to really big concessions in very serious matters. There is a lot of blood on everyone's hands and it does not help when these matters come to the surface. They could at least have controlled shooting of them if they thought that it was necessary. No... this is a "family affair", something to teach the kids.
Cheers
Nature can be brutal and thuggish. But we, as humans, have a choice. Killing is certainly necessary at times. But, I agree, brutality shouldn’t be a sport.
Your comment about 'shoot from the hip' then 'pretty stupid' well, all of what you have typed supports what (I) said, no distal learning or no ability to know of things that they have not personally experienced....
Followed by the simplicity that persons, versed in Neural anatomy, examined dolphin brains and found out the the size was large but the neuronal counts were not reflected by that size as the size had lots to do with keeping the brain warm, lots of fat - not an expression of bulk neuron content...thereby altering our preconception that these are very intelligent mammals - superior to all of the rest of them, they are not, not as smart as they were originally thought to be...Wiki(dot)org * Cetacean intelligence *
Followed by the simplicity that persons, versed in Neural anatomy, examined dolphin brains and found out the the size was large but the neuronal counts were not reflected by that size as the size had lots to do with keeping the brain warm, lots of fat - not an expression of bulk neuron content...thereby altering our preconception that these are very intelligent mammals - superior to all of the rest of them, they are not, not as smart as they were originally thought to be...Wiki(dot)org * Cetacean intelligence *
Hi Mr. Robin Parsons,
QUOTE
ollowed by the simplicity that persons, versed in Neural anatomy, examined dolphin brains and found out the the size was large but the neuronal counts were not reflected by that size as the size had lots to do with keeping the brain warm, lots of fat - not an expression of bulk neuron content...thereby altering our preconception that these are very intelligent mammals - superior to all of the rest of them, they are not, not as smart as they were originally thought to be...Wiki(dot)org * Cetacean intelligence *
Strange I do not think that your Wikipedia reference put them down that much. They have higher than average intelligence among mammals ... According to that review it says QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ollowed by the simplicity that persons, versed in Neural anatomy, examined dolphin brains and found out the the size was large but the neuronal counts were not reflected by that size as the size had lots to do with keeping the brain warm, lots of fat - not an expression of bulk neuron content...thereby altering our preconception that these are very intelligent mammals - superior to all of the rest of them, they are not, not as smart as they were originally thought to be...Wiki(dot)org * Cetacean intelligence * |
Strange I do not think that your Wikipedia reference put them down that much. They have higher than average intelligence among mammals ... According to that review it says Problem Solving Ability... "Some research shows that dolphins do exceptionally well in this aspect indicating very high intelligence, even surpassing the intelligence level of a chimpanzee, which is generally believed to be the highest amongst non-human animals.[2]. Dolphins also seem to have mathematical skills, which is a highly abstract ability.[3]However, many scientists now tend to rank dolphins about the level of elephants in "intelligence" tests and say that dolphins haven't shown any unusual talent with problem solving compared with the other animals classed with very high intelligence" [...] "Use of Tools...scientists have observed limited groups of bottle nose dolphins around the Australian Pacific using a basic tool. When searching for food on the sea floor, many of these dolphins were seen tearing off pieces of sponge and wrapping them around their "bottle nose" to prevent abrasions." [...] "Whilst there is little evidence for dolphin language, experiments have shown that they can learn human sign language. Akeakamai, a bottle nosed dolphin, was able to understand both individual words and basic sentences like "touch the frisbee with your tail and then jump over it" (Herman, Richards, & Wolz 1984). Dolphins have also exhibited the ability to understand the significance of the ordering of each set of tasks in one sentence." [...] Regarding Self Awareness... "Dr. Gallup called the results "the most suggestive evidence to date" of mirror self-recognition in dolphins, but "not definitive" because he was not entirely clear that the dolphins were not interpreting the image in the mirror as another animal. Whereas apes can merely touch the mark on themselves with their fingers, dolphins show less definitive behavior of self-awareness, twisting and turning themselves to observe the mark. As a further response to these criticisms, in 1995, Marten and Psarakos used television to test dolphin self-awareness[citation needed]. They showed dolphins real-time footage of themselves, recorded footage, and another dolphin. They concluded that their evidence suggested self-awareness rather than social behaviour. This study has not been repeated since then, however, so the results remain uncorroborated"
As long as we are not directly comparing the creatures with human ability which is surely the most developed in intelligence but not always the most developed in "social skills". In many ways humans are probably too smart for their own good and are continually pitting one against another and find that respect we are indeed "pretty stupid". As always there seems to forever be a bias to see animals as being truly different to man in ways that defy the experiments. The experiments reflect often what we want to find... and that depends on the kind of upbringing we have had as humans.
I would call your attention to this reference...
Wikipedia:Feral Children
It would seem that children brought up by animals in the wild exhibit few human traits and have an inability to adapt to human standards such as the ability to learn language is lost if the child was raised by animals all it's life.
I would call your attention to this reference...
Wikipedia:Feral Children
It would seem that children brought up by animals in the wild exhibit few human traits and have an inability to adapt to human standards such as the ability to learn language is lost if the child was raised by animals all it's life.
QUOTE (wikipedia+)
Children with some human experience before isolation are more easily rehabilitated after discovery. Children who learn an alternative, animal culture, especially during the first 5 or 6 years of life, find it almost impossible to learn human language, to walk or engage meaningfully with other humans - even after intensive and loving care for years - see Amala and Kamala - which demonstrates what many child developmental experts and psychologists have been arguing: that early years in child development are absolutely crucial.
It would seem that "humans" are not naturally capable of being human and much of the development of what we may term human traits are learned in the first 5 or so years. It also shows that wild animals sometimes have compassion on abandoned human children that humans themselves have or hold no compassion for naturally.
Cheers
Cheers
Hummm on the other side is Modern Mans Present Culture and Obvious MASSIVE changes, all from skills and abilities that have been afforded to us simply because we can speak - read and write ergo: carry intense and detailed information (build Knowledge) across spans of time un-imaginable to any other living creature on this planet - as a function of thought - yet it is inherent in the Spiritual Structuring of a-any 'Living thing' that it is, None the less, innately aware of the longevity of time - it's ties in that ancestrally - and it's ultimate connectivity to all living things - as a part of it's innate inner sensation ......too, just like you.
We are so far ahead of them because we can talk and we sit there acting as if it makes so little difference....A Denial Complex perhaps??
We are so far ahead of them because we can talk and we sit there acting as if it makes so little difference....A Denial Complex perhaps??
Ok, first off, even not knowing where the meat came from, most people would not eat other people, even the stupid ones. Humans taste bad. Omnivores in general taste bad, humans in particular. This is why spam became popular among cannibal tribes in the south pacific. It tastes like human, but better.
Consider that for a minute...spam tastes better than you.
As for dolphins...As far as I know they are the only species other than humans that give each other unique and individual names. When a cow can moo out the name of a strange cow it's only heard the moo name for, and have that particular cow respond. Then I'll think about passing up my burger. Until then, they're steak on the hoof, and dolphins are retarded little buddies of the sea.
It's not just can the animal come when it's called by name. It's "Does the animal respond to it's name when called by others of it's own species". And generic, there's food/danger or a dead cat noises don't count for being called by name.
Other than that, my only determining factor for eating an animal is taste. Mammal carnivores tend to taste greasy or otherwise nasty, omnivores are a close second for greasy nastiness. Herbivores, that's where the sweet prime rib comes from.
Avians, crustaceans, insects and reptiles have to be taken on a case by case basis. Peking duck tastes great to some, nasty to others. These scary excuses for ducks we have here in Florida taste nasty to everyone who's been crazy/stupid enough to eat one. Species counts for a lot more than diet amongst the other branches of the animal tree.
Consider that for a minute...spam tastes better than you.
As for dolphins...As far as I know they are the only species other than humans that give each other unique and individual names. When a cow can moo out the name of a strange cow it's only heard the moo name for, and have that particular cow respond. Then I'll think about passing up my burger. Until then, they're steak on the hoof, and dolphins are retarded little buddies of the sea.
It's not just can the animal come when it's called by name. It's "Does the animal respond to it's name when called by others of it's own species". And generic, there's food/danger or a dead cat noises don't count for being called by name.
Other than that, my only determining factor for eating an animal is taste. Mammal carnivores tend to taste greasy or otherwise nasty, omnivores are a close second for greasy nastiness. Herbivores, that's where the sweet prime rib comes from.
Avians, crustaceans, insects and reptiles have to be taken on a case by case basis. Peking duck tastes great to some, nasty to others. These scary excuses for ducks we have here in Florida taste nasty to everyone who's been crazy/stupid enough to eat one. Species counts for a lot more than diet amongst the other branches of the animal tree.
Hi Mr. Robin Parsons,
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+)
Hummm on the other side is Modern Mans Present Culture and Obvious MASSIVE changes, all from skills and abilities that have been afforded to us simply because we can speak - read and write ergo: carry intense and detailed information (build Knowledge) across spans of time un-imaginable to any other living creature on this planet - as a function of thought - yet it is inherent in the Spiritual Structuring of a-any 'Living thing' that it is, None the less, innately aware of the longevity of time - it's ties in that ancestrally - and it's ultimate connectivity to all living things - as a part of it's innate inner sensation ......too, just like you.
We are so far ahead of them because we can talk and we sit there acting as if it makes so little difference....A Denial Complex perhaps??
We are so far ahead of them because we can talk and we sit there acting as if it makes so little difference....A Denial Complex perhaps??
I do not think "imagining" the carrying of knowledge across time had anything specific to do with it other than I would agree that observations of "feral children" indicate that the scenario of mute feral humans (sans clothing) depicted in the "Planet of the Apes" may not be that far fetched at all if something catastrophic happened to mankind and all of his technology. I don't see any "inherent Spiritual Structuring" you speak of in man other than we "got lucky" with Darwinian selection somewhere along the way, but luck can eventually run out as any roulette player can attest.
The "veneer" of morality and wisdom is almost all hubris and all we are left with is a cold calculating and aggressively intelligent species, becoming more and more distant from it's animal roots and connection to the natural world as we surround ourselves with the trappings of high technology "artificially boosting" skills that we never learned to be used against "foes" we can never understand... Ourselves. We are ready to meet our match if ever any alien advanced culture should think to match wits with us. We probably do not have the mental capacity to reason "intelligently" in their terms because of our fixation with our savage past and our cultural reluctance to evolve beyond it. It is clear to me from what I have already said that humankind's morality is a free choice and we make these choices in little things first and slowly graduate into the bigger things such as Nazism, Unrestrained Capitalism, Communism and Fundamentalist Religions all with their ethnic cleansing and hatred of all human life that does not agree with them or adopt their corrupted value systems. We are warring technological "tribes" not simply carrying spears and knives but thermonuclear weapons, nerve gas and plagues driven by a philosophical desire to "exterminate the other" in contrived acts of "Mutual Assured Destruction".
I said from the outset (recall) that I am not going to change many peoples thinking on this matter. The purpose of reevaluating animals was not on the basis of "just look how cleaver we are" and this automatically gives you the automatic right to eat any anyone or thing that is not as smart as you. The point I was trying to make was ethically we are flawed as a technological species, and the "G*ds" we worship are flawed as well, tainted by our human weaknesses and greeds. We are not "noble savages" and can't claim the innocence that other less socially developed humans have being closer to the food chain... Like the Bushman of the Kalahari. What you are espousing is as we become a technological locust infestation on the surface of the planet that our flawed morality is allowed to "rationally" eat us out of house and home without restraint.
I have pointed out the basic moral flaws and you would clearly understand them. It is simply a case of you and I disagreeing.
Cheers
The "veneer" of morality and wisdom is almost all hubris and all we are left with is a cold calculating and aggressively intelligent species, becoming more and more distant from it's animal roots and connection to the natural world as we surround ourselves with the trappings of high technology "artificially boosting" skills that we never learned to be used against "foes" we can never understand... Ourselves. We are ready to meet our match if ever any alien advanced culture should think to match wits with us. We probably do not have the mental capacity to reason "intelligently" in their terms because of our fixation with our savage past and our cultural reluctance to evolve beyond it. It is clear to me from what I have already said that humankind's morality is a free choice and we make these choices in little things first and slowly graduate into the bigger things such as Nazism, Unrestrained Capitalism, Communism and Fundamentalist Religions all with their ethnic cleansing and hatred of all human life that does not agree with them or adopt their corrupted value systems. We are warring technological "tribes" not simply carrying spears and knives but thermonuclear weapons, nerve gas and plagues driven by a philosophical desire to "exterminate the other" in contrived acts of "Mutual Assured Destruction".
I said from the outset (recall) that I am not going to change many peoples thinking on this matter. The purpose of reevaluating animals was not on the basis of "just look how cleaver we are" and this automatically gives you the automatic right to eat any anyone or thing that is not as smart as you. The point I was trying to make was ethically we are flawed as a technological species, and the "G*ds" we worship are flawed as well, tainted by our human weaknesses and greeds. We are not "noble savages" and can't claim the innocence that other less socially developed humans have being closer to the food chain... Like the Bushman of the Kalahari. What you are espousing is as we become a technological locust infestation on the surface of the planet that our flawed morality is allowed to "rationally" eat us out of house and home without restraint.
I have pointed out the basic moral flaws and you would clearly understand them. It is simply a case of you and I disagreeing.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Nov 6 2007, 06:53 PM)
(SNIP) What you are espousing is as we become a technological locust infestation on the surface of the planet that our flawed morality is allowed to "rationally" eat us out of house and home without restraint. (SNoP)
No.... (I) was simply pointing out how far our ability to talk has gotten us - Knowledge wise - a distance that no other animal on the planets face can travel....ever.....
We have accumulated ages of knowledge that we all - now - need to survive.
We have accumulated ages of knowledge that we all - now - need to survive.
Hi All,
Good Elf, First I would like to apologize for pissing you off. I have read your posts on other threads and respect your insightful writings. We just disagree on this subject.
To Everyone,
While I do not advocate wholesale slaughter for amusement or trophy hunting, I do not have any problem with killing for food. Even though humans do not need to kill to survive, some wild game is very tasty. I have not hunted in many years but I have enjoyed rabbit, squirrel, pheasant and rattlesnake (and no, it does not taste like chicken). I enjoy camping and am an avid fisherman, I eat what I take and do not catch and release. If I am on a catch and release only waterway, I don't fish.
I disagree with the assumption that man is a parasite on the Earth and the root of all evil. New species of animals are discovered frequently and animals thought extinct reemerge periodically. Man is as natural and as much a part of this system as anything else and nature is remarkably resilient in spite of man's efforts to thwart her.
Good Elf, First I would like to apologize for pissing you off. I have read your posts on other threads and respect your insightful writings. We just disagree on this subject.
To Everyone,
While I do not advocate wholesale slaughter for amusement or trophy hunting, I do not have any problem with killing for food. Even though humans do not need to kill to survive, some wild game is very tasty. I have not hunted in many years but I have enjoyed rabbit, squirrel, pheasant and rattlesnake (and no, it does not taste like chicken). I enjoy camping and am an avid fisherman, I eat what I take and do not catch and release. If I am on a catch and release only waterway, I don't fish.
I disagree with the assumption that man is a parasite on the Earth and the root of all evil. New species of animals are discovered frequently and animals thought extinct reemerge periodically. Man is as natural and as much a part of this system as anything else and nature is remarkably resilient in spite of man's efforts to thwart her.
Hi Mr. Robin Parsons, xtrmn8r et al,
xtrmn8r... sorry that I have lost it a bit. You are entitled to your opinion.
xtrmn8r... sorry that I have lost it a bit. You are entitled to your opinion.
QUOTE (xtrmn8r+)
I disagree with the assumption that man is a parasite on the Earth and the root of all evil. New species of animals are discovered frequently and animals thought extinct reemerge periodically. Man is as natural and as much a part of this system as anything else and nature is remarkably resilient in spite of man's efforts to thwart her.
Man is not a "parasite" (though technically speaking it would be better if we were rather than the rampaging destroyer we truly are) but he has a choice... he should be either a "noble savage" that is not partaking in the technical developments of the rest of mankind and left in a system that allows him to continue to do so unaffected... or... he voluntarily accepts this role as a technological man and all the restrictions that come with it. It is not a carte blanche to exploit or kill other humans or endangered species for sport or profit nor is it a right to damage the ecosystem without regard to the checks and balances required on such a small world with such limited resources.
I do not think "technological man" is part of an ecosystem in balance. I have placed my views here for your consideration and I suppose you have read them by now. I can't force anyone to regard them but I believe that technology and the influence that technology has purchased for a minority of individuals should be denied to those that use it selfishly without any balanced regard for others. Few if any of you could truly "return to the stone age" and forage for yourselves, and outside of the movies probably would not want to. This is because your "skills" are not truly your own... they are technologically enhanced abilities you have through the talents of other gifted individuals that that placed them in trust to humanity for its betterment. Try and make your own knives and spears and clothes then face a truly formidable predator in the wild and you may learn what I mean. You can't do what your ancestors did and forge steel or use flint napping to create primitive blades let alone those items you routinely purchase from"Sports Stores", the product of advanced technologies.
The problem with our Earth right now is there are too many humans exercising their rights in exclusion to the basic rights of others... enhanced by this "advanced technology". I like technology, don't get me wrong, but as Stan Lee says "With great power comes great responsibility"... We are not showing that responsibility and with the power has come a terrible corruption in our spirit. We can't all get along together on this planet if we continue to take from those less empowered technologically or materially speaking the things they are owed by birthright. These include a roof over their head, a square meal every day and good medical attention when they need it. And I would add that simply because they are part of a technological world and being exploited by it they need to be able to access affordable information and communications resources such as those we take for granted.
I do not think "technological man" is part of an ecosystem in balance. I have placed my views here for your consideration and I suppose you have read them by now. I can't force anyone to regard them but I believe that technology and the influence that technology has purchased for a minority of individuals should be denied to those that use it selfishly without any balanced regard for others. Few if any of you could truly "return to the stone age" and forage for yourselves, and outside of the movies probably would not want to. This is because your "skills" are not truly your own... they are technologically enhanced abilities you have through the talents of other gifted individuals that that placed them in trust to humanity for its betterment. Try and make your own knives and spears and clothes then face a truly formidable predator in the wild and you may learn what I mean. You can't do what your ancestors did and forge steel or use flint napping to create primitive blades let alone those items you routinely purchase from"Sports Stores", the product of advanced technologies.
The problem with our Earth right now is there are too many humans exercising their rights in exclusion to the basic rights of others... enhanced by this "advanced technology". I like technology, don't get me wrong, but as Stan Lee says "With great power comes great responsibility"... We are not showing that responsibility and with the power has come a terrible corruption in our spirit. We can't all get along together on this planet if we continue to take from those less empowered technologically or materially speaking the things they are owed by birthright. These include a roof over their head, a square meal every day and good medical attention when they need it. And I would add that simply because they are part of a technological world and being exploited by it they need to be able to access affordable information and communications resources such as those we take for granted.
QUOTE (xtrmn8r+)
New species of animals are discovered frequently and animals thought extinct reemerge periodically.
Nonsense! A collection of self serving fibs... Extinction is "forever" and don't forget it. We might miss a few tiny critters you may find under a log somewhere that may have been misidentified but the much larger animals are not likely to "reemerge" simply because the required habitat no longer exists anywhere and large antecedents have completely disappeared.
This "longing" exists in Australia for the Tasmanian Tiger, people sight this critter from time to time but the habitat is all but gone so their wishful thinking is misplaced and now represents a collective guilt... A stupid hope that it is not "gone forever". Lets face it and be truthful there are no great forests left on the Earth anymore, just little vestigial nature strips for the tourists to take pictures of on their way to a MacDonald's... not even in the Amazon Delta. Humankind will disappear long before any new species of "extinct" animals emerge anywhere. Evolution takes many millions of years and requires antecedents and a predator-prey relationship in balance between the other co-habiting species to exist for something to "reemerge"... we wiped out not only the species but all the antecedents too... sometimes the species we still have around is the last of a long line and this will be the last we ever see of it's like again. Only one in a thousand species that have existed remain today. I studied as a Paleontologist at one stage and I know of no case of true reemergence of any species.
This "longing" exists in Australia for the Tasmanian Tiger, people sight this critter from time to time but the habitat is all but gone so their wishful thinking is misplaced and now represents a collective guilt... A stupid hope that it is not "gone forever". Lets face it and be truthful there are no great forests left on the Earth anymore, just little vestigial nature strips for the tourists to take pictures of on their way to a MacDonald's... not even in the Amazon Delta. Humankind will disappear long before any new species of "extinct" animals emerge anywhere. Evolution takes many millions of years and requires antecedents and a predator-prey relationship in balance between the other co-habiting species to exist for something to "reemerge"... we wiped out not only the species but all the antecedents too... sometimes the species we still have around is the last of a long line and this will be the last we ever see of it's like again. Only one in a thousand species that have existed remain today. I studied as a Paleontologist at one stage and I know of no case of true reemergence of any species.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+)
No.... (I) was simply pointing out how far our ability to talk has gotten us - Knowledge wise - a distance that no other animal on the planets face can travel....ever..... We have accumulated ages of knowledge that we all - now - need to survive.
"Ever" is a very long time.. You see further because you stand on the backs of giants... Without that advantage you would be heading back to the stone age and probably oppressed by other races more technologically advanced than ourselves. You seek that unfair advantage to oppress others and deny them their birthright be they technological or natural fellow travelers.
The natural world is what created us and ultimately still supports us. It is not for us to do with as we choose no matter how important and dominant we may think we are. What comes around goes around. "Your" attempts (as a species) are patently to remove all competition out of the world, be it the "lesser" species or "your" business or religious competitors through unethical practices or even war so that your wishes alone are fulfilled... is clear and transparently exploitative and greedy... Greed is not good.... Not good for individuals, not good for species and not good for the World. We need a newer paradigm and way to fulfill ourselves as a race that is not simply "The Golden Rule" .... He who has all the gold ... rules! ... Or... He who dies with the most "wins"!
If you were behaving as "children" and there were powerful "overlords" of this World, they might be encouraged to remove those advantages from you until you understand what power they have and how you should control it. In the meantime if such an occurrence happened for whatever reason, you would be thrown way back in collective development since, unlike in the natural world where innate ability is the order of the day, we have not preserved those essential abilities "innately" but sacrificed them. Humans possess inbred traits and weaknesses and are inferior in many natural respects such as slow early development, muscle development, a sense of smell, our acuteness of vision when compared to the majority of natural species around us. For instance chimpanzees (our closest relative) are six times stronger in their muscles than we are. We have done this to ourselves and allowed not just our brains to shrink from the size of our immediate ancestors... this is because we no longer need as big a brain to survive due to "adaption" to the methods of society and language and various types of recordings to supplement our abilities. The same goes with all those other traits mentioned above. If we lost that we might very well lose it all.
Cheers
The natural world is what created us and ultimately still supports us. It is not for us to do with as we choose no matter how important and dominant we may think we are. What comes around goes around. "Your" attempts (as a species) are patently to remove all competition out of the world, be it the "lesser" species or "your" business or religious competitors through unethical practices or even war so that your wishes alone are fulfilled... is clear and transparently exploitative and greedy... Greed is not good.... Not good for individuals, not good for species and not good for the World. We need a newer paradigm and way to fulfill ourselves as a race that is not simply "The Golden Rule" .... He who has all the gold ... rules! ... Or... He who dies with the most "wins"!
If you were behaving as "children" and there were powerful "overlords" of this World, they might be encouraged to remove those advantages from you until you understand what power they have and how you should control it. In the meantime if such an occurrence happened for whatever reason, you would be thrown way back in collective development since, unlike in the natural world where innate ability is the order of the day, we have not preserved those essential abilities "innately" but sacrificed them. Humans possess inbred traits and weaknesses and are inferior in many natural respects such as slow early development, muscle development, a sense of smell, our acuteness of vision when compared to the majority of natural species around us. For instance chimpanzees (our closest relative) are six times stronger in their muscles than we are. We have done this to ourselves and allowed not just our brains to shrink from the size of our immediate ancestors... this is because we no longer need as big a brain to survive due to "adaption" to the methods of society and language and various types of recordings to supplement our abilities. The same goes with all those other traits mentioned above. If we lost that we might very well lose it all.
Cheers
Good Elf Posted on 11 /06/07at 8:24 PM
While Pandora's Box has surely been opened, do you not think there is a central position? I don't fit either extreme of this statement. Do you?
While Pandora's Box has surely been opened, do you not think there is a central position? I don't fit either extreme of this statement. Do you?
QUOTE (xtrmn8r)
New species of animals are discovered frequently and animals thought extinct reemerge periodically.
Nonsense! A collection of self serving fibs... Extinction is "forever" and don't forget it. We might miss a few tiny critters you may find under a log somewhere that may have been misidentified but the much larger animals are not likely to "reemerge" simply because the required habitat no longer exists anywhere and large antecedents have completely disappeared.
Nonsense!
http://www.crystalinks.com/new_species.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...ew-species.html
http://www.canongate.net/Lists/Animals/7Ex...malsThatAreNoLo
True enough, I agree we are not the men our ancestors were, nor do we have the acute intuition and senses we needed to survive daily. I hunt, fish and camp at my convenience but there is an intense sense of adventure that I enjoy.
QUOTE
Man ....has a choice... he should be either a "noble savage" that is not partaking in the technical developments of the rest of mankind and left in a system that allows him to continue to do so unaffected... or... he voluntarily accepts this role as a technological man and all the restrictions that come with it.....
While Pandora's Box has surely been opened, do you not think there is a central position? I don't fit either extreme of this statement. Do you?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Man ....has a choice... he should be either a "noble savage" that is not partaking in the technical developments of the rest of mankind and left in a system that allows him to continue to do so unaffected... or... he voluntarily accepts this role as a technological man and all the restrictions that come with it..... |
While Pandora's Box has surely been opened, do you not think there is a central position? I don't fit either extreme of this statement. Do you?
QUOTE (xtrmn8r)
New species of animals are discovered frequently and animals thought extinct reemerge periodically.
Nonsense! A collection of self serving fibs... Extinction is "forever" and don't forget it. We might miss a few tiny critters you may find under a log somewhere that may have been misidentified but the much larger animals are not likely to "reemerge" simply because the required habitat no longer exists anywhere and large antecedents have completely disappeared.
Nonsense!
http://www.crystalinks.com/new_species.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...ew-species.html
http://www.canongate.net/Lists/Animals/7Ex...malsThatAreNoLo
QUOTE
Few if any of you could truly "return to the stone age" and forage for yourselves, and outside of the movies probably would not want to. This is because your "skills" are not truly your own... they are technologically enhanced abilities you have through the talents of other gifted individuals that that placed them in trust to humanity for its betterment. Try and make your own knives and spears and clothes then face a truly formidable predator in the wild and you may learn what I mean. You can't do what your ancestors did and forge steel or use flint napping to create primitive blades let alone those items you routinely purchase from"Sports Stores", the product of advanced technologies.
True enough, I agree we are not the men our ancestors were, nor do we have the acute intuition and senses we needed to survive daily. I hunt, fish and camp at my convenience but there is an intense sense of adventure that I enjoy.
Hi
QUOTE (xtrmn8r+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
New species of animals are discovered frequently and animals thought extinct reemerge periodically.
Nonsense! A collection of self serving fibs... Extinction is "forever" and don't forget it. We might miss a few tiny critters you may find under a log somewhere that may have been misidentified but the much larger animals are not likely to "reemerge" simply because the required habitat no longer exists anywhere and large antecedents have completely disappeared.
Nonsense!
http://www.crystalinks.com/new_species.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...ew-species.html
http://www.canongate.net/Lists/Animals/7Ex...malsThatAreNoLo
Nonsense! A collection of self serving fibs... Extinction is "forever" and don't forget it. We might miss a few tiny critters you may find under a log somewhere that may have been misidentified but the much larger animals are not likely to "reemerge" simply because the required habitat no longer exists anywhere and large antecedents have completely disappeared.
Nonsense!
http://www.crystalinks.com/new_species.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...ew-species.html
http://www.canongate.net/Lists/Animals/7Ex...malsThatAreNoLo
Obviously your definition of extinction is not the same as mine and the discovery of "new" species is not the discovery of anything "new" in creation at all simply "newly classified". A few small creatures have clung on to existence not magically "reemerged". There is no mention of resurgent populations because there is no longer any supporting habitat. There is no guarantee that any will ever survive due to the small populations and continuing vanishing habitat. I have no idea how people can take any satisfaction in quirky lists of a handful of remanent creatures to make up for the many thousands of species and even genera that have disappeared on mankind's watch even in the last decade or two. Do you think they are all going to come back if we simply wait around long enough? It would be laughable if it was not so serious. OK... a crayfish in the ocean or perhaps a jellyfish or a frog that we had not discovered does nothing to restore the forests or the habitats lost along with the majestic beast that once existed in them. Are they all "coming back" too? I don't think so!
To look further... how about the extinction of a million species?
http://www.well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html
This kind of "extinction" is for "keepsie"!
Cheers
To look further... how about the extinction of a million species?
http://www.well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html
This kind of "extinction" is for "keepsie"!
Cheers
Are dolphins in danger of extinction?
QUOTE (Derek1148+Nov 7 2007, 01:54 PM)
Are dolphins in danger of extinction?
Pretty much all of the river dolphins are in trouble, as well as a few species of oceanic dolphin. Most oceanic varieties are doing ok, but that's not saying much since nearly every ocean species is in decline right now.
I've never been a big believer in the sanctity of life. Killing is part of being an omnivore. Whether it's for food or competition for resources. Simply because something is alive or human is not sufficient reason to preserve it's life.
That being said, dolphins are a unique type of animal that should be preserved because of the great deal of information they have and most likely will provide in the future. Indiscriminate killing of just about any species is hurtful to us in the long run.
Pretty much all of the river dolphins are in trouble, as well as a few species of oceanic dolphin. Most oceanic varieties are doing ok, but that's not saying much since nearly every ocean species is in decline right now.
I've never been a big believer in the sanctity of life. Killing is part of being an omnivore. Whether it's for food or competition for resources. Simply because something is alive or human is not sufficient reason to preserve it's life.
That being said, dolphins are a unique type of animal that should be preserved because of the great deal of information they have and most likely will provide in the future. Indiscriminate killing of just about any species is hurtful to us in the long run.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Nov 7 2007, 09:54 AM)
Are dolphins in danger of extinction?
Not that (I) am aware of and food is food.
Individuals who have conducted sadistic medical experimentation on humans. Committed rape, torture, and murder. Considered beheadings and sexual assaults sport. Do you believe it is a great leap to being somewhat unkind to animals?
Derek 1148 and Mr. Robin Parsons, There are certain species of dolphins that are endangered among the nearly 40 species known. Few, if any are widely used as food. The main way they have gotten in the news relating to food is from accidental capture in nets while seining for Tuna. "Dolphin free" tuna is an issue among environmentalists and those concerned with the unnecessary killing of these socially organized, complex and advanced animals.
Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin
Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin
Hey photojack,
I’ve got no problem with protecting the dolphins. I’m just surprised that anyone would be shocked by the conduct of the individuals involved in the slaughter.
I’ve got no problem with protecting the dolphins. I’m just surprised that anyone would be shocked by the conduct of the individuals involved in the slaughter.
Ease of survival afforded by our technology should allow for the selfless attitude to eventually replace the self-serving attitude. Especially now that we understand that we have the capability beyond any other species to be benevolent or catastrophic to them and our mutual world.
If morality is to be part of our lives, then the great power we have acquired relative to all else on the planet should be wielded with great responsibility; morality requires respect towards all these creatures who are so indefensible against our power, whose continuance is now in our hands too, and who depend on our purposeful relinquishing of their survival paradigms - the ones we used to need and now do not - so that they, we, and our planet can continue.
That's an incredible statement. If someone wanted YOUR resources, then by your statement there's no sufficient reason for that person to preserve your life whilst they take your resources. They have only violated morality a little if life has only a little sanctity. Did I misunderstand your quote?
That's an incredible statement. If someone wanted YOUR resources, then by your statement there's no sufficient reason for that person to preserve your life whilst they take your resources. They have only violated morality a little if life has only a little sanctity. Did I misunderstand your quote?
That being said, dolphins are a unique type of animal that should be preserved because of the great deal of information they have and most likely will provide in the future.
As long as they provide a service for us. Never mind their enjoyment of each other and enjoyment of just being alive. Do you enjoy 'just being alive'? Pardon the curtness, but your post looked draconian and general, and struck a nerve.
If morality is to be part of our lives, then the great power we have acquired relative to all else on the planet should be wielded with great responsibility; morality requires respect towards all these creatures who are so indefensible against our power, whose continuance is now in our hands too, and who depend on our purposeful relinquishing of their survival paradigms - the ones we used to need and now do not - so that they, we, and our planet can continue.
QUOTE
I've never been a big believer in the sanctity of life. Killing is part of being an omnivore. Whether it's for food or competition for resources. Simply because something is alive or human is not sufficient reason to preserve it's life.
That's an incredible statement. If someone wanted YOUR resources, then by your statement there's no sufficient reason for that person to preserve your life whilst they take your resources. They have only violated morality a little if life has only a little sanctity. Did I misunderstand your quote?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I've never been a big believer in the sanctity of life. Killing is part of being an omnivore. Whether it's for food or competition for resources. Simply because something is alive or human is not sufficient reason to preserve it's life. |
That's an incredible statement. If someone wanted YOUR resources, then by your statement there's no sufficient reason for that person to preserve your life whilst they take your resources. They have only violated morality a little if life has only a little sanctity. Did I misunderstand your quote?
That being said, dolphins are a unique type of animal that should be preserved because of the great deal of information they have and most likely will provide in the future.
As long as they provide a service for us. Never mind their enjoyment of each other and enjoyment of just being alive. Do you enjoy 'just being alive'? Pardon the curtness, but your post looked draconian and general, and struck a nerve.
Jesus Christ. Reminds me of the liberal dialogue of the sixties and seventies.
Do dolphins have a greater right to live than cows? The issue here is brutality, not the “right to life” of the animal kingdom.
Do dolphins have a greater right to live than cows? The issue here is brutality, not the “right to life” of the animal kingdom.
QUOTE (photojack+Nov 7 2007, 11:55 AM)
There are certain species of dolphins that are endangered among the nearly 40 species known. Few, if any are widely used as food.
Which species of dolphins are you referring to?
The only endangered Dolphin specie I'm aware of is Lipotes vexillifer
http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/12119/summ
A freshwater dolphin that by its nature had a very limited range, and unfortunately for it, the river it lived in was in probably the most polluted country on the planet.
Arthur
Which species of dolphins are you referring to?
The only endangered Dolphin specie I'm aware of is Lipotes vexillifer
http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/12119/summ
A freshwater dolphin that by its nature had a very limited range, and unfortunately for it, the river it lived in was in probably the most polluted country on the planet.
Arthur
Hi All,
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
Jesus Christ. Reminds me of the liberal dialogue of the sixties and seventies.
Do dolphins have a greater right to live than cows? The issue here is brutality, not the “right to life” of the animal kingdom.
Do dolphins have a greater right to live than cows? The issue here is brutality, not the “right to life” of the animal kingdom.
I would point out the numbers of cows on the earth is in excess of natural numbers and would be due to the simple fact that they are bred only for food. The next point is these cows have been selected and interbred ... not for their well being... but entirely to increase what it is we want from a dead carcass. Many natural cattle species have been allowed to become extinct since modern society has no further use for them so at least for those "natural" cattle the question is now meaningless. On the other hand the dolphin are "natural" and living in their "natural" environment and nobody is making any provision for them whatsoever except in some rare places where they are actually a protected species. I realize that in a complex society everything is condensed into "pithy sound bytes" due to the limited attention spans of the "audience". Complex ideas are lost to most people and this is just another indication that deep introspective thought is becoming a lost art. I refuse to provide any of you with a slogan you can print on T-shits to enable you to run your lives.
I am well aware that it is a waste of all our time to try and change each others concepts regarding personal morality. I am entirely opposed to the concept that nature and the environment are here simply to serve our needs. We are (were) part of nature and we are here to serve its needs, or should be, in a world of balance. Now I would like to widen the debate a tad into "what if's"... This is like saying "what if I should step in front of a bus"... I know I have not stepped into the path of a bus but what if I did... a legitimate question and deserving of an answer ... specifically for my continued survival. If humans can't "afford" to bring that ecological balance to this World and preserve the environment and the other living creatures here, I can see no reason to allow such a destructive species to spread any further.
This is applying the morality that we bomb cities and countries based of the idea that while human life is "sacred", even single cells, it is no so sacred that indiscriminate killing of non-combatants, including the innocent, is sanctioned by G*d. Other species have a right to be here and their environments have a right to exist as parts of balanced ecosystems. Humans "share" this right and should be ensuring and affirming that right. In very small ways some groups are trying but these old concepts based on religious "rights"and "duties" go way beyond the context in which they were established.
Now some "what if's"... A cold calculating alien mind, using our own standards, could view the Earth as simply needing a disinfecting of a dominant species... us... in order to restore "order". Alternatively there is a "James Bond" Scenario where it is in the interest of any determined and powerful minority group, using technology available today, to decamp this World for a short period, release a species specific toxin, then return later to find everything here "restored" for the sole benefit of a few. The end justifies the means. Remember this is "war"... whatever that is.
This would be easily possible and an alternative or additional spin on this would be that this group may have found an antitoxin to this "plague" so that a fortified number of enclaves (perhaps subterranean) containing members of this "cleaver" and "enterprising" group of like minded individuals, could hold up in secret. Such a toxin could be spread worldwide in 24 hours using conventional means of travel. The humans on the earth wouldn't know who or what had hit them or even suspect that this was an intended plan. Like lab rats being euthanized the bulk of humanity would have no idea what was coming next.
Your tax dollars may be funding one of these projects right now and it is a "far better" alternative (according to some) to the Nuclear Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) scheme that is currently holding the wolves from all our doors. This way everyone (left) wins. If dummies like myself and Science Fiction writers can think of it why not a Military "Think Tank". I would ask you all if you were a nation interested in survival then this is certainly on the agenda, it cheats at the shell game being played today and who would be left to point any accusing fingers? I ask anyone here what would stop anyone at the "pointy end" of such a simple technology from carrying this act out, maybe being "forced" to carry it out. Any nation with this technology would be derelict in their duty if they had not prepared this material in sufficient quantities. You can use any moral or scientific argument you like but you prove that it is not "justified" or or even unlikely. As they say "winners are grinners".
This is simply an extension of the morality that you are expressing here. I would imagine that some of you would think this as being a "satisfactory resolution" for many of the resource problems and environmental issues that plague our planet. All that is required is the element of stealth, secrecy and deceit... Admirable qualities that most power groups on this planet possess to an excess already.
If anyone is silly enough to think that this process is beyond any reasonably resourced organization I would think again. This is one good reason why we need to reconsider our collective morality in the light of Technology... For our own good. This is why the little things matter since they form the seeds that motivate our collective will. The Japanese know all too well how the end justifies the means when there is a conflict. They know how to dish it out and they also know how to be on the receiving end. I just want everyone to think again about this.
As an additional argument here are some endangered species of Dolphin and Porpoise... Being endangered is a classification that is dependent on the host nation making a claim. Many host nations have no interest or insufficient scientific knowledge in making such claims or listing creatures as being endangered. "A few of the endangered dolphin species include: Hector's dolphin, the Amazon River dolphin, the Indopacific Humpback dolphin, Francescana, the Baiji, (also known as the Chinese White dolphin), the Dusky dolphin, Striped dolphin, and the Tucuxi"... but here are references to some of these and more.
http://www.un.org/works/environment/animal...et/dolphin.html
http://www.sarkanniemi.fi/akatemiat/endang.html
http://www.southwest.com.au/~kirbyhs/pinkdolphins.html
http://www.wwf.org.nz/dolphin/index.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/62.shtml
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/e...ly-extinct.html
http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Action/press450.htm
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/...lphin/index.cfm
http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/all...02568F8004F3827
http://www.kcc.org.nz/animals/hectorsdolphin.asp
http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=360
http://endangered-species.suite101.com/art...ngered_cetacean
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/dolphins/28493
Being on the endangered list alone is only a warning sign of potential loss and is certainly not an exhaustive list since there are many species of Dolphin and Porpoises and sub-species that have simply not been investigated. Anyway this is a moral problem not a problem of simple numbers. It applies equally to all species and living creatures on the planet and even a tiny "bug" deserves it's place in the natural order because it supports the balanced ecosystem and in that natural context may actually provide a key link in the chain of life.
As to "what if"... As a science fiction short story "The Sound of Thunder" by Ray Bradbury is an interesting concept. The movie was less than awe inspiring and did not keep to the main story but the story is short and "sweet".
Cheers
I am well aware that it is a waste of all our time to try and change each others concepts regarding personal morality. I am entirely opposed to the concept that nature and the environment are here simply to serve our needs. We are (were) part of nature and we are here to serve its needs, or should be, in a world of balance. Now I would like to widen the debate a tad into "what if's"... This is like saying "what if I should step in front of a bus"... I know I have not stepped into the path of a bus but what if I did... a legitimate question and deserving of an answer ... specifically for my continued survival. If humans can't "afford" to bring that ecological balance to this World and preserve the environment and the other living creatures here, I can see no reason to allow such a destructive species to spread any further.
This is applying the morality that we bomb cities and countries based of the idea that while human life is "sacred", even single cells, it is no so sacred that indiscriminate killing of non-combatants, including the innocent, is sanctioned by G*d. Other species have a right to be here and their environments have a right to exist as parts of balanced ecosystems. Humans "share" this right and should be ensuring and affirming that right. In very small ways some groups are trying but these old concepts based on religious "rights"and "duties" go way beyond the context in which they were established.
Now some "what if's"... A cold calculating alien mind, using our own standards, could view the Earth as simply needing a disinfecting of a dominant species... us... in order to restore "order". Alternatively there is a "James Bond" Scenario where it is in the interest of any determined and powerful minority group, using technology available today, to decamp this World for a short period, release a species specific toxin, then return later to find everything here "restored" for the sole benefit of a few. The end justifies the means. Remember this is "war"... whatever that is.
This would be easily possible and an alternative or additional spin on this would be that this group may have found an antitoxin to this "plague" so that a fortified number of enclaves (perhaps subterranean) containing members of this "cleaver" and "enterprising" group of like minded individuals, could hold up in secret. Such a toxin could be spread worldwide in 24 hours using conventional means of travel. The humans on the earth wouldn't know who or what had hit them or even suspect that this was an intended plan. Like lab rats being euthanized the bulk of humanity would have no idea what was coming next.
Your tax dollars may be funding one of these projects right now and it is a "far better" alternative (according to some) to the Nuclear Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) scheme that is currently holding the wolves from all our doors. This way everyone (left) wins. If dummies like myself and Science Fiction writers can think of it why not a Military "Think Tank". I would ask you all if you were a nation interested in survival then this is certainly on the agenda, it cheats at the shell game being played today and who would be left to point any accusing fingers? I ask anyone here what would stop anyone at the "pointy end" of such a simple technology from carrying this act out, maybe being "forced" to carry it out. Any nation with this technology would be derelict in their duty if they had not prepared this material in sufficient quantities. You can use any moral or scientific argument you like but you prove that it is not "justified" or or even unlikely. As they say "winners are grinners".
This is simply an extension of the morality that you are expressing here. I would imagine that some of you would think this as being a "satisfactory resolution" for many of the resource problems and environmental issues that plague our planet. All that is required is the element of stealth, secrecy and deceit... Admirable qualities that most power groups on this planet possess to an excess already.
If anyone is silly enough to think that this process is beyond any reasonably resourced organization I would think again. This is one good reason why we need to reconsider our collective morality in the light of Technology... For our own good. This is why the little things matter since they form the seeds that motivate our collective will. The Japanese know all too well how the end justifies the means when there is a conflict. They know how to dish it out and they also know how to be on the receiving end. I just want everyone to think again about this.
As an additional argument here are some endangered species of Dolphin and Porpoise... Being endangered is a classification that is dependent on the host nation making a claim. Many host nations have no interest or insufficient scientific knowledge in making such claims or listing creatures as being endangered. "A few of the endangered dolphin species include: Hector's dolphin, the Amazon River dolphin, the Indopacific Humpback dolphin, Francescana, the Baiji, (also known as the Chinese White dolphin), the Dusky dolphin, Striped dolphin, and the Tucuxi"... but here are references to some of these and more.
http://www.un.org/works/environment/animal...et/dolphin.html
http://www.sarkanniemi.fi/akatemiat/endang.html
http://www.southwest.com.au/~kirbyhs/pinkdolphins.html
http://www.wwf.org.nz/dolphin/index.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/62.shtml
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/e...ly-extinct.html
http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Action/press450.htm
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/...lphin/index.cfm
http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/all...02568F8004F3827
http://www.kcc.org.nz/animals/hectorsdolphin.asp
http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=360
http://endangered-species.suite101.com/art...ngered_cetacean
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/dolphins/28493
Being on the endangered list alone is only a warning sign of potential loss and is certainly not an exhaustive list since there are many species of Dolphin and Porpoises and sub-species that have simply not been investigated. Anyway this is a moral problem not a problem of simple numbers. It applies equally to all species and living creatures on the planet and even a tiny "bug" deserves it's place in the natural order because it supports the balanced ecosystem and in that natural context may actually provide a key link in the chain of life.
As to "what if"... As a science fiction short story "The Sound of Thunder" by Ray Bradbury is an interesting concept. The movie was less than awe inspiring and did not keep to the main story but the story is short and "sweet".
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Nov 7 2007, 08:33 PM)
Hi All,
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
Jesus Christ. Reminds me of the liberal dialogue of the sixties and seventies.
Do dolphins have a greater right to live than cows? The issue here is brutality, not the “right to life” of the animal kingdom.
I would point out the numbers of cows on the earth is in excess of natural numbers and would be due to the simple fact that they are bread only for food. The next point is these cows have been selected and interbred ... not for their well being...
Not picking on your point at all, Good Elf, but I can't help but poke some fun, here.
If cows are interbread, are they sandwiched before leaving the fold? Is there wheatmeat? How about shoatmeal?
Lordy, it's late...
Do dolphins have a greater right to live than cows? The issue here is brutality, not the “right to life” of the animal kingdom.
I would point out the numbers of cows on the earth is in excess of natural numbers and would be due to the simple fact that they are bread only for food. The next point is these cows have been selected and interbred ... not for their well being...
Not picking on your point at all, Good Elf, but I can't help but poke some fun, here.
If cows are interbread, are they sandwiched before leaving the fold? Is there wheatmeat? How about shoatmeal?
Lordy, it's late...
Yep... Got that typo... I see that you are not "loafing" on this matter. Been there , done that but I would hate to think that it would go on a T-shirt. 
Unfortunately typos will happen.
I seem to recall a song that was available at one time on the internet about a rebellious cow.
Cows With Guns (music by Dana Lyons, www.cowswithguns.com)
or here...
http://www.cowswithguns.com/homepage.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkHCDkYkYnk
Cheers
Unfortunately typos will happen.I seem to recall a song that was available at one time on the internet about a rebellious cow.
Cows With Guns (music by Dana Lyons, www.cowswithguns.com)
or here...
http://www.cowswithguns.com/homepage.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkHCDkYkYnk
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Nov 7 2007, 09:06 PM)
Yep... Got that typo... I see that you are not "loafing" on this matter. Been there , done that but I would hate to think that it would go on a T-shirt. Unfortunately typos will happen.
I seem to recall a song that was available at one time on the internet about a rebellious cow.
Cows With Guns (music by Dana Lyons, www.cowswithguns.com)
or here...
http://www.cowswithguns.com/homepage.html
Cheers
Yeah, me too. Cheers back, and thanks!
Unfortunately typos will happen.I seem to recall a song that was available at one time on the internet about a rebellious cow.
Cows With Guns (music by Dana Lyons, www.cowswithguns.com)
or here...
http://www.cowswithguns.com/homepage.html
Cheers
Yeah, me too. Cheers back, and thanks!
Hi Good Elf,
It seems to me that our basic disagreement is (please correct me if I'm wrong) that nature is good/man is bad. You seem to think we are technological bulls in a china shop wantonly or accidentally destroying everything and the world would be better if humans didn't exist. Species of all kinds have been going extinct and being created for far longer than man has been around. The universe has created and destroyed planets, solar systems and galaxies with far greater power than humans could ever achieve.
To All,
I think the Earth and the universe IS our playground to do with as we will. We are only just now beginning to take baby steps in understanding the universe we live in and will eventually become better caretakers the more we learn. We have made and are currently making huge errors in many ways, but the extinction of some species of flora or fauna is not the end of days and protections are being instituted.
We are learning!
It seems to me that our basic disagreement is (please correct me if I'm wrong) that nature is good/man is bad. You seem to think we are technological bulls in a china shop wantonly or accidentally destroying everything and the world would be better if humans didn't exist. Species of all kinds have been going extinct and being created for far longer than man has been around. The universe has created and destroyed planets, solar systems and galaxies with far greater power than humans could ever achieve.
To All,
I think the Earth and the universe IS our playground to do with as we will. We are only just now beginning to take baby steps in understanding the universe we live in and will eventually become better caretakers the more we learn. We have made and are currently making huge errors in many ways, but the extinction of some species of flora or fauna is not the end of days and protections are being instituted.
We are learning!
Hi xtrmn8r.
QUOTE (xtrmn8r+)
It seems to me that our basic disagreement is (please correct me if I'm wrong) that nature is good/man is bad. [..]I think the Earth and the universe IS our playground to do with as we will. We are only just now beginning to take baby steps in understanding the universe we live in and will eventually become better caretakers the more we learn.
I can't "correct" shallow thinking in anyone... ever. Good slogan/soundbyte (Nature is good/man is bad) ... bad analysis. Unless you can "grow" another 20 points in your IQ and/or extend your communication skills considerably... I can't fix that no matter what I do or say. It proves my point that I have been saying that "Technology" can be like giving a loaded gun to a baby and expecting it to "learn through experience". The baby is not "bad" or even "stupid" if it shoots you or if it kills itself. It is simply ill prepared to accept responsibility as you seem to be in the rest of your statement. Here is a soundbyte if you like... Dead babies make poor caretakers.
On the other hand you could be playing "dumb" and simply want other "dumb" like thinkers to join you for "mutual comfort". Perhaps you are playing the numbers and want to be the "mob leader" on this... go right ahead.
Cheers
On the other hand you could be playing "dumb" and simply want other "dumb" like thinkers to join you for "mutual comfort". Perhaps you are playing the numbers and want to be the "mob leader" on this... go right ahead.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Nov 8 2007, 01:33 AM)
The Japanese know all too well how the end justifies the means when there is a conflict. They know how to dish it out and they also know how to be on the receiving end. I just want everyone to think again about this.
Do they know how to apologize?
I agree, Ray Bradbury is a great writer and “The Sound of Thunder” is a terrific short story. I just don’t know what the hell that has to do with dolphins.
The fact that cows are bred as food does not negate morally the imperative to preclude brutality. Some slaves were bred into slavery. Does that morally mitigate slavery?
Hey, if the Japanese want to torture and eat endangered species, do you want to go to war with them? Who knows, they might invade China again.
Do they know how to apologize?
I agree, Ray Bradbury is a great writer and “The Sound of Thunder” is a terrific short story. I just don’t know what the hell that has to do with dolphins.
The fact that cows are bred as food does not negate morally the imperative to preclude brutality. Some slaves were bred into slavery. Does that morally mitigate slavery?
Hey, if the Japanese want to torture and eat endangered species, do you want to go to war with them? Who knows, they might invade China again.
Good Elf,
In the North Bay area San Francisco where I live, this discussion is played out frequently. The uber-liberal majority take the moral high ground and any dissenter is attacked and criticized. This is a tactic of the lunatic fringe so they don't have to defending a loosing position. I tried to mend the fence with you by apologizing after our first posts, you responded by calling my information nonsense. I then backed my argument with links and you dismissed them out of hand. Now you outright insult me. Go pet your dog, I'm done with you on this thread. Have a nice day!
In the North Bay area San Francisco where I live, this discussion is played out frequently. The uber-liberal majority take the moral high ground and any dissenter is attacked and criticized. This is a tactic of the lunatic fringe so they don't have to defending a loosing position. I tried to mend the fence with you by apologizing after our first posts, you responded by calling my information nonsense. I then backed my argument with links and you dismissed them out of hand. Now you outright insult me. Go pet your dog, I'm done with you on this thread. Have a nice day!
Hi Derek1148,
A literary dissection... it misses the point quite literally...
A literary dissection... it misses the point quite literally...
QUOTE (Derek1148 Regarding the Japanese and WWII+)
Do they know how to apologize?
I have not heard of any apology but in the end it is not the satisfaction of an apology that I am waiting for, it is understanding and a willingness to change the course of their destiny for the better.
QUOTE (Derek1148 Comment on “The Sound of Thunder”+)
I agree, Ray Bradbury is a great writer and “The Sound of Thunder” is a terrific short story. I just don’t know what the hell that has to do with dolphins.
The story is in the context of evolutionary ecological systems. Here in Australia there are large numbers of ancient tree ferns, remnants of a bygone age when megafauna roamed free. You can still visit these remnants and they are still there. They have been there for thousands of years clinging to existence as single individuals but it is now impossible for them to reproduce and bring forth any new tree ferns since the pollinating species that these ferns depended on are extinct. Outside of laboratories there can be no reproduction at all. In Bradbury's story the changes brought about by the death of one tiny butterfly in the Cretaceous had consequences in the food chain that resulted in generations of it offspring not existing to provide vast resources of food and nutrition as well as the effects of pollination they had to such an effect that man's history was changed. The "Sound of Thunder" was the tour guide executing the "tourist" for breaking the rules. In regard to dolphins small things (key species) are important and can be responsible for the balance of whole ecosystems. Their size and ability to predate is not necessarily the only factor that determines their importance. With many people their size and ability to be the top predator is very important to them because of an inflated sense of self worth. A big man carries a big gun. We can be stupid to think that we alone are the one and only "key species", a G*d ordained role, and we don't need anything else, this may be our fatal mistake.
QUOTE (Derek1148 on Cows+)
The fact that cows are bred as food does not negate morally the imperative to preclude brutality. Some slaves were bred into slavery. Does that morally mitigate slavery?
You are right... No it does not. But if we did not eat cows then I am sure that their vast numbers would be greatly diminished. Assuming that most cattle ranching was replaced by sustainable land management and replacement of some of the indigenous forests, then there would be a reason to let the cows disappear from the natural world in which they could not easily survive and simply disturb the recovering native species. O