Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Do humans owe anything to other species?
  • Subject: Do humans owe anything to other species?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: Do humans owe anything to other species?

RIP Logan ~B.B.


Posted by: lonepaul2441

Posted by: EnragedAUSTIN11
we owe them the extinct species back.
So the earth kills 99% of all species on earth and its out duty to bring them back out of guilt??

Really?

There is a big difference between a species that comes and goes due to natural selection, and one that is killed by human development. Look at all the various species of dog, did those naturally arise? No, they are a product of artificial selection by us. Their existence is no more natural than the vanishing of the American Bison. Bison were artificially selected for near total destruction because we found it entertaining to shoot at them.

In my opinion, we do owe it to naturally fit species to make efforts to conserve their survival that we might otherwise jeopardize.

  • 11.27.2012 9:33 AM PDT

I owe them my thanks. For being my food. In that respect, I shall maintain their population so they can continue being my food.

[Edited on 11.27.2012 9:36 AM PST]

  • 11.27.2012 9:35 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

We as humans are special, whether OP feels that way or not.

The very fact that we are having a conversation about whether or no humans are special, is in and of itself proof that we are special. Can any other animal sit with other members of its species and just debate the merits of their specialness?

  • 11.27.2012 9:36 AM PDT

RIP Logan ~B.B.


Posted by: Murcielago00
We as humans are special, whether OP feels that way or not.

The very fact that we are having a conversation about whether or no humans are special, is in and of itself proof that we are special. Can any other animal sit with other members of its species and just debate the merits of their specialness?

We don't know. Isn't it odd that many animals can come to understand human language, yet we have never cracked that of any animals? Do we know what killer whales are saying to each other? No, but obviously they can communicate on a much higher level than we even thought possible just a decade ago. Obviously no animal has conversations as advanced as we do, but the extent of our superiority is continually challenged.

  • 11.27.2012 9:53 AM PDT

RIP Logan ~B.B.


Posted by: lonepaul2441

Posted by: Obi Wan Stevobi

Posted by: lonepaul2441

Posted by: EnragedAUSTIN11
we owe them the extinct species back.
So the earth kills 99% of all species on earth and its out duty to bring them back out of guilt??

Really?

There is a big difference between a species that comes and goes due to natural selection, and one that is killed by human development. Look at all the various species of dog, did those naturally arise? No, they are a product of artificial selection by us. Their existence is no more natural than the vanishing of the American Bison. Bison were artificially selected for near total destruction because we found it entertaining to shoot at them.

In my opinion, we do owe it to naturally fit species to make efforts to conserve their survival that we might otherwise jeopardize.
So if Animals ate humans to extinction would you say it was ok??

Animals are making each other extinct all the time, besides we are trying to keep animals around like the Panda and Tiger. The thing is we don't owe them anything, natural selection is played through every species on this planet.

Just because we have more efficient ways of killing animals does not mean natural selection has taken a step back, if anything its in full force.

Nothing could compete with the Dinosaurs and everything was food even their own species, now we are in the same situation of being the super predator and we still kill each other.

Something will happen and humanity will either survive or get replaced with something but more powerful.

Evolution is a -blam!-.

Dinosaurs ate to survive. Their massive size included massive diets. We eat animals to survive as well. Unsurprisingly, we are intelligent enough to conserve our food species in ways we don't conserve a wild species that is in the way of a strip mall or parking lot. Wanton destruction of habitat is not part of the natural selection process. It is a conscious decision made by intelligent beings that has nothing to do with the food chain, fitness for survival, or adaptability. Therefore, it is not evolutionary process.

  • 11.27.2012 9:59 AM PDT

reading this about the bison and dogs makes me wonder if there is really such a thing as natural selection and proper evolution once a species gets to the point it can control other species and these kinds of things. Maybe its all part of the process and this is just one of the many things that can possibly happen when a species becomes intelligent enough.

[Edited on 11.27.2012 10:08 AM PST]

  • 11.27.2012 10:03 AM PDT

-blam!- Was that actually blammed out? Or did I just type it? You'll never know.

You can certainly make an argument. If you take our higher reasoning abilities which allow us to contemplate the well-being of the planet and life as a whole as a responsibility to act on tht.

  • 11.27.2012 10:05 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.

I wouldn't consider it to be a bad thing if we (as individuals and as a species) were more conscious, more conscientious and more careful with our actions.

Such care would only increase the likelihood of the individual and the species surviving.

However, I would not advocate or support the idea that we should become self-loathing (as an individual it is dangerous, as a species it is suicide) or deliberately timid when it comes to our decisions.

  • 11.27.2012 10:05 AM PDT

Life will always find a new way to ruin everything you know, enjoy the moments of peace to their fullest and prepare yourself for the lemons that are heading your way and you might just make it.


Remember Elk

i owe my dog a few bucks

  • 11.27.2012 10:06 AM PDT

Posted by: Changsta inc
Racism isn't wrong if it's funny.

I don't owe anybody, anything. I didn't put myself at the top of the food chain. I just ended up their.
I don't for one minute assume that, should another species arise as the top of the food chain, I would be treated as an equal to something which I am clearly not.

However, that being said, I do think we should take care to foster a healthy environment for those things living around us, as nature has shown us that ensuring such well being will produce long term benefits to our sustenance.

The squirrel that takes his time gather nuts wants for nothing when the harsh winter comes.

  • 11.27.2012 10:10 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I don't need no stinking signature!


Posted by: Defogner
reading this about the bison and dogs makes me wonder if there is really such a thing as natural selection and proper evolution once a species gets to the point it can control other species and these kinds of things. Maybe its all part of the process and this is just one of the many things that can possibly happen when a species becomes intelligent enough.


Evolution has no set goal or objective, so there is no such thing as 'proper' evolution. Otherwise you're exactly right.

  • 11.27.2012 10:18 AM PDT

Killing all humans on Earth is not an easy task. No matter how you set about doing it it's going to be a very time-consuming, meticulous process because there are so many of us and we're so spread out. So I find it hard to believe we'll be killed off. Though we need to allow these animals to evolve and live as nature intended them and shouldn't just kill them off on the notion of "We're smarter than them."

  • 11.27.2012 10:35 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

The who wishes, fervently wishes

We owe nothing but to our species and anything that descends from it. And we should and must protect the Earth, only so long as we do not possess the technology to find and travel to a better one. All that matters is the survival of mankind and anything that descends from it. Other animals are owed nothing and are lucky to be alive. While we should not outwardly destroy them, it would not be a shame if something so poorly evolved as the Panda died out.

  • 11.27.2012 10:52 AM PDT

Why not stop by my File Share while you're here?

~Long Live Halo 2
Only regret is I didn't play more of it.

If you haven't noticed by now, I'm sort of a jerk.

We're top of the food chain because we're clever, resourceful, and can make tools. No other species is really close to competing with us.

  • 11.27.2012 11:12 AM PDT

RIP Logan ~B.B.


Posted by: lonepaul2441
Animals run each other out of territory just as much as humanity has done.

Everything we have done except for exploiting the earths resources, Animals have done the same. Dolphins are the 2nd most intelligent animals on earth, Chimpanzees have just as much in common as human.

Sure our brains evolved to a much higher standard but our nature is shown in other species, like Chimps Sharing or using tools.

We are just 1 of billions of species, some go extinct and new ones take their place and we are fools to think we can prevent that from happening. We can try and slow it down sure but whats the point? If they cannot adapt to survive then they die, yes you can say we kill them to quickly but again they vanish and something turns up to take its place and tries to do better.

Its one giant cycle. Im curious though, if we had another ice age that destroyed 90% of the species we know about now, would you blame us for that?

You're building straw men. I never blamed us for the extinction of all species, or even most, nor did I even bother to mention a single example of complete extinction in our hands. I am simply correcting your assertion that everything we is considered to be natural evolution. That is incorrect. Again, I'm not saying we are responsible for all species, but it is perfectly obvious there are many species we do destroy, and for extremely trivial reasons. I'll again use the American bison again as example. Again, I will point out again that such destruction is not natural evolution. The first three chapters in Origin of Species are dedicated to the idea of artificial selection. Darwin used examples of proven human selection to lay the groundwork for his theory of natural selection. There always has been a distinction made between the two.

  • 11.27.2012 11:14 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

The who wishes, fervently wishes


Posted by: Obi Wan Stevobi

Posted by: lonepaul2441
Animals run each other out of territory just as much as humanity has done.

Everything we have done except for exploiting the earths resources, Animals have done the same. Dolphins are the 2nd most intelligent animals on earth, Chimpanzees have just as much in common as human.

Sure our brains evolved to a much higher standard but our nature is shown in other species, like Chimps Sharing or using tools.

We are just 1 of billions of species, some go extinct and new ones take their place and we are fools to think we can prevent that from happening. We can try and slow it down sure but whats the point? If they cannot adapt to survive then they die, yes you can say we kill them to quickly but again they vanish and something turns up to take its place and tries to do better.

Its one giant cycle. Im curious though, if we had another ice age that destroyed 90% of the species we know about now, would you blame us for that?

You're building straw men. I never blamed us for the extinction of all species, or even most, nor did I even bother to mention a single example of complete extinction in our hands. I am simply correcting your assertion that everything we is considered to be natural evolution. That is incorrect. Again, I'm not saying we are responsible for all species, but it is perfectly obvious there are many species we do destroy, and for extremely trivial reasons. I'll again use the American bison again as example. Again, I will point out again that such destruction is not natural evolution. The first three chapters in Origin of Species are dedicated to the idea of artificial selection. Darwin used examples of proven human selection to lay the groundwork for his theory of natural selection. There always has been a distinction made between the two.


It's a cop-out really. It's natural selection in that we are animals wiping out other animals, but we're the first species to do it just for kicks.

  • 11.27.2012 11:17 AM PDT

RIP Logan ~B.B.


Posted by: Recon Number 54
I wouldn't consider it to be a bad thing if we (as individuals and as a species) were more conscious, more conscientious and more careful with our actions.

Such care would only increase the likelihood of the individual and the species surviving.

However, I would not advocate or support the idea that we should become self-loathing (as an individual it is dangerous, as a species it is suicide) or deliberately timid when it comes to our decisions.

I don't advocate self-loathing, I just don't don't see any reason to pretend I am the culmination of intelligence in the universe. I belong to the currently most advanced species I know of. I'm just saying temporary dominance doesn't grant me license to do whatever harm I feel like because nothing else currently exists (to our knowledge) that can tell me otherwise.

Most likely, the species that replaces us will be the result of our own offspring. I think we should feel some responsibility towards them, because they will be family.

[Edited on 11.27.2012 11:22 AM PST]

  • 11.27.2012 11:21 AM PDT

RIP Logan ~B.B.


Posted by: Wyzilla
We owe nothing but to our species and anything that descends from it. And we should and must protect the Earth, only so long as we do not possess the technology to find and travel to a better one. All that matters is the survival of mankind and anything that descends from it. Other animals are owed nothing and are lucky to be alive. While we should not outwardly destroy them, it would not be a shame if something so poorly evolved as the Panda died out.

Would you agree that humans need a diverse ecosystem supporting them in order to continue survival? Or do you labor under the delusion that indiscriminate eradication of fit species will have no adverse effects on our own livelihood?

  • 11.27.2012 11:27 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

The who wishes, fervently wishes


Posted by: Obi Wan Stevobi

Posted by: Wyzilla
We owe nothing but to our species and anything that descends from it. And we should and must protect the Earth, only so long as we do not possess the technology to find and travel to a better one. All that matters is the survival of mankind and anything that descends from it. Other animals are owed nothing and are lucky to be alive. While we should not outwardly destroy them, it would not be a shame if something so poorly evolved as the Panda died out.

Would you agree that humans need a diverse ecosystem supporting them in order to continue survival? Or do you labor under the delusion that indiscriminate eradication of fit species will have no adverse effects on our own livelihood?


We can survive without a majority of them, only few nations would be willing to undertake the tasks needed to ensure the entire planetary ecosystem didn't collapse. Ironically, nobody is willing to undertake the tasks required to protect them either, so we end up with a crapshoot hoping that the -blam!-storm ahead isn't as bad as it's believed to be.


Hey, at least we can expect the Singularity soon, right?

  • 11.27.2012 11:33 AM PDT

RIP Logan ~B.B.


Posted by: Wyzilla

Posted by: Obi Wan Stevobi

Posted by: Wyzilla
We owe nothing but to our species and anything that descends from it. And we should and must protect the Earth, only so long as we do not possess the technology to find and travel to a better one. All that matters is the survival of mankind and anything that descends from it. Other animals are owed nothing and are lucky to be alive. While we should not outwardly destroy them, it would not be a shame if something so poorly evolved as the Panda died out.

Would you agree that humans need a diverse ecosystem supporting them in order to continue survival? Or do you labor under the delusion that indiscriminate eradication of fit species will have no adverse effects on our own livelihood?


We can survive without a majority of them, only few nations would be willing to undertake the tasks needed to ensure the entire planetary ecosystem didn't collapse. Ironically, nobody is willing to undertake the tasks required to protect them either, so we end up with a crapshoot hoping that the -blam!-storm ahead isn't as bad as it's believed to be.


Hey, at least we can expect the Singularity soon, right?

On of the neatest passages in Origin of Species is where Darwin demonstrates how the number of domestic cats determines the number of flowers in in an area. I find it a fascinating, and well supported assertion. It demonstrates the importance of each species co-existing in an area and how throwing an ecosystem out of balance in one area can have devastating effects on a seemingly unrelated area. SO in reality, the desire to maintain a healthy ecosystem is not only an altruistic desire, but there is a certain amount of selfishness in it as well, because we thrive at the top of a food chain. Remove too many links between us and the bottom, and we are going to suffer from it as well.
I am tempted to give one more instance showing how plants and animals, remote in the scale of nature, are bound together by a web of complex relations. I shall hereafter have occasion to show that the exotic Lobelia fulgens is never visited in my garden by insects, and consequently, from its peculiar structure, never sets a seed. Nearly all our orchidaceous plants absolutely require the visits of insects to remove their pollen-masses and thus to fertilise them. I find from experiments that humble-bees are almost indispensable to the fertilisation of the heartsease (Viola tricolor), for other bees do not visit this flower. I have also found that the visits of bees are necessary for the fertilisation of some kinds of clover; for instance twenty heads of Dutch clover (Trifolium repens) yielded 2,290 seeds, but twenty other heads, protected from bees, produced not one. Again, 100 heads of red clover (T. pratense) produced 2,700 seeds, but the same number of protected heads produced not a single seed. Humble bees alone visit red clover, as other bees cannot reach the nectar. It has been suggested that moths may fertilise the clovers; but I doubt whether they could do so in the case of the red clover, from their weight not being sufficient to depress the wing petals. Hence we may infer as highly probable that, if the whole genus of humble-bees became extinct or very rare in England, the heartsease and red clover would become very rare, or wholly disappear. The number of humble-bees in any district depends in a great measure upon the number of field-mice, which destroy their combs and nests; and Colonel Newman, who has long attended to the habits of humble-bees, believes that "more than two-thirds of them are thus destroyed all over England." Now the number of mice is largely dependent, as every one knows, on the number of cats; and Colonel Newman says, "Near villages and small towns I have found the nests of humble-bees more numerous than elsewhere, which I attribute to the number of cats that destroy the mice." Hence it is quite credible that the presence of a feline animal in large numbers in a district might determine, through the intervention first of mice and then of bees, the frequency of certain flowers in that district!

  • 11.27.2012 11:40 AM PDT

RIP Logan ~B.B.


Posted by: st3althsniper22
We're top of the food chain because we're clever, resourceful, and can make tools. No other species is really close to competing with us.

Lots of species can do all those things. For example, chimps have proven they are self-aware by passing the mirror test. They certainly are clever. They can pass computer memorization tests far faster than any human. They are resourceful, as they can cooperate to solve complex puzzles to earn a reward. They have society, they communicate, they can make both peace and war amongst themselves, and yes, they can even make tools. They fashion spears to hunt and kill nocturnal animals that bury themselves into dens during the day. They will strip small sticks to use to pull ants out of an anthill without destroying it. They even share 98% identical DNA to us. Are they serious competition right now? No. But, if our offspring aren't the ones to dominate the future, they seem the next suitable replacement for us, or the most likely to catch up and live along side us.

  • 11.27.2012 10:10 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3