Endangered Species Act (UPDATED!)

[FS]

If nature itself decides that a species of animal has to go, then yes, the void is filled up by nature. If humanity decides to wipe out a species of animal, they might be wiping out an entire food chain and possibly an entire ecosystem.

[VinceZeb]

Bubba: You are too weak-willed and limp-wristed to be a libertarian. But your vote counts the same (unfortuantly).

FS: Isnt human beings wiping out a species of animals just nature taking placE? I mean, if we are no more important than the apes or tigers or lions, isn't that just nature taking it's course, except on a much larger scale?

[FS]

I don't think so. No species of animal gangs up on another species to kill it, or kills them on a mass scale. In nature, animals live and hunt in small groups or alone. Once you've acquired sentience, it actually doesn't take much effort to cause great change - or damage - to nature.

However, I'm not so sure if that would be the case with an endangered species. I think that the disappearance of a species of already a low count would not have a very significant impact on the ecosystem they live in.

That's not to say that I don't find it a great pity when a species of animal vanishes, because they can't be brought back. Arguably, human interefence to preserve can be just as damaging as negative human interference, but not if people simply decide to withdraw and let nature handle itself.

[VinceZeb]

But, if everything is from the same pool of ooze, and everything is evolved, arent we just a part of nature, and thus are just nature taking it's course?

[Bennett]

If that would be what we choose to do, then yes, it would be nature taking its course. The repercussions of that, and nature taking it's course further would not be pleasant, however.

[FS]

Personally, I see human sentience as a freak of nature. So, most of our undertakings and accomplishments, I see as unnatural. That may seem weak, but when you look at the main drives behind all of nature, you'll find that they don't match with the average human's priorities (of one living in the "1st World", anyway).

[kahljorn]

Of course they do... Catfish are attracted to shiny objects. That about sums up the Human Existence.


"No species of animal gangs up on another species to kill it"
Wolves, pirhana, lions, tigers, bears oh my.

[VinceZeb]

FS, that whole "abormality" (sinc) you see in humans is what 95% of the world likes to call a "soul" or "divine creation or purpose".

[CaptainBubba]

I still think its silly. The forests will not be eradicated. Thats ridiculous. There is no such danger, and its a lie perpetuated by nature people that I actually despise.

As for species, well, if they don't really serve a nessecary purpose for all of humanity then its up to the individual to protect them in my opinion. If you feel that strongly about it I think you should do something about it yourself instead of asking the government to use my tax dollars for it.

Just so you know though, I'm somewhat of an animal lover, so this is in no way a biased opinion. Merley part of my principals. Something I stay true to despite my inner and external turmoil over it. This is a highlight of being a true Libertarian.

Though I'm sure Vince would argue its more about your strength aquired through vigorous masturbation. And will power? You can't even muster up the will to admit your own defeats and mishaps.

[kahljorn]

"if they don't really serve a nessecary purpose for all of humanity"

.

[CaptainBubba]

If they didn't then how could you morally justify forcing others to pay for the species protection?

Ethics before desires.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by CaptainBubba

I still think its silly. The forests will not be eradicated. Thats ridiculous. There is no such danger, and its a lie perpetuated by nature people that I actually despise. .

Well I was really being rather facietious back there.

As for species, well, if they don't really serve a nessecary purpose for all of humanity then its up to the individual to protect them in my opinion. If you feel that strongly about it I think you should do something about it yourself instead of asking the government to use my tax dollars for it.

The same could be said of any government program, not just environmental protection.

Anyway, perhaps it is we who are driving ourselves to extinction . The destruction of one species, even one which has little direct importance to humanity, impacts ecosystems as a whole and may have unforeseen and undesireable consequences for humanity.


Wantonly destoying nature amounts to playing God, in my opinion.

[kahljorn]

"If they didn't then how could you morally justify forcing others to pay for the species protection?"

Um, how could I morally do it? By morally stating that removing animals and slaughtering innocent creatures so some dimwitted guy like you can have a mini-mall to buy the latest linkin park cd is rather Immoral.
OH MY GOD. IT'S IMMORAL TO POINTLESSLY DESTROY PEOPLE AND CREATURES? JEEBUS. Who would have thought

Besides, it doesn't cost people any money to stop cutting down trees and destroying habitats. It only costs as a matter of Revenue.

[FS]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Of course they do... Catfish are attracted to shiny objects. That about sums up the Human Existence.

But their life's goal is not to acquire shiny objects. Like all animals, their life's goal is to survive and procreate.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

"No species of animal gangs up on another species to kill it"
Wolves, pirhana, lions, tigers, bears oh my.

They hunt in small groups and only on small groups. They don't collectively join to destroy an animal's habitat nor do they hunt more than they need.

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

FS, that whole "abormality" (sinc) you see in humans is what 95% of the world likes to call a "soul" or "divine creation or purpose".

I knew that point would eventually come up, and there's really no counterpoint I can bring up to debase belief. However, people who believe in a soul or divine origin probably also believe in evil, and that humans are not compareable to animals. In the long line of things, I doubt these people believe that construction projects or industries have much to do with any divine plan.

[VinceZeb]

The three main spirtual groups in the world (Christanity/Judaism/Islam) teach that the world is for humans do what we will, but we must take care of it and the animals as well. There is no polar opposites when it comes to capitalism/conservation. The only people that see that there is a problem is the wacko-enviromentalist and the super greedy objectivist.

[CaptainBubba]

"OH MY GOD. IT'S IMMORAL TO POINTLESSLY DESTROY PEOPLE AND CREATURES"

You added "people" and "pointlessly" in there so that would be true. You're as shady as the proposed bill. moron.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

The three main spirtual groups in the world (Christanity/Judaism/Islam) teach that the world is for humans do what we will, but we must take care of it and the animals as well. There is no polar opposites when it comes to capitalism/conservation. The only people that see that there is a problem is the wacko-enviromentalist and the super greedy objectivist.

Oh my God...I agree with Vince. Did I slip into some mirror universe and not realize it or what?