View Full Version : Northern White Rhino
Moving photo of a zoo worker comforting the dying northern white rhino called Sudan, who passed away two days ago aged 45. Sudan was the last male ever - there are just 2 females left, both in captivity. When they are gone, this animal is extinct forever.
43075
And they had to put him under 24 hour armed guard the last few years of his life to keep poachers from shooting him for his horn. Thanks humans... We suck.
hell_storm2004
03-21-18, 08:17 PM
Quite a sad thing this happened. I dont know, does cross breeding work for rhinos?
And yes, we do really suck at this! :mad:
Quite a sad thing this happened. I dont know, does cross breeding work for rhinos?
And yes, we do really suck at this! :mad:
Yes it does work. Cross breeding works forall mammals. But extinction is forever. Yep I totally agree, matey, We really effing suck at life. This is so effed up it effing wrecked my effing day the second I saw it, and i was having such a good one too, but I'm pretty sure it wreckedSudan and his wives' day even effingmore!
Such a gorgeous photo, though. I just couldnt stay angry.
Citizen Rules
04-07-18, 11:35 PM
There's no evolution without extinction. Think about that.
Here's another species now in red alert & heading for extinction - the Vaquita marina.
Interesting article that explains much about how this is happening. Simply tragic.
We must be a savage species on the whole to cause so much destruction.
https://news.mongabay.com/2018/03/only-12-vaquita-porpoises-remain-watchdog-groups-report/
43580
There's no evolution without extinction. Think about that.
In that case the greatest boost to exploring new evolutionary paths would be the extinction of the over-dominant Homo sapiens.
Citizen Rules
04-07-18, 11:46 PM
In that case the greatest boost to exploring new evolutionary paths would be the extinction of the over-dominant Homo sapiens. That is true..
FYI, I do think extinction at the hand of humans is very, very sad.
FYI, I do think extinction at the hand of humans is very, very sad.
I think what most gets to me is the ephemeral nature of the 'gain' at the cost of something so huge like total extinction. People make so many bucks and then just move on to something else. Meanwhile, thousands, even millions years of years of development are just gone in a few decades.
Likewise, these constructors who trashed an ancient pyramid in Belize for stones for road fill (??) (and they knew exactly what they were doing).
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-22521669
In that case the greatest boost to exploring new evolutionary paths would be the extinction of the over-dominant Homo sapiens.
homo sapiens are needed to explore the mysteries of the universe , because they are the only ones with power to think .
And "thinking" has lead us to the annihilation of countless species like this rhino. Life on earth and the universe in general would be better off if we werent "thinking" quite so much. It gives us the illusion of superiority and importance.
Citizen Rules
04-08-18, 03:23 PM
Humans need the Earth. Earth doesn't need us.
You westerners are full of self hate. Due to this westerners are declining in population but that would not lead to extinction of homo sapiens. Because other more confident and less self hating cultures are expanding in population.
hell_storm2004
04-08-18, 09:42 PM
There are only about 50 Amur Leopards left. It's time is almost up I guess.
I don't think there's any "illusion" of superiority or importance: we are important, and we are superior, and it is precisely these qualities that enable us to be disgusted with our own behavior to begin with.
There's an old saying about how, if you despise yourself, you at least still respect yourself as one who despises. Someone who can still stand outside that bad behavior to critique it. That's pretty much what's happening here. It's meaningless and self-contradictory to think the world would be better without us when we're the only species capable of making the value judgments that underpin words like "better."
Put another way, more in direct response to the original topic:
Humans are not the only species to eradicate another, but we're the only one who ever tried not to, or cared that we had.
I don't think there's any "illusion" of superiority or importance: we are important, and we are superior
I would strongly disagree. We are an arbitrary over consuming johnny come lately on this planet and there are life forms here that have been here long before us and who dominate the planet in comparison to us. And they dont even have any brains. Just because we can build micro chips or write poetry or split the atom or, yes, wipe out other species willy nilly and fret about it, even scramble to save one or two doesnt make us superior or important. At least not by my definition of superiority which is technical I admit and not at all religious.
And I DO exist so therefore I think its just fine to use the word "better" even when the supposition is about our non-existence. Because the comparison can be made after all. Philosophically and scientifically. And anyway its a lot more than about just the white rhino though.
I would strongly disagree. We are an arbitrary over consuming johnny come lately on this planet and there are life forms here that have been here long before us and who dominate the planet in comparison to us.
Why would a species' tenure matter in the context of moral value?
Also, when you say "dominate the planet," the only metric I can think of is sheer numbers. But that in no way relates to moral superiority, so I don't know why that would matter, either.
And they dont even have any brains. Just because we can build micro chips or write poetry or split the atom or, yes, wipe out other species willy nilly and fret about it, even scramble to save one or two doesnt make us superior or important.
Superior is a relative term, so it needs a point of comparison. What species do we not compare favorably to, and why? You say "save one or two," but that's one or two more than literally any other type of creature.
The things you're dismissing above aren't really related to the reason I gave, which had nothing to do with raw intelligence. The reason I gave is that any attempt to condemn us will inevitably invoke a moral standard we alone value and employ, which is ipso facto proof of our superiority.
The only way around this, logically, is to claim that the standard you're invoking is actually bigger than us or them, and exists independent of either. Which sounds pretty religious to me.
And I DO exist so therefore I think its just fine to use the word "better" even when the supposition is about our non-existence. Because the comparison can be made after all. Philosophically and scientifically.
There's no scientific basis for declaring something "better" in a value-based sense. And I can't imagine what the philosophical basis would be; it seems it would necessarily either be self-defeating or exactly as arbitrary as our superiority is.
Put another way, more in direct response to the original topic:
Humans are not the only species to eradicate another.
Which is the other, yods?
Here's another species now in red alert & heading for extinction - the Vaquita marina.
Interesting article that explains much about how this is happening. Simply tragic.
We must be a savage species on the whole to cause so much destruction.
https://news.mongabay.com/2018/03/only-12-vaquita-porpoises-remain-watchdog-groups-report/
43580
That is the most beautiful photo I have seen today!
Which is the other, yods?
Too many to count, I would think. Pretty much every species consumes and expands as much as it's able without any thought to the effects. If the ones we see now aren't doing it, it's only because so many already have in the slow build towards whatever fragile, unintentional equilibrium they currently inhabit.
None of this is a defense of myopic hunting or mistreating of animals, by the way. I assume nobody thinks that's the idea, but might as well make it explicit.
Too many to count, I would think. .
So just an assumption then?
I would assume no species other than hoooomans have wiped another out, but I dont know.
(Pssst I'm not trying to be a bitch, just trying to learn.)
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=because+she%27s+a+bitch+ahs+meme&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiA3JiD9q3aAhUBULwKHaKXCdYQ_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=662#imgrc=qEHrCTjGWlYg2M:
So just an assumption then?
I guess that depends on what you think qualifies as an assumption. I have never seen a rhino kill a zebra, but I'm sure it's happened. It seems logically inevitable given what we know about animal behavior and the sheer numbers of each.
Similarly, animals exhibit no real regard for the effects of their actions and are pretty much constantly trying to kill and consume one another, so it seems similarly inevitable that tons of them have been wiped out by the actions of others.
I would assume no species other than hoooomans have wiped another out, but I dont know.
To be clear, I'm not considering intent when saying this. I just mean that their actions have led to it.
(Pssst I'm not trying to be a bitch, just trying to learn.)
I have no objection to you calling me to defend or account for what I'm saying. :) Thanks for the sentiment all the same, though.
I guess that depends on what you think qualifies as an assumption. I have never seen a rhino kill a zebra, but I'm sure it's happened. It seems logically inevitable given what we know about animal behavior and the sheer numbers of each.
Similarly, animals exhibit no real regard for the effects of their actions and are pretty much constantly trying to kill and consume one another, so it seems similarly inevitable that tons of them have been wiped out by the actions of others.
To be clear, I'm not considering intent when saying this. I just mean that their actions have led to it.
I have no objection to you calling me to defend or account for what I'm saying. :) Thanks for the sentiment all the same, though.
1. No it doesnt. That's fine.
2. I didnt mention intent.
3. You're welcomr :)
4. This is fun but I'll tire quickly.
Pfft, amateur. I was tired before I even started talking about it! ;)
Pfft, amateur. I was tired before I even started talking about it! ;)
LMAO. Gold. You're the best forum owner I've ever had the joy of dealing with, Yods.
Stirchley
04-09-18, 05:26 PM
homo sapiens are needed to explore the mysteries of the universe , because they are the only ones with power to think .
What are you saying? That animals don’t think?
You westerners are full of self hate.
Bizarre statement that makes zero sense.
hell_storm2004
04-09-18, 05:29 PM
Animals do kill other other animals, but it not to the point of extinction. Its a fine balance that nature has, hunters are just as important as the hunted. Some predators have died out, because either the climate or terrain changed or just too much competition. Humans are the only species i know of hunting for fun rather than for need.
Sad part is, its the carnivores that are the first to feel the blow of some change. Cat species are the most fascinating in the animal kingdom, and their numbers are currently going down. Although Tiger population has increased a little bit, but only a little bit.
Domestic cats have pushed a few birds to the brink of extinction. Not to the mention the Lion fish.
Animals do kill other other animals, but it not to the point of extinction. Its a fine balance that nature has, hunters are just as important as the hunted. Some predators have died out, because either the climate or terrain changed or just too much competition. Humans are the only species i know of hunting for fun rather than for need.
Sad part is, its the carnivores that are the first to feel the blow of some change. Cat species are the most fascinating in the animal kingdom, and their numbers are currently going down. Although Tiger population has increased a little bit, but only a little bit.
Domestic cats have pushed a few birds to the brink of extinction. Not to the mention the Lion fish.
I've seen foxes hunt for fun but I dont know if they have caused extinction. Maybe they have but I just dont know.
hell_storm2004
04-09-18, 05:32 PM
You westerners are full of self hate. Due to this westerners are declining in population but that would not lead to extinction of homo sapiens. Because other more confident and less self hating cultures are expanding in population.
http://www.memeaholic.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/jackie_chan1-1024x649.png
Why would a species' tenure matter in the context of moral value?
Ok when I was using the term "superior" I wasnt speaking morally superior. We are probably the only life form on earth capable of morality. Of course that doesnt keep us from being horrifically immoral a lot of the time but in comparison to any other species our potential for morality is higher in that its more than zero since we are the only species who can apparently conceptualize it.
I was speaking superior in terms of dominant life form. We fancy ourselves such but we are incredibly dependent on much "lower" life forms. Plants dominate this planet not the tiny little mammals that skitter between them. Any alien that went into orbit around our planet would conclude that right away. If plants were to disappear tomorrow we would be dead in a matter of days. If all plankton were wiped out, the food chain would collapse and we would all die in weeks or months. And if all bacteria were to vanish we would go in MINUTES since we are super dependent on bacteria to run our bodies correctly. Without them forget about digesting food among other things. In fact, the aspect of us as single independent organisms contained in our own bodies unconnected and shielded from the rest of the world and universe is also an illusion. We are a motley collection of organisms bound together in a bag of skin that happens to look like one being. But we are mostly micro-organisms not mostly human. There are ten times as many bacterial cells INSIDE and ON us then there are human cells. We are, to the closest approximation, thriving communities of bacteria encased in a human shell. We are not superior in the least... We are dependent on these brainless microscopic bugs inside us to keep us alive and allow us to THINK about ways to kill more rhinos. And, sure, to save them too. So in effect micro-organisms allow our morality. And our immorality. And in the end, micro-organisms are the dominant form of life on earth.
But sorry I think Ive gotten a bit far afield here. :D
There's no scientific basis for declaring something "better" in a value-based sense. And I can't imagine what the philosophical basis would be; it seems it would necessarily either be self-defeating or exactly as arbitrary as our superiority is.
So again, my statement was about certain life forms being better OFF without us being around (all things being equal). Im just noting that the organisms our existence is detrimental to would, logically, be better off if our existence wasnt detrimental to them. And if our existence wasnt part of the equation at all then they would of course be better off since we would not be around to be detrimental to them in the first place. No need for higher standards in that equation.Just biology.
And this isnt necessarily about killing other life forms. Thats natural. Its that our existence by its very nature has lead to the unnatural alteration of the environment and the unnatural destruction of so so many species. Very few species on earth annihilate other species because it inevitably causes an imbalance that comes back to harm the killer species. But its very much because we have a technological superiority (theres your superiority) that is WAY ahead of our moral superiority at this point AND thats way ahead of natures ability to adapt to said changes thats causing so many problems. We cause damage by being "smart" but barely notice it until it threatens us directly. And by then its FAR worse then anything that could come about in nature. Perhaps this is one of the filters that limits the evolution of intelligent life forms in the universe and causes them to kill themselves off before they can colonize the galaxy. Who knows. And again Im meandering... But thats always an intriguing topic to discuss: where are all the smart aliens and what happens when technology outstrips our ability to contain it?
Stirchley
04-09-18, 05:58 PM
Domestic cats have pushed a few birds to the brink of extinction.
Which birds?
hell_storm2004
04-09-18, 06:09 PM
Socorro Dove is one i recall. Total is 33 species i believe. There are few birds in Hawaii which are on the brink.
Stirchley
04-09-18, 08:44 PM
Socorro Dove is one i recall. Total is 33 species i believe. There are few birds in Hawaii which are on the brink.
So you don’t have any definite facts to support your statement.
Socorro Dove is one i recall. Total is 33 species i believe. There are few birds in Hawaii which are on the brink.
You're right and that's an important issue too.
The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380
Domestic cats (Felis catus) are predators that humans have introduced globally and that have been listed among the 100 worst non-native invasive species in the world. Free-ranging cats on islands have caused or contributed to 33 (14%) of the modern bird, mammal and reptile extinctions recorded by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List. Mounting evidence from three continents indicates that cats can also locally reduce mainland bird and mammal populations and cause a substantial proportion of total wildlife mortality. Despite these harmful effects, policies for management of free-ranging cat populations and regulation of pet ownership behaviours are dictated by animal welfare issues rather than ecological impacts.
Superior is a relative term, so it needs a point of comparison. What species do we not compare favorably to, and why? You say "save one or two," but that's one or two more than literally any other type of creature.
The things you're dismissing above aren't really related to the reason I gave, which had nothing to do with raw intelligence. The reason I gave is that any attempt to condemn us will inevitably invoke a moral standard we alone value and employ, which is ipso facto proof of our superiority.
The only way around this, logically, is to claim that the standard you're invoking is actually bigger than us or them, and exists independent of either. Which sounds pretty religious to me.
I've read these paragraphs a few times now but still don't seem to understand here.
- Okay, so let's say we are the only species to possess the cognitive skills and abilities to apply a superior moral standard that condemns ourselves; whereas other species that also commit widespread, organized killing (like army ants) or thrill killing (like foxes) do not.
Are you then saying that this awareness nullifies the self-condemnation?
If, for example, a woman rebukes her husband for losing his temper and kicking a dog, then isn't she applying a moral standard that is greater than the man and the dog?
hell_storm2004
04-09-18, 11:33 PM
So you don’t have any definite facts to support your statement.
You're right and that's an important issue too.
The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380
Domestic cats (Felis catus) are predators that humans have introduced globally and that have been listed among the 100 worst non-native invasive species in the world. Free-ranging cats on islands have caused or contributed to 33 (14%) of the modern bird, mammal and reptile extinctions recorded by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List. Mounting evidence from three continents indicates that cats can also locally reduce mainland bird and mammal populations and cause a substantial proportion of total wildlife mortality. Despite these harmful effects, policies for management of free-ranging cat populations and regulation of pet ownership behaviours are dictated by animal welfare issues rather than ecological impacts.
There you go!
Of course thats more an example of man altering his environment (by domesticating and taking cats everywhere) than it is a natural example of animals killing off other species. It only happens because of mans interference.
hell_storm2004
04-10-18, 03:46 PM
Yes, it is. Just ask Australians! They were planning to cull a lot of the feral cat population there. I dont know what happened to it. Brigitte Bardot was quite against it. But got a schooling on twitter from Australians.
Yes, it is. Just ask Australians! They were planning to cull a lot of the feral cat population there. I dont know what happened to it. Brigitte Bardot was quite against it. But got a schooling on twitter from Australians.
That's not a knife!
Ask and you shall receive, Hellz
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/factsheet-tackling-feral-cats
Brigitte Bardot gets absolutely no say in our culling of introduced species gone 'Rogue' destroying our delicate ecosystems. Last time I went back country XC skiing I saw a cat the size of 4 domestic cats. Frightening stuff knowing cats like that are living quite happily in our very delicate alpine regions. I dont agree with 1080 being used as bait but I'm all for humane killing by professionals hunters.
Stirchley
04-11-18, 04:48 PM
If, for example, a woman rebukes her husband for losing his temper and kicking a dog, then isn't she applying a moral standard that is greater than the man and the dog?
What are you talking about?
hell_storm2004
04-11-18, 06:31 PM
That's not a knife!
Ask and you shall receive, Hellz
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/factsheet-tackling-feral-cats
Brigitte Bardot gets absolutely no say in our culling of introduced species gone 'Rogue' destroying our delicate ecosystems. Last time I went back country XC skiing I saw a cat the size of 4 domestic cats. Frightening stuff knowing cats like that are living quite happily in our very delicate alpine regions. I dont agree with 1080 being used as bait but I'm all for humane killing by professionals hunters.
Has the government started it or completed it already?
Has the government started it or completed it already?
I have no idea.
Earth Day is perhaps a good day to post this link:
12 rare animals that are teetering on the brink of extinction
http://uk.businessinsider.com/12-rare-animals-that-are-almost-extinct-2016-7
Bornean orangutan
43892
Giant otter
43893
Amur leopard
43894
:sick:
Luckily I got to see a pair of giant otter when I was there.You're right, Bonito - beautiful critters.
My eldest sister has recently come back from Borneo. Luckily she got to see the beautiful Orangs before the remaining families leave. It's catastrophic!!! :bawling:
:sick:
Luckily I got to see a pair of giant otter when I was there.You're right, Bonito - beautiful critters.
My eldest sister has recently come back from Borneo. Luckily she got to see the beautiful Orangs before the remaining families leave. It's catastrophic!!! :bawling:
You and your sister are indeed very lucky! :) - must have been a great experience. Sad though to hear about the catastrophic conditions.
There was also this article published today about birds:
One in eight birds is threatened with extinction, global study finds
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/23/one-in-eight-birds-is-threatened-with-extinction-global-study-finds
One in eight bird species is threatened with global extinction, and once widespread creatures such as the puffin, snowy owl and turtle dove are plummeting towards oblivion, according to the definitive study of global bird populations.
This was the original report:
https://www.birdlife.org/sites/default/files/attachments/BL_ReportENG_V11_spreads.pdf
43903
You and your sister are indeed very lucky! :) - must have been a great experience. Sad though to hear about the catastrophic conditions.
I stayed in a research lodge in the Amazon and on a research boat in Galapagos. It is indeed a great experience, especially these days with eco travel, trying to make amends for what my generation created last century. I recommend it, Bonito. I also saw rhino in my travels but not the white, alas.
And I have endangered animals here in my own country as well.The koalas are endangered due to the introduction of exotics, and humans/greed cutting down trees to make way for big money in shady real estate dealings. My Dad was offered a lot of money for one of his properties before he died. Thankfully he woke up to the greed and what it has done to this planet he donated it our Dept. of Forestries just before he died to create a wildlife corridor. My uncle and aunt also had a wildlife sanctuary for years but had to sell it due to aging.
I stayed in a research lodge in the Amazon and on a research boat in Galapagos. It is indeed a great experience, especially these days with eco travel, trying to make amends for what my generation created last century. I recommend it, Bonito. I also saw rhino in my travels but not the white, alas.
And I have endangered animals here in my own country as well.The koalas are endangered due to the introduction of exotics, and humans/greed cutting down trees to make way for big money in shady real estate dealings. My Dad was offered a lot of money for one of his properties before he died. Thankfully he woke up to the greed and what it has done to this planet he donated it our Dept. of Forestries just before he died to create a wildlife corridor. My uncle and aunt also had a wildlife sanctuary for years but had to sell it due to aging.
Very interesting experiences and you have a great family too, that's wonderful what your Dad did.
I think perhaps more promotion worldwide of eco-tourism might be a good route forward and offer the necessary financial incentives, especially in regions with high levels of unemployment and economic problems, but I don't know much about the sector and how it works. An interesting organized trip I saw on TV some years back concerned spending a couple of days taken by local guides to come close to mountain gorillas in Rwanda, it looked incredible.
I still remember clearly my one whale-watching trip (near the southern Spanish coast); the playful dolphins swimming alongside the boat were great but seeing a Mom-Dad-Baby trio of Orcas was just magical. I'll put a photo on your thread about animal photos.
Very interesting experiences and you have a great family too, that's wonderful what your Dad did.
I think perhaps more promotion worldwide of eco-tourism might be a good route forward and offer the necessary financial incentives, especially in regions with high levels of unemployment and economic problems, but I don't know much about the sector and how it works. An interesting organized trip I saw on TV some years back concerned spending a couple of days taken by local guides to come close to mountain gorillas in Rwanda, it looked incredible.
I still remember clearly my one whale-watching trip (near the southern Spanish coast); the playful dolphins swimming alongside the boat were great but seeing a Mom-Dad-Baby trio of Orcas was just magical. I'll put a photo on your thread about animal photos.
Yeah I went to see the mountain gorillas in Zaire. Unfortunately that continent is so rife with corruption that you'll never know where the money goes. Random factoid - Zaire/Democratic Republic of Congo has enough mineral resources to feed the entire continent. What happened? No infrastructure, and Mbutu, the thieving mongrel.
Sea otters vs. humans - an extinction dilemma
https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/sea-otters-and-survival-southeast-alaska
In the mid-1700s, an estimated 100,000 to 300,000 sea otters lived along the north Pacific coast—from California and Alaska, along the Pacific islands, and as far as the coasts of Russia and Japan. In 1741, Russian explorers began commercially harvesting sea otters for their fine, dense fur. Over the next 150 years, as the fur trade continued, the species was hunted to near extinction. In 1911, sea otter hunting was banned as part of the International Fur Seal Treaty. By that time, however, the colonies of otters that had existed in Southeast Alaska had been eliminated.
As the populations declined and eventually disappeared in this region, the species they fed on, including Dungeness crab, clams, and sea cucumbers, began to flourish. This quickly led to the development of a new, thriving fishing industry.
In the 1960s, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game released roughly 400 sea otters in Southeast Alaska as part of a larger effort to reintroduce the animals to their former habitat. Since that time, this top predator has made a significant comeback; its population in the region is now estimated at more than 25,000.
Sea otters are voracious eaters. Unlike other marine mammals, they don’t have blubber, or a fat layer, to stay warm, so they rely on their thick fur and high metabolism to survive in cold ocean waters. “Sea otters eat about 25 percent of their body weight in food every day,” said Dr. Heidi Pearson, associate professor of marine biology at the University of Alaska. “So if you think of a 150-pound person, that would be like eating 35 to 40 pounds of food a day.”
44092
Penguins (a cute chart)
44093
Yeah I went to see the mountain gorillas in Zaire. Unfortunately that continent is so rife with corruption that you'll never know where the money goes. Random factoid - Zaire/Democratic Republic of Congo has enough mineral resources to feed the entire continent. What happened? No infrastructure, and Mbutu, the thieving mongrel.
Yeh, I recently saw Mobutu on a list of the most corrupt politicians ever (at nº3).
https://www.forbes.com/pictures/eedh45fgjme/mohamed-suharto/#669398224156
Sorry, been a crazy few weeks, behind on a few of these discussions:
Are you then saying that this awareness nullifies the self-condemnation?
Not quite. I'm saying it nullifies the idea that we're inferior. Put another way: we cannot be judged inferior by a standard which would not exist without us.
If, for example, a woman rebukes her husband for losing his temper and kicking a dog, then isn't she applying a moral standard that is greater than the man and the dog?
I don't follow the analogy or how it maps onto this situation, exactly, so let me just clarify something instead and hope that helps:
When I say we're "superior," I mean it in a specific sense. Obviously a fruit fly has very little effect on the world for good or ill. It is not nearly as good as even a moderately decent person, and it's not even capable of causing as much harm as a moderately bad one. Humans are playing a higher-stakes game in every sense. They are "greater" in their potential. So while an individual may be worse than most animals, they are only worse because they are operating on a higher scale that affords them the opportunity to be much worse (or much greater) in the first place.
Ok when I was using the term "superior" I wasnt speaking morally superior. We are probably the only life form on earth capable of morality. Of course that doesnt keep us from being horrifically immoral a lot of the time but in comparison to any other species our potential for morality is higher in that its more than zero since we are the only species who can apparently conceptualize it.
Ah, you can probably disregard 80% of what I said, then. :laugh:
But sorry I think Ive gotten a bit far afield here. :D
Yeah, no problem. I will restrict my impulse to parse the preceding paragraph since it'd mostly be semantic stuff anyway. I really need to stop investigating minute definitional distinctions until I have exponentially more free time. ;)
So again, my statement was about certain life forms being better OFF without us being around (all things being equal). Im just noting that the organisms our existence is detrimental to would, logically, be better off if our existence wasnt detrimental to them. And if our existence wasnt part of the equation at all then they would of course be better off since we would not be around to be detrimental to them in the first place. No need for higher standards in that equation.Just biology.
I certainly have no intellectual objection here, but it does seem like the initial expressions have/had a moral edge to them. They sound like condemnations, like outrage. It doesn't really sound like a perfectly neutral observation about how our existence harms this or that species. It's got a clear undercurrent of anger.
And this isnt necessarily about killing other life forms. Thats natural. Its that our existence by its very nature has lead to the unnatural alteration of the environment and the unnatural destruction of so so many species. Very few species on earth annihilate other species because it inevitably causes an imbalance that comes back to harm the killer species.
This has always puzzled me: the use of the word "unnatural" to describe humans. Particularly in a materialistic worldview, where the only real definition of "natural" is "a thing that occurs in nature," as opposed to a metaphysical worldview, where "natural" could mean "behavior that is right or intended by some Higher Power," in which case our actions absolutely can be unnatural. But absent some metaphysical element I can't imagine what that term is supposed to mean.
But its very much because we have a technological superiority (theres your superiority) that is WAY ahead of our moral superiority at this point AND thats way ahead of natures ability to adapt to said changes thats causing so many problems. We cause damage by being "smart" but barely notice it until it threatens us directly. And by then its FAR worse then anything that could come about in nature. Perhaps this is one of the filters that limits the evolution of intelligent life forms in the universe and causes them to kill themselves off before they can colonize the galaxy. Who knows. And again Im meandering... But thats always an intriguing topic to discuss: where are all the smart aliens and what happens when technology outstrips our ability to contain it?
Yeah, the Great Filter discussion. It's a big one, with a lot of theological implications, but as you say, pretty far afield (though still interesting in any context).
hell_storm2004
05-09-18, 02:12 AM
https://www.worldatlas.com/r/w728-h425-c728x425/upload/3a/df/52/shutterstock-740325778.jpg
These are almost gone as well. Clouded Leopards. The only problem is, they are so secretive, no one can accurately gauge how many are left!
I certainly have no intellectual objection here, but it does seem like the initial expressions have/had a moral edge to them. They sound like condemnations, like outrage. It doesn't really sound like a perfectly neutral observation about how our existence harms this or that species. It's got a clear undercurrent of anger.
Well I certainly admit being angered by the Rhino story and other examples of humans wiping out animals for selfish reasons. Is that a bad thing? Doesnt effect the point about biology though.
This has always puzzled me: the use of the word "unnatural" to describe humans. Particularly in a materialistic worldview, where the only real definition of "natural" is "a thing that occurs in nature," as opposed to a metaphysical worldview, where "natural" could mean "behavior that is right or intended by some Higher Power," in which case our actions absolutely can be unnatural. But absent some metaphysical element I can't imagine what that term is supposed to mean.
When I use the term "natural" in this context I am basically alluding to the definition that natural things are "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind". Not any metaphysical definition which is a lot more nebulous and personal and requires faith I would think. In this way plastic or plutonium or the purposeful annihilation of species of animals are not natural things. They exist outside the normal cycles of nature and they therefore adversely effect nature in a negative way.
Yeah, the Great Filter discussion. It's a big one, with a lot of theological implications
I dont know that theology needs to enter into it necessarily. Even the discussion of advanced species existing (or not existing) in our universe can remain a biological one without impinging on notions of theological creation. Depending on your theology I guess. But to me, pretty much all of nature and all of what we understand about the universe can exist within the confines of scientific fact and theory without necessarily pressing on the confines of religious perspective. Unless of course you believe the earth is 6,000 years old...
Well I certainly admit being angered by the Rhino story and other examples of humans wiping out animals for selfish reasons. Is that a bad thing?
I don't know about it being a bad thing, but I'm not sure it's a rational thing. And I think it's interesting to examine how and why someone might be very angry about something while simultaneously agreeing it might not have a rational basis.
When I use the term "natural" in this context I am basically alluding to the definition that natural things are "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind". Not any metaphysical definition which is a lot more nebulous and personal and requires faith I would think. In this way plastic or plutonium or the purposeful annihilation of species of animals are not natural things. They exist outside the normal cycles of nature and they therefore adversely effect nature in a negative way.
Sure, I'm not saying you can't create a definition that excludes humankind. I just wonder what the logical reason for excluding us would be in, say, a materialist worldview. If humans are just animals, then it seems like a pretty arbitrary exclusion.
The response I'd expect here is: hey, clearly people are different from everything else. Which is true, but also a big ol' QED on most of these issues, because if we're so exceptional that we're the only thing in the universe that isn't "natural," that simultaneously undermines the idea that we should necessarily be bound by what's natural to begin with. Which ties neatly back into what I was saying earlier about condemning humanity with a standard that would not exist without them.
I dont know that theology needs to enter into it necessarily. Even the discussion of advanced species existing (or not existing) in our universe can remain a biological one without impinging on notions of theological creation. Depending on your theology I guess.
I think the implications are potentially profound for cosmological arguments and questions of probability, but given the appropriate presence of words like "can" and "necessarily" I certainly agree with this.
But to me, pretty much all of nature and all of what we understand about the universe can exist within the confines of scientific fact and theory without necessarily pressing on the confines of religious perspective.
Yup, agree completely.
https://www.worldatlas.com/r/w728-h425-c728x425/upload/3a/df/52/shutterstock-740325778.jpg
These are almost gone as well. Clouded Leopards. The only problem is, they are so secretive, no one can accurately gauge how many are left!
Has been a similar case with the Vaquitas, naturally very shy.
Citizen Rules
05-13-18, 03:27 PM
Has been a similar case with the Vaquitas, naturally very shy.Luckily we still have plenty of house cats left. That's not a joke, though I doubt many will know what I mean.
The drama continues.... Can Victoria save the day?
A Rhino in San Diego Is Pregnant—and Could Help Save the Subspecies
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-17/rhino-in-san-diego-pregnant-could-help-save-subspecies?
A southern white rhino has become pregnant through artificial insemination at the San Diego Zoo Safari Park — giving hope for efforts to save a subspecies of one of the world's most recognizable animals, researchers announced Thursday. Scientists will be watching closely to see if the rhino named Victoria can carry her calf to term over 16 to 18 months of gestation.
44573
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.