yay, another gift from god

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by YomMamasHouse

While you are correct about populations naturally leveling themselves out from extremes the problem with that is, as many people have said, humans do not have their spot in the balance of nature. When you put an excess of predators in an ecosystem you will see the numbers teeter back and forth then balance, but the problem with humans is that nature does not recover from us the way it does from having too many predators, or too many herbivores overeating. When humans reach the breaking point the earth is going to be damaged a lot more than it would be from any other animal. Other animals cannot lay concrete, pollute water and air, or clear cut entire stretches of forest like us.

And if that were true, we like the dinosaurs would eventually cease to be and a new, better, perhaps more environmentally friendly species, would be able to evolve, right?

Scuzzy

[YomMamasHouse]

It is always possible, but I think I would like to see humans survive, maybe even spread to other planets before our sun is exhausted. I think it if we cut down on our population, and thus indirectly our resource and land consumption we can live in a good balance with the rest of the animal population on this world and still manage to further our technology and possibly escape our at the moment inevitable extinction.

If we are to be replaced with a new species then I also think it would be nice of us to leave the World in is good shape as possible for them.

[Zydell]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Zydell, again, you're dodging and deflecting by asking a loaded question. Mine was simple and I'd like to hear your take on it: Is it ok for a species to become extinct, and if so, when?

Perhaps it's because you ignore mine. It's pretty obvious that I don't care about species being extinct because of other animals and I think it is totally different when humans are the reason.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

You're saying man is bless to act by reason, help me understand where you want this debate to go. Are you arguing that since God blessed man with soul (and his ability to reason) we should be responsible with what he gave us? Or, are you saying that man does not have a soul, but we have evolved to use reason, and therefor have a responsibility to take care of the earth?

I don't see how it matters if man has a soul or not. It matters because we reason, think, make decisions by using logic, make choices because we value life, health and many other things. It is this that sets us apart from animals that act by hunger, pain, instinct. Of course this comes with responsibility and you agree on that, don't you?

Now what did this discussion start with? a christian family and then overpopulation. Surely you deny that overpopulation is not happining now, that's fine, but where would we be if we all followed this ‘great’ christian example? What they are doing is wrong, it's an example of how you should not act.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Zydell

Perhaps it's because you ignore mine. It's pretty obvious that I don't care about species being extinct because of other animals and I think it is totally different when humans are the reason.

I ask a question, you answer with a dodging different question, I ask you to go back and answer mine and you refuse to because I didn't answer your dodge question. That is the most childish thing I have seen here yet. We both know you don't have an answer for my question, because you don't like the obvious answer. You can debate yourself from now on kid.

Scuzzy

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by YomMamasHouse

It is always possible, but I think I would like to see humans survive, maybe even spread to other planets before our sun is exhausted. I think it if we cut down on our population, and thus indirectly our resource and land consumption we can live in a good balance with the rest of the animal population on this world and still manage to further our technology and possibly escape our at the moment inevitable extinction.

If we are to be replaced with a new species then I also think it would be nice of us to leave the World in is good shape as possible for them.

The war is Iraq is ironically, yet positively, helping the environment by reducing the planet's population, isn't is?

Scuzzy

[Zydell]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I ask a question, you answer with a dodging different question, I ask you to go back and answer mine and you refuse to because I didn't answer your dodge question. That is the most childish thing I have seen here yet. We both know you don't have an answer for my question, because you don't like the obvious answer. You can debate yourself from now on kid.

No I did not refuse to answer your question, I just answered it in my last post, and I've been trying to explain over and over again also why there is a big difference between animals taking what they want and human beings doing the same (that's the initial question you asked).

Here's a list of unanswered questions:
- Scuzzy, dont you agree that balance in nature is being distorted by humans?
- By the way (contra-question), there are humans who lack these skills/features, why are they in your view different from animals?
- So what is your point Scuzzy, that it's ok for humans to take whatever they want? How can you live so unharmonious with what ‘God’ gave you?
- But you are saying that it's ok to take as much as we need, and you do believe that we're not damaging anything at this moment now?

And I'm the ‘kid’ who's been neglecting your questions over and over again, sure I'll bereave this thread of myself.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Zydell

No I did not refuse to answer your question, I just answered it in my last post, and I've been trying to explain over and over again also why there is a big difference between animals taking what they want and human beings doing the same (that's the initial question you asked).

I didn't ask anything about man making species extinct, I asked if it was OK for a species to become extinct, and when.

Originally Posted by Zydell

Dont you agree that balance in nature is being distorted by humans?

Humans are part of nature, therefor they and their actions are part of nature. There is no "balance" in nature, it's a myth.

By the way (contra-question), there are humans who lack these skills/features, why are they in your view different from animals?

What skills?

Originally Posted by Zydell

So what is your point Scuzzy, that it's ok for humans to take whatever they want? How can you live so unharmonious with what ‘God’ gave you?

I believe man uses what God provides to him.

Originally Posted by Zydell

But you are saying that it's ok to take as much as we need, and you do believe that we're not damaging anything at this moment now?

When I eat an apple I damage the apple, I produce waste because of the apple. I believe this is part of nature, but could be defined as "damaging anything".

Originally Posted by Zydell

And I'm the ‘kid’ who's been neglecting your questions over and over again, sure I'll bereave this thread of myself.

Is it ok for a species to become extinct, and if so, when?

Scuzzy

[Sacrifist]

The government has been using plenty of means to stop overpopulation. Just take a look at all the diseases out there and tell me they really dont have a cure for them lol. They make tons of money and hold down the population by not releasing cures for diseases. This is just my opinion as I always think the government is hiding something hehe

[squeek.]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Is it ok for a species to become extinct, and if so, when?

Originally Posted by Zydell

I don't care about species being extinct because of other animals and I think it is totally different when humans are the reason.

[YomMamasHouse]

When I eat an apple I damage the apple, I produce waste because of the apple. I believe this is part of nature, but could be defined as "damaging anything".

He is asking you if what we are taking is fair, and if we should be okay with ourselves taking everything that we currently are form nature. What you should be considering is not that we take fruits and eat them, but rather things like clear cutting forest, because we want wood, pushing animal populations out fo their homes because we want the space, things like that.

You have a thing for accusing people of being off topic so the way this relates to the topic is - the more people we have on the planet, the more resources we are going to need, which presents a problem in the form of potential resource depletion.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by squeek.

Squeeks Quote...

Originally Posted by Zydell

I am saying that this is ignorance, look at endangered animal species, look at cutting rainforests. etc.

If he doesn't care then why are endangered species a problem?

Scuzzy

[uBeR]

read the quote again.

[squeek.]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

If he doesn't care then why are endangered species a problem?

Originally Posted by Zydell

it is totally different when humans are the reason.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

read the quote again.

LOL thanks uBer

Originally Posted by Zydell

I don't care about species being extinct because of other animals and I think it is totally different when humans are the reason.

Could it ever be part of nature that man causes the extinction of a species?

[Player]

Not when they take resources they don't need.

[squeek.]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Could it ever be part of nature that man causes the extinction of a species?

Not past the agricultural revolution.

[Zydell]

Scuzzy, what are you thanking uBer for? Anyways, as far as I am concerned this little ‘discussion’ ended when you started to personally offend me, besides this is evolving more and more into discussin/arguing rather than debating and I'm not interested in that.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Zydell

Scuzzy, what are you thanking uBer for? Anyways, as far as I am concerned this little ‘discussion’ ended when you started to personally offend me, besides this is evolving more and more into discussin/arguing rather than debating and I'm not interested in that.

I was thanking him for pointing out I had misread your statement. but no problem, I'll stop debating this subject with you per your request. I don't want to personally offend you again, I can see that it's difficult for you to take criticism.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by squeek.

Not past the agricultural revolution.

First Question:
What if keeping a species alive means keeping them all in cages? What if we've already destroyed their entire natural habitate, and we've been unable to transplant them elsewhere to live? How much energy, pollution, waste, and natural resources should we consume to keep a species locked in cages for the rest of their existance? Also, why is it wrong, because of God, or because it makes some people feel bad to know they are gone?

Second Question:
Should man live completely within the developments he has now and the population he has now? Even if he builts no more structures, and takes up no more land, any increase in population is obviously going to require more resources (water/food), which take away from other species... eventually, even though we need them, they could die off. Is that an OK way to wipe out a species, because we need the resources as well?

Third Question:
Would creating new species through genetic manipulation and crossing make up for destroying other species?

Scuzzy

[uBeR]

The point is to not destroy vital ecosystems in the first place. From my own interpretation, when God says humans have dominion over the the plants and animals, that does not give us the right to kill God's creatures. We have become so separated from nature that what we do is now considered unnatural. We were not placed on this earth to destroy our biodiversity for the profits of our shareholders, but unfortunately that is what we have succumbed to.