- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
- Messages
- 28,134
- Reaction score
- 15,024
- Location
- Canada's Capital
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
We are not talking about everyone. :shrug:
Right. The ethical ones won't eat it.
We are not talking about everyone. :shrug:
I say eat whatever you want, kill what ever you want. If the species is really important than its value alive will allow it to survive, if it is useless it will die. Darwinism is a fact of life, protecting animals from survival of the fittest is rather absurd.
I say eat whatever you want, kill what ever you want. If the species is really important than its value alive will allow it to survive, if it is useless it will die. Darwinism is a fact of life, protecting animals from survival of the fittest is rather absurd.
And just what does Darwinism have to do with man hunting with weapons?
You know, humans can kill every animal on this planet if they wanted to.
darwinism applies to only killing what is needed for survival, not profit
No it does not. Animals kill for enjoyment and power all the time not for food only. Look at how Lions fights over land, Chimps brawl and kill for supremacy or cause they are bored and want to rip a weak chimps **** off.
Darwanism means the strong will survive and the weak will die out.
thats my point, territorial and dominance disputes are natural, the systematic destruction of another species is not, the only animal that compare to humans is locusts
Systematic destruction of other species happens all the time, through enviromental changes, or the dominance of a Predator. We are the dominant predetor and yes certain animals will go exctinct, but others will take their place. Thats how it works.
see the thing is, nature had millions of years to place things in biological niches
False, changes can and do happen rapidly even without human intervention. Like about 10000 years ago with the mass extinction of many species and almost ours.
1. Weapons are part of evolution.
2. Just because it isnt fair doesnt make it unnatural. For example is it a fair match between a shark and a seal?
To your other point, man can kill every animal but he wont. Why you ask?
Simple if the animal (whale) has a benefit to man and can make him money, then they will be saved through market economics. If the animal is useless then why would we hunt it?
Weapons are not natural. There is nothing natural about that evolution. :doh:doh:doh
As for your second point, I have no idea what you mean exactly. Are you saying that if an animal is of benefit (solely monetarily), then man will preserve it? And plenty of "useless" animals are hunted all of the time
Weapons are tools of war, tools are used by many animals including Elephants and Monkeys. Weapons are the natural progression of evolution.
Those animals who are cute or are tasty will survive, those that are not needed or appreciated by men will die. So cuteness and tastiness will be their strength.
The strongest and most efficient bee-bee gun did not naturally evolve into a revolver. Objects don't naturally evolve, and any one who thinks so is plain nuts.
As to your second point, let me know when rats are going to die as a species