Let's bring back the dinosaurs too!!!!And every other thing that became extinct on this planet. This is evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest and every other cliche for what happens in the world. The only cause I am for is The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (<a class="user" href="http://www.vhemt.org/).">http://www.vhemt.org/).</a> The human race needs to start over from scratch.
Evolution isn't a goal in itself.As humans we could easily kill off, say, all the big cats. Is this desirable?Why not kill off all things we can kill off, and be left with a world in which there are rats, roaches and livestock. Doesn't that sound great? That would really be survival of the fittest!If a world consisting solely of livestock and those animals we can't kill is *not* desirable, as I would think most would agree, then why not try to avoid it?These extinctions isn't something that just happen, it's something we *do*. We can save these animals by simply not killing them.
@Junkyarddawgif you can't follow my argument and see how it derives from the comments preceding mine then there's nothing i can say that will demonstrate my point. sure, you might not be able to follow a logical chain of comprehension, i won't hold it against you. however, the fact that you jumped in out of nowhere and added conditions to my arguments that i didn't say and then proceeded to use that as an emotional basis to attack my position and then proceeded to tell me my initial point was irrelevant because it didn't follow your conditions is rather insulting. it's all semantics? of course it is, this is the way meanings are derived. i don't see how arguing semantics is bad in any way... do you even know what semantics means? look it up. all philosophy is semantics, but without arguing semantics we'd merely progress absurd notions similar to humans being outside of nature. in relation to the article, it's horrible that people are causing species to go extinct. however, does this mean the extinction of these species isn't truly natural? i've had many long arguments about these "mere semantics" and from what i understand, most people don't like my proposition. they do what you have done. immediately place labels on the terms artificial and natural. because if it's natural, it must inherently be good, and if it's artificial, it must inherently be bad, therefore i must be arguing that what people are doing is good. it's an illogical conclusion that people always attribute to my point. whether what we're doing is good or bad is a topic that's too subjective and too emotional to properly address. therefore i discuss semantics, because semantics is, after all, the study of meaning.
@ Reziarfg "bugsy...I think we've cloned sheep that have had offspring, so I'm pretty sure we're in the clear about that as far as technology goes."Real world cloning technology demonstrated with sheep involves fertilizing with a regular cell and egg and implanting it in a female. That won't help us save an endangered species. Cloning animals as in the feature film Jurassic Park would save these Leopards were it more than fiction.<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloning#Dolly_the_Sheep">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloning#Dolly_the_Sheep</a>
osceolaApr 21, 2007
The only reason this is on the front page is because of all the digg nerds that have cats.Why aren't we worried about saving the ugly animals?
fgirl917Apr 21, 2007
woah. yes. very well said. congrats
hirak99Apr 21, 2007
Good riddance.
Closed AccountApr 21, 2007
Because it is. The earth only has one environmental problem: way too many humans.It's extremely politically incorrect to point that out, though.
osceolaApr 22, 2007
Let's bring back the dinosaurs too!!!!And every other thing that became extinct on this planet. This is evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest and every other cliche for what happens in the world. The only cause I am for is The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (<a class="user" href="http://www.vhemt.org/).">http://www.vhemt.org/).</a> The human race needs to start over from scratch.
Closed AccountApr 22, 2007
Evolution isn't a goal in itself.As humans we could easily kill off, say, all the big cats. Is this desirable?Why not kill off all things we can kill off, and be left with a world in which there are rats, roaches and livestock. Doesn't that sound great? That would really be survival of the fittest!If a world consisting solely of livestock and those animals we can't kill is *not* desirable, as I would think most would agree, then why not try to avoid it?These extinctions isn't something that just happen, it's something we *do*. We can save these animals by simply not killing them.
biuebonicsApr 22, 2007
@Junkyarddawgif you can't follow my argument and see how it derives from the comments preceding mine then there's nothing i can say that will demonstrate my point. sure, you might not be able to follow a logical chain of comprehension, i won't hold it against you. however, the fact that you jumped in out of nowhere and added conditions to my arguments that i didn't say and then proceeded to use that as an emotional basis to attack my position and then proceeded to tell me my initial point was irrelevant because it didn't follow your conditions is rather insulting. it's all semantics? of course it is, this is the way meanings are derived. i don't see how arguing semantics is bad in any way... do you even know what semantics means? look it up. all philosophy is semantics, but without arguing semantics we'd merely progress absurd notions similar to humans being outside of nature. in relation to the article, it's horrible that people are causing species to go extinct. however, does this mean the extinction of these species isn't truly natural? i've had many long arguments about these "mere semantics" and from what i understand, most people don't like my proposition. they do what you have done. immediately place labels on the terms artificial and natural. because if it's natural, it must inherently be good, and if it's artificial, it must inherently be bad, therefore i must be arguing that what people are doing is good. it's an illogical conclusion that people always attribute to my point. whether what we're doing is good or bad is a topic that's too subjective and too emotional to properly address. therefore i discuss semantics, because semantics is, after all, the study of meaning.
didgitalApr 23, 2007
And one of the last 7 females was just killed:<a class="user" href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070423/sc_nm/russia_leopard_dc">http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070423/sc_nm/russia_leopard_dc</a>
link470Apr 23, 2007
The photographer captured quite the picture, that is indeed an adorable animal. I wouldn't want to see one of those die.
bugsy187Apr 26, 2007
@ Reziarfg "bugsy...I think we've cloned sheep that have had offspring, so I'm pretty sure we're in the clear about that as far as technology goes."Real world cloning technology demonstrated with sheep involves fertilizing with a regular cell and egg and implanting it in a female. That won't help us save an endangered species. Cloning animals as in the feature film Jurassic Park would save these Leopards were it more than fiction.<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloning#Dolly_the_Sheep">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloning#Dolly_the_Sheep</a>