Political Crossfire Forums

[Kindred]

John Galt wrote: social wrote: John Galt wrote: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-03-20T161132Z_01_L20719283_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-DIVERSITY.xml&rpc=22

I had thought that one goes extinct every 15 minutes? Google "species extinct minutes" you'll find pleanty of sites that say this, or something like it (100 evry day!!1!!!!!!!OMG!!1!!!111). The UN says that 884 species are extinct in the last 500 years. That's hardly anything, and if there are more that we didn't know about -- why do we care? There is no real reason to care, as they are just animals and we seem to be doing just fine without them and in many cases, it is a better place since they are gone. So what if they are gone? We have plenty more and those that are useful will never become extinct. I for one would rather not have my sky blackened for days as the passenger pigons came by the billions to rape the land and cover it in guano, although it would be fun to just shoot in the air and have them fall from the sky like mana from heaven.

Don't you remember the classes at school in which you learnt that killing just one animal in a food chain results in the whole chain being affected? Every species is precious...

Also, how can you even suppose that we (we, as in, human beings) are doing 'just fine' without animals? We're destroying the world's natural environments and replacing them with unsustainable, and polluted societies, which though they've led to a rapid advancement of mankind, will I fear eventually lead to its downfall. This is ironic really; but it's important to recognise that one simply cannot mess with animals and the environment on a whim...and certainly not to satisfy your Randist ideology, whose cardinal principle is to treat all things - humans and non-humans alike - for one's own personal gain...

Well, OK, you fear that. I fear that WITHOUT rapid advancement our downfall comes. As we can see, third world countries are by far the worst polluters for what they are producing. We can afford to worry about the enviornment. Isn't that amazing? Now, anyway, these third world countries, and ours, needs more advancement. With more advancement comes a cleaner enviornment. Everyone's happier. Me, with my cheaper products, and you, with your cleaner-than-nature outdoors. Anyway, that's my prefrence. It's different than yours. You don't have to buy it. OK. But I don't have to buy yours and it would be certianly immoral to force your prefrence on me.

As for some species dying, sure, I know about the food chain. Bt this fragile web wasn't always the same way. Species come and go. Other species adapt. And that wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.

First world nations pollute far more per capita than any third world could hope to.

This issue comes down to inter-generational equity: i.e. why should you chose what species future generaiton can and can't experience. Of course, as social pointed out, the food chain is also of major importance, and even keeping with a liberal tradition of freedom, preserving such systems is intergral to retaining freedoms equal to that which can be preserved whilst ensuring (or not deleteriously effecting) the freedom of others.

People have a hard time thinking about scales in social justice issues; both temporal and spatial. In every science people usually concentrate on finer scales as it's easy to do, whereas broadening scales creates new suits of complexities. This is why people like Galt prefer only to focus on one spatial and temporal scale, and it is by no coincidence that it is the finest, simplest scale available- the temporal scale is right now, in the very recent past, or the immediate future, whilst the spatial scale is fine, and focuses mainly on direct interactions between individuals. In reality, indirect, diffuse interactions which occur on broad spatial and temporal scales are a major source of injustice, but a source too often overlooked.

[mathurin]

usually galt makes sense, not so much this time

to put it in plain english (to much crap AD, get simpler)
we dont know crap about what the future holds, and while we shouldnt waste resources saving animals that have no business existing, because we all know that species come and species go in this great thingie we have going
but it doesnt mean we should willy-nilly exterminate whatever we want, mostly, if we have _good_ evidence that human actions are the biggest and most likely reason that a species is dieing off, and we can fix it without too much trouble, lets do it, for example, outlawing DDT to help bird populations

but (i hope) nobody is saying we go back to being eaten by bears and crapping in trenches, we should do what we can within limits

[forthegreatergood]

[quote="mathurin"]usually galt makes sense, not so much this time

we dont know crap about what the future holds, and while we shouldnt waste resources saving animals that have no business existing,

*forthegreatergood*:If they exist, then why do they have no business existing?Explain.

because we all know that species come and species go in this great thingie we have going

*forthegreatergood*:Species do not have to become extinct. Have you ever wondered if a species had become extinct, can it reappear from a causal evolutionary source?

[Etienne]

John Galt wrote: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-03-20T161132Z_01_L20719283_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-DIVERSITY.xml&rpc=22

I had thought that one goes extinct every 15 minutes? Google "species extinct minutes" you'll find pleanty of sites that say this, or something like it (100 evry day!!1!!!!!!!OMG!!1!!!111). The UN says that 884 species are extinct in the last 500 years. That's hardly anything, and if there are more that we didn't know about -- why do we care? There is no real reason to care, as they are just animals and we seem to be doing just fine without them and in many cases, it is a better place since they are gone. So what if they are gone? We have plenty more and those that are useful will never become extinct. I for one would rather not have my sky blackened for days as the passenger pigons came by the billions to rape the land and cover it in guano, although it would be fun to just shoot in the air and have them fall from the sky like mana from heaven.

Perhaps people care because of religious or spiritual beliefs?

[Achilles The Myrmidon]

A.D wrote: John Galt wrote: social wrote: John Galt wrote: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-03-20T161132Z_01_L20719283_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-DIVERSITY.xml&rpc=22

I had thought that one goes extinct every 15 minutes? Google "species extinct minutes" you'll find pleanty of sites that say this, or something like it (100 evry day!!1!!!!!!!OMG!!1!!!111). The UN says that 884 species are extinct in the last 500 years. That's hardly anything, and if there are more that we didn't know about -- why do we care? There is no real reason to care, as they are just animals and we seem to be doing just fine without them and in many cases, it is a better place since they are gone. So what if they are gone? We have plenty more and those that are useful will never become extinct. I for one would rather not have my sky blackened for days as the passenger pigons came by the billions to rape the land and cover it in guano, although it would be fun to just shoot in the air and have them fall from the sky like mana from heaven.

Don't you remember the classes at school in which you learnt that killing just one animal in a food chain results in the whole chain being affected? Every species is precious...

Also, how can you even suppose that we (we, as in, human beings) are doing 'just fine' without animals? We're destroying the world's natural environments and replacing them with unsustainable, and polluted societies, which though they've led to a rapid advancement of mankind, will I fear eventually lead to its downfall. This is ironic really; but it's important to recognise that one simply cannot mess with animals and the environment on a whim...and certainly not to satisfy your Randist ideology, whose cardinal principle is to treat all things - humans and non-humans alike - for one's own personal gain...

Well, OK, you fear that. I fear that WITHOUT rapid advancement our downfall comes. As we can see, third world countries are by far the worst polluters for what they are producing. We can afford to worry about the enviornment. Isn't that amazing? Now, anyway, these third world countries, and ours, needs more advancement. With more advancement comes a cleaner enviornment. Everyone's happier. Me, with my cheaper products, and you, with your cleaner-than-nature outdoors. Anyway, that's my prefrence. It's different than yours. You don't have to buy it. OK. But I don't have to buy yours and it would be certianly immoral to force your prefrence on me.

As for some species dying, sure, I know about the food chain. Bt this fragile web wasn't always the same way. Species come and go. Other species adapt. And that wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.

First world nations pollute far more per capita than any third world could hope to.

This issue comes down to inter-generational equity: i.e. why should you chose what species future generaiton can and can't experience. Of course, as social pointed out, the food chain is also of major importance, and even keeping with a liberal tradition of freedom, preserving such systems is intergral to retaining freedoms equal to that which can be preserved whilst ensuring (or not deleteriously effecting) the freedom of others.

People have a hard time thinking about scales in social justice issues; both temporal and spatial. In every science people usually concentrate on finer scales as it's easy to do, whereas broadening scales creates new suits of complexities. This is why people like Galt prefer only to focus on one spatial and temporal scale, and it is by no coincidence that it is the finest, simplest scale available- the temporal scale is right now, in the very recent past, or the immediate future, whilst the spatial scale is fine, and focuses mainly on direct interactions between individuals. In reality, indirect, diffuse interactions which occur on broad spatial and temporal scales are a major source of injustice, but a source too often overlooked. :owned:

[John Galt]

A.D wrote: John Galt wrote: social wrote: John Galt wrote: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-03-20T161132Z_01_L20719283_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-DIVERSITY.xml&rpc=22

I had thought that one goes extinct every 15 minutes? Google "species extinct minutes" you'll find pleanty of sites that say this, or something like it (100 evry day!!1!!!!!!!OMG!!1!!!111). The UN says that 884 species are extinct in the last 500 years. That's hardly anything, and if there are more that we didn't know about -- why do we care? There is no real reason to care, as they are just animals and we seem to be doing just fine without them and in many cases, it is a better place since they are gone. So what if they are gone? We have plenty more and those that are useful will never become extinct. I for one would rather not have my sky blackened for days as the passenger pigons came by the billions to rape the land and cover it in guano, although it would be fun to just shoot in the air and have them fall from the sky like mana from heaven.

Don't you remember the classes at school in which you learnt that killing just one animal in a food chain results in the whole chain being affected? Every species is precious...

Also, how can you even suppose that we (we, as in, human beings) are doing 'just fine' without animals? We're destroying the world's natural environments and replacing them with unsustainable, and polluted societies, which though they've led to a rapid advancement of mankind, will I fear eventually lead to its downfall. This is ironic really; but it's important to recognise that one simply cannot mess with animals and the environment on a whim...and certainly not to satisfy your Randist ideology, whose cardinal principle is to treat all things - humans and non-humans alike - for one's own personal gain...

Well, OK, you fear that. I fear that WITHOUT rapid advancement our downfall comes. As we can see, third world countries are by far the worst polluters for what they are producing. We can afford to worry about the enviornment. Isn't that amazing? Now, anyway, these third world countries, and ours, needs more advancement. With more advancement comes a cleaner enviornment. Everyone's happier. Me, with my cheaper products, and you, with your cleaner-than-nature outdoors. Anyway, that's my prefrence. It's different than yours. You don't have to buy it. OK. But I don't have to buy yours and it would be certianly immoral to force your prefrence on me.

As for some species dying, sure, I know about the food chain. Bt this fragile web wasn't always the same way. Species come and go. Other species adapt. And that wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.

First world nations pollute far more per capita than any third world could hope to.

This issue comes down to inter-generational equity: i.e. why should you chose what species future generaiton can and can't experience. Of course, as social pointed out, the food chain is also of major importance, and even keeping with a liberal tradition of freedom, preserving such systems is intergral to retaining freedoms equal to that which can be preserved whilst ensuring (or not deleteriously effecting) the freedom of others.

People have a hard time thinking about scales in social justice issues; both temporal and spatial. In every science people usually concentrate on finer scales as it's easy to do, whereas broadening scales creates new suits of complexities. This is why people like Galt prefer only to focus on one spatial and temporal scale, and it is by no coincidence that it is the finest, simplest scale available- the temporal scale is right now, in the very recent past, or the immediate future, whilst the spatial scale is fine, and focuses mainly on direct interactions between individuals. In reality, indirect, diffuse interactions which occur on broad spatial and temporal scales are a major source of injustice, but a source too often overlooked.

You would deny the future children of this world the parking lots over rainforests they deseerve. WHO ARE YOU to say what they want or deserve? You don't know the answer, neither do I. While destroying something is "irrevocable" NOT destroying it and putting something in it's place is equally irrevocable. So instead of playing this guessing game about what people might want thousands of years from now lets deal with the wants of people now and may those with the most money win.

[John Galt]

A.D wrote: John Galt wrote: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-03-20T161132Z_01_L20719283_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-DIVERSITY.xml&rpc=22

I had thought that one goes extinct every 15 minutes? Google "species extinct minutes" you'll find pleanty of sites that say this, or something like it (100 evry day!!1!!!!!!!OMG!!1!!!111). The UN says that 884 species are extinct in the last 500 years. That's hardly anything, and if there are more that we didn't know about -- why do we care? There is no real reason to care, as they are just animals and we seem to be doing just fine without them and in many cases, it is a better place since they are gone. So what if they are gone? We have plenty more and those that are useful will never become extinct. I for one would rather not have my sky blackened for days as the passenger pigons came by the billions to rape the land and cover it in guano, although it would be fun to just shoot in the air and have them fall from the sky like mana from heaven.

Natural species extiction rates are estimated to be 1 every 100 years or so, so even with this conservative estimate we have increased the rate of extinction by over 100 times.

We don't know that A.D. Unless you've got scientific proof, we both know that's based on assumptions, and it is a load of crap. My liberal estimate is that ntural extinctions are 200 every 100 years. What doI base this on? My guess. Since no one COULD POSSIBLY prove that it was 1 or 2 or 200 per 100 years, I'll say 200. So human intervention has lowered the rate of extinction!

[Random Evil Guy]

Wolverine wrote:

Random Evil Guy wrote: Wolverine wrote: If the species is going extinct do to people, we need to do our best to preserve the species. Without outrageously infringing on people rights, and/or degrading the well being of people.

But if the species is going extinct just "because", who cares? As what Penn and Teller say, "nature decides who stays and who goes".

Species die, its apart of nature.

true, but how many parts of the world are really devoid of human influence?

besides, following that argument, humans are part of nature and if we cause the extinction of other species, that is what 'nature decides'.
There isn't an area that is truly devoid of humand influence, everything effects everything to a certain extent.
I don't think that people "influence" a species into extiction, through passive means, who cares? Appearenty the species is weak, and would go extinct anyway.

what are 'passive means'?

[DarkMerlin]

John Galt wrote: A.D wrote: John Galt wrote: social wrote: John Galt wrote: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-03-20T161132Z_01_L20719283_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-DIVERSITY.xml&rpc=22

I had thought that one goes extinct every 15 minutes? Google "species extinct minutes" you'll find pleanty of sites that say this, or something like it (100 evry day!!1!!!!!!!OMG!!1!!!111). The UN says that 884 species are extinct in the last 500 years. That's hardly anything, and if there are more that we didn't know about -- why do we care? There is no real reason to care, as they are just animals and we seem to be doing just fine without them and in many cases, it is a better place since they are gone. So what if they are gone? We have plenty more and those that are useful will never become extinct. I for one would rather not have my sky blackened for days as the passenger pigons came by the billions to rape the land and cover it in guano, although it would be fun to just shoot in the air and have them fall from the sky like mana from heaven.

Don't you remember the classes at school in which you learnt that killing just one animal in a food chain results in the whole chain being affected? Every species is precious...

Also, how can you even suppose that we (we, as in, human beings) are doing 'just fine' without animals? We're destroying the world's natural environments and replacing them with unsustainable, and polluted societies, which though they've led to a rapid advancement of mankind, will I fear eventually lead to its downfall. This is ironic really; but it's important to recognise that one simply cannot mess with animals and the environment on a whim...and certainly not to satisfy your Randist ideology, whose cardinal principle is to treat all things - humans and non-humans alike - for one's own personal gain...

Well, OK, you fear that. I fear that WITHOUT rapid advancement our downfall comes. As we can see, third world countries are by far the worst polluters for what they are producing. We can afford to worry about the enviornment. Isn't that amazing? Now, anyway, these third world countries, and ours, needs more advancement. With more advancement comes a cleaner enviornment. Everyone's happier. Me, with my cheaper products, and you, with your cleaner-than-nature outdoors. Anyway, that's my prefrence. It's different than yours. You don't have to buy it. OK. But I don't have to buy yours and it would be certianly immoral to force your prefrence on me.

As for some species dying, sure, I know about the food chain. Bt this fragile web wasn't always the same way. Species come and go. Other species adapt. And that wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.

First world nations pollute far more per capita than any third world could hope to.

This issue comes down to inter-generational equity: i.e. why should you chose what species future generaiton can and can't experience. Of course, as social pointed out, the food chain is also of major importance, and even keeping with a liberal tradition of freedom, preserving such systems is intergral to retaining freedoms equal to that which can be preserved whilst ensuring (or not deleteriously effecting) the freedom of others.

People have a hard time thinking about scales in social justice issues; both temporal and spatial. In every science people usually concentrate on finer scales as it's easy to do, whereas broadening scales creates new suits of complexities. This is why people like Galt prefer only to focus on one spatial and temporal scale, and it is by no coincidence that it is the finest, simplest scale available- the temporal scale is right now, in the very recent past, or the immediate future, whilst the spatial scale is fine, and focuses mainly on direct interactions between individuals. In reality, indirect, diffuse interactions which occur on broad spatial and temporal scales are a major source of injustice, but a source too often overlooked.

You would deny the future children of this world the parking lots over rainforests they deseerve. WHO ARE YOU to say what they want or deserve? You don't know the answer, neither do I. While destroying something is "irrevocable" NOT destroying it and putting something in it's place is equally irrevocable. So instead of playing this guessing game about what people might want thousands of years from now lets deal with the wants of people now and may those with the most money win.

For someone so obsessed with money, you sure don't seem to know how to offer future generations the best deal.

The basic mistake here is that quite often not doing something isn't irrevocable---afterall, you can always destroy the rainforest and build a parking lot. While one could argue that there are things future generations could do to repair destroyed rainforest, the cost of such a venture would certainly be far more than the cost of building a parking lot (which seems to be getting cheaper all the time). It is not a guessing game at all: you just look at what will cost future generations more, undoing what we've done or doing it themselves. When it comes to problems like pollution, destruction of environs, and unsustainable development, future generations will always have the opportunity to create these problems for themselves at an extremely reasonable cost. However, they will not have nearly the opportunity to undo these things once they already happen, and if they do it will without a doubt be at a far higher cost than they would like.

So you see, the idea of cross-generational equity that AD proposed is not that hard to impliment at all. Furthermore, with our ever increasing lifespans and the possibility of negligible senescence on the horizon, it is no longer just a cross-generational issue, but one of self-interest: why should you deny yourself the opportunities and pleasures of a healthy environment (including the opportunity to destroy it, if needs be) in the decades to come just for some limited short-term gain in the present? The issue can be likened to doing drugs: I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to do them, but while it may provide a certain amount of pleasure at the moment, you will almost certainly pay out the ass for it later in life.

As for "may those with the most money win," well...surely you can't actually think this, can you?

[DarkMerlin]

John Galt wrote: A.D wrote: John Galt wrote: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-03-20T161132Z_01_L20719283_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-DIVERSITY.xml&rpc=22

I had thought that one goes extinct every 15 minutes? Google "species extinct minutes" you'll find pleanty of sites that say this, or something like it (100 evry day!!1!!!!!!!OMG!!1!!!111). The UN says that 884 species are extinct in the last 500 years. That's hardly anything, and if there are more that we didn't know about -- why do we care? There is no real reason to care, as they are just animals and we seem to be doing just fine without them and in many cases, it is a better place since they are gone. So what if they are gone? We have plenty more and those that are useful will never become extinct. I for one would rather not have my sky blackened for days as the passenger pigons came by the billions to rape the land and cover it in guano, although it would be fun to just shoot in the air and have them fall from the sky like mana from heaven.

Natural species extiction rates are estimated to be 1 every 100 years or so, so even with this conservative estimate we have increased the rate of extinction by over 100 times.

We don't know that A.D. Unless you've got scientific proof, we both know that's based on assumptions, and it is a load of crap. My liberal estimate is that ntural extinctions are 200 every 100 years. What doI base this on? My guess. Since no one COULD POSSIBLY prove that it was 1 or 2 or 200 per 100 years, I'll say 200. So human intervention has lowered the rate of extinction!

Galt, this is the equivalent of saying "Since no one could possibly know the chances of dying on a given day, I'll say that the chances are 95%. If I shoot a man in the chest and he doesn't die, that must mean that I've possibly lowered his chances of dying!" That just doesn't jive logically. Furthermore, last I checked you weren't an ecologist, environmental scientist, or expert in a similar field, therefore your "estimate" is worth diddily-squat---and trying to stick the rest of us with the burden of proving you wrong is not an effective way to counter AD's estimates. Find data that discount's AD's numbers and we can go from there. You cannot, however, just say "actually it is really this...haha, prove me wrong!"

[mathurin]

forthegreatergood wrote: mathurin wrote: usually galt makes sense, not so much this time

we dont know crap about what the future holds, and while we shouldnt waste resources saving animals that have no business existing,

*forthegreatergood*:If they exist, then why do they have no business existing?Explain.

because the environment is constantly changing, new species evolve and old species die as a natural course of events, who are we to keep them alive


forthegreatergood wrote:
mathurin wrote:
because we all know that species come and species go in this great thingie we have going

*forthegreatergood*:Species do not have to become extinct. Have you ever wondered if a species had become extinct, can it reappear from a causal evolutionary source?
um, no? if it could then we wouldnt have to worry about killing off species

theoretically yes, but lots of crap is theoretically true yet nowhere near practical or probable in the real world

[Kindred]

John Galt wrote: A.D wrote: John Galt wrote: social wrote: John Galt wrote: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-03-20T161132Z_01_L20719283_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-DIVERSITY.xml&rpc=22

I had thought that one goes extinct every 15 minutes? Google "species extinct minutes" you'll find pleanty of sites that say this, or something like it (100 evry day!!1!!!!!!!OMG!!1!!!111). The UN says that 884 species are extinct in the last 500 years. That's hardly anything, and if there are more that we didn't know about -- why do we care? There is no real reason to care, as they are just animals and we seem to be doing just fine without them and in many cases, it is a better place since they are gone. So what if they are gone? We have plenty more and those that are useful will never become extinct. I for one would rather not have my sky blackened for days as the passenger pigons came by the billions to rape the land and cover it in guano, although it would be fun to just shoot in the air and have them fall from the sky like mana from heaven.

Don't you remember the classes at school in which you learnt that killing just one animal in a food chain results in the whole chain being affected? Every species is precious...

Also, how can you even suppose that we (we, as in, human beings) are doing 'just fine' without animals? We're destroying the world's natural environments and replacing them with unsustainable, and polluted societies, which though they've led to a rapid advancement of mankind, will I fear eventually lead to its downfall. This is ironic really; but it's important to recognise that one simply cannot mess with animals and the environment on a whim...and certainly not to satisfy your Randist ideology, whose cardinal principle is to treat all things - humans and non-humans alike - for one's own personal gain...

Well, OK, you fear that. I fear that WITHOUT rapid advancement our downfall comes. As we can see, third world countries are by far the worst polluters for what they are producing. We can afford to worry about the enviornment. Isn't that amazing? Now, anyway, these third world countries, and ours, needs more advancement. With more advancement comes a cleaner enviornment. Everyone's happier. Me, with my cheaper products, and you, with your cleaner-than-nature outdoors. Anyway, that's my prefrence. It's different than yours. You don't have to buy it. OK. But I don't have to buy yours and it would be certianly immoral to force your prefrence on me.

As for some species dying, sure, I know about the food chain. Bt this fragile web wasn't always the same way. Species come and go. Other species adapt. And that wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.

First world nations pollute far more per capita than any third world could hope to.

This issue comes down to inter-generational equity: i.e. why should you chose what species future generaiton can and can't experience. Of course, as social pointed out, the food chain is also of major importance, and even keeping with a liberal tradition of freedom, preserving such systems is intergral to retaining freedoms equal to that which can be preserved whilst ensuring (or not deleteriously effecting) the freedom of others.

People have a hard time thinking about scales in social justice issues; both temporal and spatial. In every science people usually concentrate on finer scales as it's easy to do, whereas broadening scales creates new suits of complexities. This is why people like Galt prefer only to focus on one spatial and temporal scale, and it is by no coincidence that it is the finest, simplest scale available- the temporal scale is right now, in the very recent past, or the immediate future, whilst the spatial scale is fine, and focuses mainly on direct interactions between individuals. In reality, indirect, diffuse interactions which occur on broad spatial and temporal scales are a major source of injustice, but a source too often overlooked.

You would deny the future children of this world the parking lots over rainforests they deseerve. WHO ARE YOU to say what they want or deserve? You don't know the answer, neither do I. While destroying something is "irrevocable" NOT destroying it and putting something in it's place is equally irrevocable. So instead of playing this guessing game about what people might want thousands of years from now lets deal with the wants of people now and may those with the most money win.

I want to give future generations the one thing I know they want, because it's the only thing anyone really wants: the choice to make the decisions themselves.

[Kindred]

John Galt wrote: A.D wrote: John Galt wrote: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-03-20T161132Z_01_L20719283_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-DIVERSITY.xml&rpc=22

I had thought that one goes extinct every 15 minutes? Google "species extinct minutes" you'll find pleanty of sites that say this, or something like it (100 evry day!!1!!!!!!!OMG!!1!!!111). The UN says that 884 species are extinct in the last 500 years. That's hardly anything, and if there are more that we didn't know about -- why do we care? There is no real reason to care, as they are just animals and we seem to be doing just fine without them and in many cases, it is a better place since they are gone. So what if they are gone? We have plenty more and those that are useful will never become extinct. I for one would rather not have my sky blackened for days as the passenger pigons came by the billions to rape the land and cover it in guano, although it would be fun to just shoot in the air and have them fall from the sky like mana from heaven.

Natural species extiction rates are estimated to be 1 every 100 years or so, so even with this conservative estimate we have increased the rate of extinction by over 100 times.

We don't know that A.D. Unless you've got scientific proof, we both know that's based on assumptions, and it is a load of crap. My liberal estimate is that ntural extinctions are 200 every 100 years. What doI base this on? My guess. Since no one COULD POSSIBLY prove that it was 1 or 2 or 200 per 100 years, I'll say 200. So human intervention has lowered the rate of extinction!
Well, unlike your guess, actual estimatea re based on real science including; the fossil record, molecular phylogeny, metapopulation dynamics, island biographic estimations etc. etc.

[The Impeacher]

John Galt wrote:
You would deny the future children of this world the parking lots over rainforests they deseerve. WHO ARE YOU to say what they want or deserve?

could you give me a price quote on turning a parking lot into a tropical rain forest?


thx!

[John Galt]

A.D wrote: John Galt wrote: A.D wrote: John Galt wrote: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-03-20T161132Z_01_L20719283_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-DIVERSITY.xml&rpc=22

I had thought that one goes extinct every 15 minutes? Google "species extinct minutes" you'll find pleanty of sites that say this, or something like it (100 evry day!!1!!!!!!!OMG!!1!!!111). The UN says that 884 species are extinct in the last 500 years. That's hardly anything, and if there are more that we didn't know about -- why do we care? There is no real reason to care, as they are just animals and we seem to be doing just fine without them and in many cases, it is a better place since they are gone. So what if they are gone? We have plenty more and those that are useful will never become extinct. I for one would rather not have my sky blackened for days as the passenger pigons came by the billions to rape the land and cover it in guano, although it would be fun to just shoot in the air and have them fall from the sky like mana from heaven.

Natural species extiction rates are estimated to be 1 every 100 years or so, so even with this conservative estimate we have increased the rate of extinction by over 100 times.

We don't know that A.D. Unless you've got scientific proof, we both know that's based on assumptions, and it is a load of crap. My liberal estimate is that ntural extinctions are 200 every 100 years. What doI base this on? My guess. Since no one COULD POSSIBLY prove that it was 1 or 2 or 200 per 100 years, I'll say 200. So human intervention has lowered the rate of extinction!
Well, unlike your guess, actual estimatea re based on real science including; the fossil record, molecular phylogeny, metapopulation dynamics, island biographic estimations etc. etc.

You know how incomplete the fossil record is; nearly all of it is incomplete, at our best guess. Even if itt wasn't nearly all incomplete and it was nearly complete (or even complete) you could never prove it was.

And while you can determine when a species split from the other means, it does not tell you how many others have come and gone. There is also no base number from which to judge. There is no control! You don't know when the last species was developed or the last gone extinct. There has been documentation of new species forming in the wild (typically plants, since they can "easily" form hybrids). It's a wild guess A.D.

[John Galt]

A.D wrote: John Galt wrote: A.D wrote: John Galt wrote: social wrote: John Galt wrote: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-03-20T161132Z_01_L20719283_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-DIVERSITY.xml&rpc=22

I had thought that one goes extinct every 15 minutes? Google "species extinct minutes" you'll find pleanty of sites that say this, or something like it (100 evry day!!1!!!!!!!OMG!!1!!!111). The UN says that 884 species are extinct in the last 500 years. That's hardly anything, and if there are more that we didn't know about -- why do we care? There is no real reason to care, as they are just animals and we seem to be doing just fine without them and in many cases, it is a better place since they are gone. So what if they are gone? We have plenty more and those that are useful will never become extinct. I for one would rather not have my sky blackened for days as the passenger pigons came by the billions to rape the land and cover it in guano, although it would be fun to just shoot in the air and have them fall from the sky like mana from heaven.

Don't you remember the classes at school in which you learnt that killing just one animal in a food chain results in the whole chain being affected? Every species is precious...

Also, how can you even suppose that we (we, as in, human beings) are doing 'just fine' without animals? We're destroying the world's natural environments and replacing them with unsustainable, and polluted societies, which though they've led to a rapid advancement of mankind, will I fear eventually lead to its downfall. This is ironic really; but it's important to recognise that one simply cannot mess with animals and the environment on a whim...and certainly not to satisfy your Randist ideology, whose cardinal principle is to treat all things - humans and non-humans alike - for one's own personal gain...

Well, OK, you fear that. I fear that WITHOUT rapid advancement our downfall comes. As we can see, third world countries are by far the worst polluters for what they are producing. We can afford to worry about the enviornment. Isn't that amazing? Now, anyway, these third world countries, and ours, needs more advancement. With more advancement comes a cleaner enviornment. Everyone's happier. Me, with my cheaper products, and you, with your cleaner-than-nature outdoors. Anyway, that's my prefrence. It's different than yours. You don't have to buy it. OK. But I don't have to buy yours and it would be certianly immoral to force your prefrence on me.

As for some species dying, sure, I know about the food chain. Bt this fragile web wasn't always the same way. Species come and go. Other species adapt. And that wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.

First world nations pollute far more per capita than any third world could hope to.

This issue comes down to inter-generational equity: i.e. why should you chose what species future generaiton can and can't experience. Of course, as social pointed out, the food chain is also of major importance, and even keeping with a liberal tradition of freedom, preserving such systems is intergral to retaining freedoms equal to that which can be preserved whilst ensuring (or not deleteriously effecting) the freedom of others.

People have a hard time thinking about scales in social justice issues; both temporal and spatial. In every science people usually concentrate on finer scales as it's easy to do, whereas broadening scales creates new suits of complexities. This is why people like Galt prefer only to focus on one spatial and temporal scale, and it is by no coincidence that it is the finest, simplest scale available- the temporal scale is right now, in the very recent past, or the immediate future, whilst the spatial scale is fine, and focuses mainly on direct interactions between individuals. In reality, indirect, diffuse interactions which occur on broad spatial and temporal scales are a major source of injustice, but a source too often overlooked.

You would deny the future children of this world the parking lots over rainforests they deseerve. WHO ARE YOU to say what they want or deserve? You don't know the answer, neither do I. While destroying something is "irrevocable" NOT destroying it and putting something in it's place is equally irrevocable. So instead of playing this guessing game about what people might want thousands of years from now lets deal with the wants of people now and may those with the most money win.

I want to give future generations the one thing I know they want, because it's the only thing anyone really wants: the choice to make the decisions themselves.

Sure. Well our forefathers gave us that same choice. Sooner or later we use it right?

Ha. They can make choices with what we leave them.

[John Galt]

The Impeacher wrote: John Galt wrote:
You would deny the future children of this world the parking lots over rainforests they deseerve. WHO ARE YOU to say what they want or deserve?

could you give me a price quote on turning a parking lot into a tropical rain forest?


thx!

What use is a tropical rainforest? before you tell me about the wonders of converting CO2 to O2, look up how much an acre of grass compared to an acre of forest converts. Mmmmk. So golf courses it is!

[Wolverine]

Random Evil Guy wrote: Wolverine wrote:

Random Evil Guy wrote: Wolverine wrote: If the species is going extinct do to people, we need to do our best to preserve the species. Without outrageously infringing on people rights, and/or degrading the well being of people.

But if the species is going extinct just "because", who cares? As what Penn and Teller say, "nature decides who stays and who goes".

Species die, its apart of nature.

true, but how many parts of the world are really devoid of human influence?

besides, following that argument, humans are part of nature and if we cause the extinction of other species, that is what 'nature decides'.
There isn't an area that is truly devoid of humand influence, everything effects everything to a certain extent.
I don't think that people "influence" a species into extiction, through passive means, who cares? Appearenty the species is weak, and would go extinct anyway.

what are 'passive means'?
Living.

[The Impeacher]

John Galt wrote: A.D wrote: John Galt wrote: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-03-20T161132Z_01_L20719283_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-DIVERSITY.xml&rpc=22

I had thought that one goes extinct every 15 minutes? Google "species extinct minutes" you'll find pleanty of sites that say this, or something like it (100 evry day!!1!!!!!!!OMG!!1!!!111). The UN says that 884 species are extinct in the last 500 years. That's hardly anything, and if there are more that we didn't know about -- why do we care? There is no real reason to care, as they are just animals and we seem to be doing just fine without them and in many cases, it is a better place since they are gone. So what if they are gone? We have plenty more and those that are useful will never become extinct. I for one would rather not have my sky blackened for days as the passenger pigons came by the billions to rape the land and cover it in guano, although it would be fun to just shoot in the air and have them fall from the sky like mana from heaven.

Natural species extiction rates are estimated to be 1 every 100 years or so, so even with this conservative estimate we have increased the rate of extinction by over 100 times.

We don't know that A.D. Unless you've got scientific proof, we both know that's based on assumptions, and it is a load of crap. My liberal estimate is that ntural extinctions are 200 every 100 years. What doI base this on? My guess. Since no one COULD POSSIBLY prove that it was 1 or 2 or 200 per 100 years, I'll say 200. So human intervention has lowered the rate of extinction!

so,

now in your opinion science is a load of crappy liberal assumptions?

do you have any countercrappy liberal science to back up your hypotheses? what is your hypothesis?

haven't you stated you have a biology degree? are you saying the scientific method is worthless?

what would be our extinction rate, if say, we are the contributing factor in accelerated global warming?

or would you prefer me to say "global climate change"?

what would that do to our averages?

do you recognize rhetorical questions? ;)

[thrasher]

Quote:
What use is a tropical rainforest? before you tell me about the wonders of converting CO2 to O2, look up how much an acre of grass compared to an acre of forest converts. Mmmmk. So golf courses it is!

Roughly half of the world's species reside in trpoical rainforests, which are currently experiencing massive deforestation. I also believe that 70% of our pharmaceuticals have organismal origins, and 9 of the of 10 most prescribed treatments have organismal origins. We are losing time very quickly in finding sources of treatment for many of our diseases. That alone is reason enough to preserve the rainforests.