the zoo Options

[capsule]

Those who know where I got this topic from...hush

So...what is your opinion on the zoo? Now...think about it for a sec. Is it right for animals to be penned up in a cage so people can oogle at them and throw them feed for that 25 cents? Everyone says its educational..but who doesn't know what a monkey looks like? Isn't an encyclopedia a better alternative source to knowing what certain animals look like and their background information? By having them shoved into cages, we are ruining their lifestyle...we feed them food and have them just stand around doing nothing...if that animal were to be sent out to the wild...it wouldn't survive. And let's not forget about the offspring...undergoing an artificial lifestyle, it would impact them heavily also. Is it worth ruining the lifestyles of various animals for the pure sake of "wanting to know what [so-and-so] looks like in real life?"...I don't think that really balances out.

[ComradeRed]

Is it right for animals to be penned up in a cage so people can oogle at them and throw them feed for that 25 cents?

Yes.

Everyone says its educational..but who doesn't know what a monkey looks like?

www.freestarmedia.com --> Scroll down and check out the Social Security Monkey. You've never seen a monkey, until you've seen the Social Security Monkey.

Isn't an encyclopedia a better alternative source to knowing what certain animals look like and their background information?

Haha: Ever since Wikipedia was launched, I've learned not to trust encyclopedias.

By having them shoved into cages, we are ruining their lifestyle...we feed them food and have them just stand around doing nothing...if that animal were to be sent out to the wild...it wouldn't survive.

That's why we should make them cagefight.

And let's not forget about the offspring...undergoing an artificial lifestyle, it would impact them heavily also.

Animals can have abortions too, you know.

Is it worth ruining the lifestyles of various animals for the pure sake of "wanting to know what [so-and-so] looks like in real life?"...I don't think that really balances out.

Well, how else are people in Pennsylvania going to see what African creatures look like? Gladiator fests? That's what the Romans did; which brings me back to the cagefight idea. I think it's worth looking in to.

[ApocalypseAelis]

Yes.

Why?

Haha: Ever since Wikipedia was launched, I've learned not to trust encyclopedias.

Wikipedia is different from a normal encyclopedia. On Wikipedia, anybody can edit it to their liking. The information isn't always correct. A normal encyclopedia at the local library, on the other hand, cannot be edited. The information it stores must be correct, or else people wouldn't use it. Wikipedia can be changed by anyone, but I've found it to be a pretty reliable source, anyway.

Animals can have abortions too, you know.

Yes; great idea. To prevent confusion and distress among newborn animals, we should just not have newborn animals! Then all the creatures at the zoo can die out very quickly, leaving behind their rotting carcasses next to empty cages. What a wonderfully educational experience for all of us.

That's why we should make them cagefight.

And of course forcing animals to brutally mutilate each other is a much more humane and sensible alternative to merely imprisoning them.

Well, how else are people in Pennsylvania going to see what African creatures look like? Gladiator fests? That's what the Romans did; which brings me back to the cagefight idea. I think it's worth looking in to.

Books. Television. Media. Movies. Travel.
A student doesn't need to spend a day in Europe to know the history of France. You don't have to be right next to an animal to learn about wildlife.

[ComradeRed]

Why?

Why not?

Wikipedia is different from a normal encyclopedia.  On Wikipedia, anybody can edit it to their liking.  The information isn't always correct.  A normal encyclopedia at the local library, on the other hand, cannot be edited.  The information it stores must be correct, or else people wouldn't use it.  Wikipedia can be changed by anyone, but I've found it to be a pretty reliable source, anyway.

Obviously, they can be edited. Why do you think they all have editors? Editors are people too; just with more money.

Yes; great idea.  To prevent confusion and distress among newborn animals, we should just not have newborn animals!  Then all the creatures at the zoo can die out very quickly, leaving behind their rotting carcasses next to empty cages.  What a wonderfully educational experience for all of us.

Death is an integral part of life. We should not hide that from children. We can always bring in new ones, you know.

And of course forcing animals to brutally mutilate each other is a much more humane and sensible alternative to merely imprisoning them. 

Someone said that animals in zoos lose their survival skills. I think cagefights would teach them the important skills they need for surviving in the wild.

Books.  Television.  Media.  Movies.  Travel.
A student doesn't need to spend a day in Europe to know the history of France.  You don't have to be right next to an animal to learn about wildlife.

No, but it helps get them interested. Why do you think people tour historic sites?

[ApocalypseAelis]

Why not?

Is it right for animals to be penned up in a cage so people can oogle at them and throw them feed for that 25 cents?

It isn't right because every animal deserves freedom, and not a life confined within the bars of a small cage, possibly with several other members of the same species, to be handed food and water. Sounds sort of like the sentence we condemn murderers and criminals to, doesn't it?

It is okay for an animal to be kept in a normal living space, shaped into their natural habitat. It is possible to keep an animal content and happy in a zoo.

Obviously, they can be edited. Why do you think they all have editors? Editors are people too; just with more money.

Yes, editors are people too. People who are paid to edit mistakes in encyclopedias and straighten out the writing, not twist them around to suit their own preferences. Encyclopedias don't hold opinions; they hold facts. Even if an editor decides to screw around with a publisher's book, someone will eventually find out and he/she'll be disgraced and lose his/her customers.

Death is an integral part of life. We should not hide that from children. We can always bring in new ones, you know.

Yet another brilliant idea. To prevent confusion with newborns, we can merely leech off mother nature until she's brought staggering to her knees with a dwindling population and more animals in cages than in the wild. We've already cut down countless amounts of trees instead of planting new forests to provide more resources and the consequences of those actions aren't exactly uplifting. Ensnaring more animals from their homes to fill up empty cages in a zoo will be basically the same thing.

It's not like a newborn animal will be unable to survive in a simulated environment, anyway. Everyone's able to adapt; it's just that it would be not as natural. If an animal has trouble with being released into the wild, I'm sure some experts will find a solution.

||edit||

I'm not saying logging is a horrendous crime; I understand that it's necessary. I'm using it as an example.

Someone said that animals in zoos lose their survival skills. I think cagefights would teach them the important skills they need for surviving in the wild.

Somehow, killing fellow cagemates to the crazed cheering of drunkards doesn't seem much to me like what mother tigers teach their young. Besides, what use will survival skills for the wild be when you're never going to BE in the wild? You might as well try to learn swimming when you're in the desert.

No, but it helps get them interested. Why do you think people tour historic sites?

I agree with you on this one. You're right. Like I said before, I support zoos as long as the quality is acceptable.

[ComradeRed]

It isn't right because every animal deserves freedom, and not a life confined within the bars of a small cage, possibly with several other members of the same species, to be handed food and water.  Sounds sort of like the sentence we condemn murderers and criminals to, doesn't it?

Why do animals deserve anything? Our laws and institutions guarantee rights for people.

It is okay for an animal to be kept in a normal living space, shaped into their natural habitat.  It is possible to keep an animal content and happy in a zoo.

It is possible for me to hire someone to track you down and murder you. But that doesn't mean I should do it.

Yes, editors are people too.  People who are paid to edit mistakes in encyclopedias and straighten out the writing, not twist them around to suit their own preferences.

Are you kidding me? Everyone has biases. Why do you think people refer to 'liberal' and 'conservative' editors? An editor can try to be neutral; but no one will ever have a completely neutral point of view.

Encyclopedias don't hold opinions; they hold facts.  Even if an editor decides to screw around with a publisher's book, someone will eventually find out and he/she'll be disgraced and lose his/her customers.

What if the people don't agree on what the facts are? The Battle of Cold Harbor, for example; nobody agrees on whether it was a Union or a Confederate victory. Or casualty ratios in the Korean War? The US claims that we shot down 10 Russian planes for every American plane, while the Russians claim that they shot down 4 American planes for every Russian. Both are probably exaggerated; the truth is probably somewhere in between, but even a completely neutral editor would lie closer to the American or Soviet sides. I've seen editors of well-reputed reference books go both ways. Or what about the causes of the American revolution? Some people say taxes were the main cause; some say tariffs; some say occupation.. It largely depends on your worldview. Everybody has a worldview.

Yet another brilliant idea.  To prevent confusion with newborns, we can merely leech off mother nature until she's brought staggering to her knees with a dwindling population and more animals in cages than in the wild.  We've already cut down countless amounts of trees instead of planting new forests to provide more resources and the consequences of those actions aren't exactly uplifting.

When it reduces the price of buying a new home by 33%, that's pretty uplifting to all the people who need new homes.

Ensnaring more animals from their homes to fill up empty cages in a zoo will be basically the same thing.

As giving homeless people houses in suburbia? I don't see the connection.

It's not like a newborn animal will be unable to survive in a simulated environment, anyway.  Everyone's able to adapt; it's just that it would be not as natural.  If an animal has trouble with being released into the wild, I'm sure some experts will find a solution.

Like sell them to poachers! Muahahaha!

I'm not saying logging is a horrendous crime; I understand that it's necessary.  I'm using it as an example.
Somehow, killing fellow cagemates to the crazed cheering of drunkards doesn't seem much to me like what mother tigers teach their young.

Take out the drunkards. My wholesome Midwestern values will not allow me to condone alcohol in zoos. Kids are going to be there, you know?

Mother tigers teach their young to kill. A tiger's going to have a hard time surviving without being able to hunt and kill and defend its turf.

Besides, what use will survival skills for the wild be when you're never going to BE in the wild?  You might as well try to learn swimming when you're in the desert.

Well, if they're really good, they'll be able to break out of their cages and take the train to Connecticut. That way, only the strong are in the wild, and thus they survive, and the weak are killed and eaten.

[ApocalypseAelis]

Why do animals deserve anything? Our laws and institutions guarantee rights for people.

Before the Civil War, slavery was legal in all 13 colonies of the US. Our laws and institutions guaranteed rights for whites, and not much for blacks. Why did the african americans deserve anything? Do you propose that they should have remained slaves?

Our laws and institutions aren't perfect.

It is possible for me to hire someone to track you down and murder you. But that doesn't mean I should do it.

Technically, it's possible to do anything, like kill our families or rob banks. But we don't, because it we aren't uncivilized heathens - we're humane, feeling people. Tracking me down and murdering me doesn't fall under the category of humane. Ensuring that animals are safe and comfortable even after we take them from their homes, however, does.

Are you kidding me? Everyone has biases. Why do you think people refer to 'liberal' and 'conservative' editors? An editor can try to be neutral; but no one will ever have a completely neutral point of view.

What if the people don't agree on what the facts are? The Battle of Cold Harbor, for example; nobody agrees on whether it was a Union or a Confederate victory. Or casualty ratios in the Korean War? The US claims that we shot down 10 Russian planes for every American plane, while the Russians claim that they shot down 4 American planes for every Russian. Both are probably exaggerated; the truth is probably somewhere in between, but even a completely neutral editor would lie closer to the American or Soviet sides. I've seen editors of well-reputed reference books go both ways. Or what about the causes of the American revolution? Some people say taxes were the main cause; some say tariffs; some say occupation.. It largely depends on your worldview. Everybody has a worldview.

Should differing opinions of books and people stop us from interacting or learning from them? No person will ever base his entire opinion on one source.

When it reduces the price of buying a new home by 33%, that's pretty uplifting to all the people who need new homes.

As giving homeless people houses in suburbia? I don't see the connection.

A mature tree reprocess enormous amounts of carbon dioxide gas and lets it back into the atmosphere as enough oxygen for 30 adult humans to breathe in 24 hours. We can develop as many fancy gadgets and machines as we want, but we will never be able to live life without breathing. All the walking creatures on the planet breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide.

Forests are the habitats for countless amounts of species of insects, plants, and animals. The rainforests by themselves hold up to 50 million creatures - over half of the world's animals - that cannot live anywhere else. Tropical rainforests hold up to 60%-90% of all life. By cutting them down, we are endangering the lives of all those creatures that deserve to live just as much as we do.

Loss of biodiversity, climate disruption, soil erosion, flooding, a contaminated atmosphere - I could go on and on.

If you want to be selfish and ask, "yes, but what has it done for HUMANS," consider that 25% of all medicines come from the forest. Consider that trees purify the air that we continuously pollute. Think about all the products that come from trees - paper, chairs, doors, closets, bedframes, tables, books - if we don't take care in the amount of trees we cut down, we'll lose all of those items and our homes. Millions of tribal and indiginous people live in the forest as well.

When deforestation reaches a critical point, when we end up with not enough air to breathe or trees to use for houses and shelter for future generations, when animals in the forest lose their treetop homes and food, we're going to suffer.

I just realized how much I sound like a tree-hugging hippie. Oh well. I probably am.

Like sell them to poachers! Muahahaha!

I don't know, I was thinking more along the lines of teaching, not killing.

Take out the drunkards. My wholesome Midwestern values will not allow me to condone alcohol in zoos. Kids are going to be there, you know?
Mother tigers teach their young to kill. A tiger's going to have a hard time surviving without being able to hunt and kill and defend its turf.

People who force animals to fight are usually gamblers. Gambling is as much of a sin as drinking.

A mother tiger will be able to teach her young more survival skills than any man will, anyway.

Well, if they're really good, they'll be able to break out of their cages and take the train to Connecticut. That way, only the strong are in the wild, and thus they survive, and the weak are killed and eaten.

I highly doubt that any animal will be able to escape a zoo without being stopped. There are fences, guards, cages, and security for a reason. There is very little chance of an animal in a zoo being able to return to the wild without the zoo's consent. If they are released, there will be better methods to teach animals to live in the wild.

No, not like poaching or hunting.

[ComradeRed]

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]
Before the Civil War, slavery was legal in all 13 colonies of the US.[/quote]

Nope; it was only legal in six of the original thirteen (Georgia, the two Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware). It wasn't until the Dred Scott decision in the 1850s that slavery became "legal" in every state, but even then, states found ways of getting around it.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]Our laws and institutions guaranteed rights for whites, and not much for blacks. Why did the african americans deserve anything? Do you propose that they should have remained slaves?[/quote]

African-Americans are members of our species. Notice people say human rights. If a dog bites you, should the dog be held accountable the way a person would and be put through the same legal process? No, because it's not a member of the same species. Race is scientifically invalid; species is not.

Until animals start paying taxes and upholding the laws, they should not have rights.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]
Technically, it's possible to do anything, like kill our families or rob banks. But we don't, because it we aren't uncivilized heathens - we're humane, feeling people.[/quote]

What about sadists? It's possible to rob banks or kill families, but, while most people don't because they're humane, the law is also there to check the remaining people.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]Tracking me down and murdering me doesn't fall under the category of humane. Ensuring that animals are safe and comfortable even after we take them from their homes, however, does.[/quote]

Taking away the right of people to have zoos might be considered inhumane, too. In fact, I say any restriction on voluntary individual acts that doesn't adversely affect other people is inhumane. So to 'humanely' treat animals, your proposed course of action would be 'inhumane' to people. And notice the root of the word humane.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]Should differing opinions of books and people stop us from interacting or learning from them? No person will ever base his entire opinion on one source.
A mature tree reprocess enormous amounts of carbon dioxide gas and lets it back into the atmosphere as enough oxygen for 30 adult humans to breathe in 24 hours.[/quote]

A mature Tokyo oxygen bar does that too, only the oxygen it lets out is fresher and provides for a lot more than 30 adult humans.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]We can develop as many fancy gadgets and machines as we want, but we will never be able to live life without breathing. All the walking creatures on the planet breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide.[/quote]

21% of the atmosphere is Oxygen, and there are far more plants than humans. We are far from the point of environmental disaster.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]Forests are the habitats for countless amounts of species of insects, plants, and animals. The rainforests by themselves hold up to 50 million creatures - over half of the world's animals - that cannot live anywhere else. Tropical rainforests hold up to 60%-90% of all life. By cutting them down, we are endangering the lives of all those creatures that deserve to live just as much as we do.[/quote]

Every species competes with every other species over the resources they need. It's not inhumane; it's a biological fact. Nothing in the natural world 'deserves' to live; it only lives if its genes are good enough to. That's why people exist in the first place. The rules of 'civil' society were created because people realized everyone was better off from not killing/enslaving/robbing each other. But cutting down trees? No.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]Loss of biodiversity,[/quote]

For every creature we find that cures cancer; we'll find a hundred that cause it.

Medical science is mostly the story of manmade chemicals triumphing over natural diseases, not vice versa.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]climate disruption,[/quote]

...which can't be blamed on human activity, seeing as whale flatulence lets off more CO2 than all human industry in the world combined.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]soil erosion,[/quote]

Could this be attributed to overfarming because people are living in poverty, because in third world countries, they aren't utilizing the environment enough? I think it could.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]flooding,[/quote]

Which isn't nearly as devastating as it used to be. Ever since Holland started putting up dykes in the 17th century, flooding has ceased to become a threat in the western world. The Allegheny flooded last year. I think a cat might've drowned. Maybe.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]a contaminated atmosphere - I could go on and on.[/quote]

The atmosphere's a big place, created over almost five billion years. The chemical makeup of the atmosphere has not changed significantly over the last 100 years. It's the same mix of nitrogen, oxygen, and trace elements that it's always been.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]If you want to be selfish and ask, "yes, but what has it done for HUMANS,"[/quote]

No, the definition of selfish is what has it done for me.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]consider that 25% of all medicines come from the forest.[/quote]

So do 50% of the diseases that those medicines are supposed to cure. Smallpox and malaria, two of the biggest killers of humans in history, both originated from rainforest environments. Much of Africa is totally unusable because of the Tsetse flies that lurk in the jungles.

We have to look at both sides of everything. I can say that Stalin tripled agricultural production in the Soviet Union. But that doesn't mean he was a good person.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]Consider that trees purify the air that we continuously pollute.[/quote]

So do HEPA filters. My street is full of trees, but it was the Sharper Image Ionic Breeze that significantly improved air quality in my house.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]Think about all the products that come from trees - paper, chairs, doors, closets, bedframes, tables, books - if we don't take care in the amount of trees we cut down, we'll lose all of those items and our homes.[/quote]

Do you know how many new trees are grown in a year? Trees are a veryrenewable resource. That's whay paper, chairs, doors, etc., don't cost any more than they used to. On the other hand, if you look at a short-term nonrenewable resource like oil, the price of that is skyrocketing as the supply dwindles.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]Millions of tribal and indiginous people live in the forest as well.[/quote]

And who cut down those trees to build chairs, doors, closets, bedframes, tables, books, homes, tourist traps, etc. Funny how people are alike.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]When deforestation reaches a critical point, when we end up with not enough air to breathe or trees to use for houses and shelter for future generations, when animals in the forest lose their treetop homes and food, we're going to suffer.[/quote]

That's not going to happen. The best way of gauging resource depletion is to see the prices you pay. If oil suddenly goes to $4/gallon, we can assume that the world's oil supply is running short. If the price of iron ore goes up, we can assume that there's less iron ore, etc. If the price of ivory is going up, we can assume that we're shooting too many elephants.

The price of wood products is not growing any faster than general inflation. There is no 'critical' deforestation. If anything, the price of paper is going down relative to other goods, because of how fast trees reproduce.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]I just realized how much I sound like a tree-hugging hippie. Oh well. I probably am.
I don't know, I was thinking more along the lines of teaching, not killing.
People who force animals to fight are usually gamblers. Gambling is as much of a sin as drinking.[/quote]

Neither are really 'sins'. If you gamble or drink so much that you lose contorl of yourself and start hurting others, then it can become sinful, but friends playing a game of Texas Hold 'Em over beers are hardly sinners.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]A mother tiger will be able to teach her young more survival skills than any man will, anyway. [/quote]

Survival skills that largely consist of killing other things.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]I highly doubt that any animal will be able to escape a zoo without being stopped. There are fences, guards, cages, and security for a reason. There is very little chance of an animal in a zoo being able to return to the wild without the zoo's consent. If they are released, there will be better methods to teach animals to live in the wild.

No, not like poaching or hunting.

[/quote]

But poaching and hunting are so fun!

[ApocalypseAelis]

[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
Nope; it was only legal in six of the original thirteen (Georgia, the two Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware). It wasn't until the Dred Scott decision in the 1850s that slavery became "legal" in every state, but even then, states found ways of getting around it.[/quote]

The Civil War began after the Dred Scott case. So, as I said before, all 13 colonies legalized slavery before the Civil War.

[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
African-Americans are members of our species. Notice people say human rights. If a dog bites you, should the dog be held accountable the way a person would and be put through the same legal process? No, because it's not a member of the same species. Race is scientifically invalid; species is not.

Until animals start paying taxes and upholding the laws, they should not have rights.
[/quote]

Is that the way you view the world? When you see something, do you think, "What can that do for me?" and nothing else? Do you think, "because that cannot help me, it does not deserve to live"?

Do homeless people pay their taxes? Do people in deep states of poverty pay their taxes? If not, should we slaughter them? What about children? Children don't pay their taxes. If they should die before they reach the age of an adult, should they have not deserved to live? Robbers? Should we kill them immediately after they have stolen a television from a house because they have not upheld our laws? Tourists don't pay taxes to the US; they pay taxes to their own country. Let us not allow them in our country, then.


Dogs do not choose to live in the human's society; they choose to live in their own. We are the ones who take them in and buy them from stores as our companions. In their own societies or communities, relatives of the domestic dog (say wolves) treat each other by their own standards and their own rules. There is an alpha male. There is an alpha female. Pay the leader respect. Hunt in packs. If they stumble upon a human, do they have the right to kill that human for no reason whatsoever, merely because the human has not done anything for them and does not go by a wolf's standards?


Dogs help us in countless ways. They guide the blind. They are wonderful companions for little children, mature adults, and senior citizens alike. They'll cheer us up when we're down. They're nice pillows. (hah) They're loyal and supportive. There is a reason why they are called man's best friend.

You can point out millions of ways how dogs are terrible, but they were born on this earth the same way we were and we must have some amount of decency in us to not do whatever we want with all creatures that do not follow human standards.


Also, what do you mean by race and not species being scientifically invalid? Invalid in what?

[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
What about sadists? It's possible to rob banks or kill families, but, while most people don't because they're humane, the law is also there to check the remaining people.

Taking away the right of people to have zoos might be considered inhumane, too. In fact, I say any restriction on voluntary individual acts that doesn't adversely affect other people is inhumane. So to 'humanely' treat animals, your proposed course of action would be 'inhumane' to people. And notice the root of the word humane.
[/quote]

[quote]
We have to look at both sides of everything.[/quote]

I spy hypocrisy.

If a guy decided to starve his cat and leave it to die in it's own feces, you could argue that not allowing that would be 'inhumane' for the guy, but

[quote]
we have to look at both sides of everything[/quote]

and consider the suffering of the cat, which is certainly not very humane. Most of us will agree that starving a creature in inappropriate living conditions is a harsher punishment than restricting a guy from his sadistic whims.

The root of the word humane comes from the latin root "hum", anyway, which means earth or ground. Human, humus, or exhume all have the same roots.


Like I have said, I support zoos that provide good living conditions for the animals.

[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
A mature Tokyo oxygen bar does that too, only the oxygen it lets out is fresher and provides for a lot more than 30 adult humans.
So do HEPA filters. My street is full of trees, but it was the Sharper Image Ionic Breeze that significantly improved air quality in my house.
[/quote]

How much time and money would it cost to build an oxygen bar in your backyard? How much for planting an oak tree seed?


Once again, we cannot view the world so cynically as to kill living things merely because they are unnecessary to us.

[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
21% of the atmosphere is Oxygen, and there are far more plants than humans. We are far from the point of environmental disaster.
That's not going to happen. The best way of gauging resource depletion is to see the prices you pay. If oil suddenly goes to $4/gallon, we can assume that the world's oil supply is running short. If the price of iron ore goes up, we can assume that there's less iron ore, etc. If the price of ivory is going up, we can assume that we're shooting too many elephants.
Do you know how many new trees are grown in a year? Trees are a veryrenewable resource. That's whay paper, chairs, doors, etc., don't cost any more than they used to. On the other hand, if you look at a short-term nonrenewable resource like oil, the price of that is skyrocketing as the supply dwindles.
The price of wood products is not growing any faster than general inflation. There is no 'critical' deforestation. If anything, the price of paper is going down relative to other goods, because of how fast trees reproduce.
[/quote]

I have never said that deforestation is a crime, nor have I said that we are anywhere near an apocalypse due to a lack of resources. I have said that we need to keep a limit on our deforestation and think for the future.


[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
Every species competes with every other species over the resources they need. It's not inhumane; it's a biological fact. Nothing in the natural world 'deserves' to live; it only lives if its genes are good enough to. That's why people exist in the first place. The rules of 'civil' society were created because people realized everyone was better off from not killing/enslaving/robbing each other. But cutting down trees? No.
[/quote]

Humans are no long completely part of the natural world. We have different standards from a lion, pigeon, or lizard. We do not eat our meat raw or sleep in caves, and they do not operate computers or earn wages. No other creature on earth can think, work, or interact with others of the same species the way we do.

In the human world, success is determined by things like discipline, intelligence, and skill. In the wild, success is determined by strength, agility, and other physical characteristics.

The standards of a human and a wild creature are not interchangable. We cannot destroy the environment with the excuse that it is "survival of the fittest" because we are not wild animals.

[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
For every creature we find that cures cancer; we'll find a hundred that cause it.

Medical science is mostly the story of manmade chemicals triumphing over natural diseases, not vice versa.
[/quote]

Cancer isn't contagious, and the main causes of cancer1 have nothing to do with animals.


[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
...which can't be blamed on human activity, seeing as whale flatulence lets off more CO2 than all human industry in the world combined.
[/quote]

First of all, if you want to blame animals for a change in the climate, cows are actually the greatest producers of CO2 on earth. This is NOT the problem and was never a problem. Any animal's (including humans) releasing of CO2 is part of a cycle between the plants and animals. Cows convert plant matter into CO2, and plants convert the CO2 into oxygen via photosynthesis.

However, when humans take out carbon sources from the ground and burn it into CO2, which is released into the atmosphere, the net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increased, and the cycle is disrupted. Whatever you choose to believe, you cannot deny that the releasure of flatunence is no more than a necessary part of an environmental cycle. It does not add CO2 to the atmosphere. What is an issue is whether additional CO2 emissions from human industries will tip the balance and absorb enough sunlight to cause a significant change in the temperature.

We're already experiencing a few bad side-effects from this, anyway-yay for melting icecaps in the northern hemisphere.

Oh, and there's another reason to plant more trees and plants. Get rid of all the CO2 we're making. Woohoo. Yeah, I know, it's not as simple as that...although not chopping down so many forests would help.


So, yes, it can be and is blamed on all the human industries in the world combined.

[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
Could this be attributed to overfarming because people are living in poverty, because in third world countries, they aren't utilizing the environment enough? I think it could.[/quote]

Third world countries cannot afford to use things like soil enrichening fertilizer or lime. Soil erosion is attributed to overfarming due to growing populations in poor countries, but it isn't because they aren't utilizing the environment enough. In fact, overfarming leads to deforestation.

[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
Which isn't nearly as devastating as it used to be. Ever since Holland started putting up dykes in the 17th century, flooding has ceased to become a threat in the western world. The Allegheny flooded last year. I think a cat might've drowned. Maybe.
[/quote]

About 5 million people live in flood risk areas in England and Wales. We can always do better.

[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
The atmosphere's a big place, created over almost five billion years. The chemical makeup of the atmosphere has not changed significantly over the last 100 years. It's the same mix of nitrogen, oxygen, and trace elements that it's always been.
[/quote]

And of course global warming was caused by a divine force from above.

[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
So do 50% of the diseases that those medicines are supposed to cure. Smallpox and malaria, two of the biggest killers of humans in history, both originated from rainforest environments. Much of Africa is totally unusable because of the Tsetse flies that lurk in the jungles.

We have to look at both sides of everything. I can say that Stalin tripled agricultural production in the Soviet Union. But that doesn't mean he was a good person.
[/quote]

Even if we did destroy the rainforest, malaria flies would find a way to adapt. Destroying half the creatures that live on the earth isn't worth it.

[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
And who cut down those trees to build chairs, doors, closets, bedframes, tables, books, homes, tourist traps, etc. Funny how people are alike.
[/quote]

They have to utilize what they have, don't they? What do you expect them to do, live in caves and eat rocks? There's a difference between a village chopping logs to build cabins and a large industry cutting down forests by the acre.

Once again, just to clarify, I know deforestation is necessary, but we need to manage the speed and damage.

[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
Neither are really 'sins'. If you gamble or drink so much that you lose contorl of yourself and start hurting others, then it can become sinful, but friends playing a game of Texas Hold 'Em over beers are hardly sinners.
[/quote]

"...will not allow me to condone alchohol in zoos."

Gambling is as much of a sin as drinking.



[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
Survival skills that largely consist of killing other things.[/quote]

Many factors of the hunt and kill are missing in cagefights-sneaking up on prey, for example. When a mother lion teaches her young, the worst that can happen will be that the cub won't be able to catch his/her prey. The worst that can happen in a cagefight is a bloody, painful death which equals one less animal to release to the wild.

[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
But poaching and hunting are so fun!
[/quote]

If people don't have enough morals or intellect to not do only what entertains them, we're in trouble.



[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]Should differing opinions of books and people stop us from interacting or learning from them? No person will ever base his entire opinion on one source.[/quote]

You forgot to reply.


1 Insufficient good quality protien or fat, excessive amounts of transfats from hydrogenated fat or refined oils, excessive amounts of poor quality protein from overcooking and processing of foods, lack of digestive enzymes, poisoned water or air, excessive ingestion of drugs, vitamin deficiencies, hormone imbalance, low thyroid, adrenal insufficiency, high estrogen, and a weak immune system from viruses or bacteria.

[ComradeRed]

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]
The Civil War began after the Dred Scott case. So, as I said before, all 13 colonies legalized slavery before the Civil War.[/quote]

They didn't legalize slavery; the Federal government nullified their laws against slavery.

It's like medical marijuana. California didn't abolish it; the Federal government is preventing California from giving perscriptions.

In reality, the States managed to get around the Court decision by passing laws that made life so hard for a slave owner that no one dared to even try.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]Is that the way you view the world? When you see something, do you think, "What can that do for me?" and nothing else? Do you think, "because that cannot help me, it does not deserve to live"?[/quote]

That's how everyone thinks. If you give money to a charity, you gain benefit from feeling better about yourself and the world--that's worth more than the money, so you do it.

There is nothing wrong with self-interest, or what I like to call "reason". Everyone acts to fulfill his preferences--these preferences may involve other people or just himself, but the fact remains that they are only his preferences.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]Do homeless people pay their taxes?[/quote]

They would be legally bound to pay taxes on any money they earn.

If a blind person pays a homeless person to escort him somewhere, then the homeless person would pay taxes on that.

If a blind person pays a dog to do that, the dog would not pay taxes on it.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]Do people in deep states of poverty pay their taxes? If not, should we slaughter them?[/quote]

Yes they do. They pay taxes on the money they earn; they pay taxes on things they buy -- we just give them back more than they pay in.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]What about children? Children don't pay their taxes.[/quote]

Have you ever heard of sales taxes?

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]If they should die before they reach the age of an adult, should they have not deserved to live? Robbers? Should we kill them immediately after they have stolen a television from a house because they have not upheld our laws?[/quote]

No, we punish them in accordance with our legal system. If they don't uphold a law, they are given a trial, and then have the obligation to serve the sentence in the trial.

If a robber robs me, I can sue him. I can't sue a dog that bites me.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]Tourists don't pay taxes to the US; they pay taxes to their own country. Let us not allow them in our country, then.[/quotes]

Sales taxes? Hotel taxes? The Federal gas tax? Visa fees? Imposts? Duties? Tariffs?

There are more taxes than income taxes.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]Dogs do not choose to live in the human's society; they choose to live in their own.[/quote]

Exactly; they aren't apart of human society, so human rules of conduct don't apply.

It's good etiquette for a man to pay for a date in China, but in Holland, the rule is that both pay for themselves. Thus, because the Dutch do not live in Chinese society, the Chinese are not bound by the rule of "guy pays" when they deal with Dutch people.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]We are the ones who take them in and buy them from stores as our companions. In their own societies or communities, relatives of the domestic dog (say wolves) treat each other by their own standards and their own rules. There is an alpha male. There is an alpha female. Pay the leader respect. Hunt in packs. If they stumble upon a human, do they have the right to kill that human for no reason whatsoever, merely because the human has not done anything for them and does not go by a wolf's standards?[/quote]

Of course; they do that all the time. Wolves were a major threat to farmers in ancient societies, because the wolves would attack their farms and their sheep.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]Dogs help us in countless ways. They guide the blind. They are wonderful companions for little children, mature adults, and senior citizens alike. They'll cheer us up when we're down. They're nice pillows. (hah) They're loyal and supportive. There is a reason why they are called man's best friend.[/quote]

They're tasty. (j/k, but that was in line with your pillow comment)

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]You can point out millions of ways how dogs are terrible, but they were born on this earth the same way we were and we must have some amount of decency in us to not do whatever we want with all creatures that do not follow human standards.
Also, what do you mean by race and not species being scientifically invalid? Invalid in what?
I spy hypocrisy.[/quote]

Invalid in the fact that there's no scientific definition of a 'race', but a scientific definition of a species is clear--if two entites produce viable offspring, they're a species.

White and black people are the same species, for example, because they can mate and give birth to a viable offspring. People and dogs are not the same species, because they can't.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]If a guy decided to starve his cat and leave it to die in it's own feces, you could argue that not allowing that would be 'inhumane' for the guy, but
and consider the suffering of the cat, which is certainly not very humane. Most of us will agree that starving a creature in inappropriate living conditions is a harsher punishment than restricting a guy from his sadistic whims.[/quote]

Do you eat meat? Should the government ban you from eating meat? Certainly, if animals have rights, the right to life must exceed some guy's desire for more protein.

And while we're at it, why don't we ban vegetables too. Plant rights all the way.

And antibiotics--they kill living things by the billions.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]The root of the word humane comes from the latin root "hum", anyway, which means earth or ground. Human, humus, or exhume all have the same roots.
Like I have said, I support zoos that provide good living conditions for the animals.
How much time and money would it cost to build an oxygen bar in your backyard? How much for planting an oak tree seed?[/quote]

A small oxygen bar could fit in my house. A large oak tree could not.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]Once again, we cannot view the world so cynically as to kill living things merely because they are unnecessary to us.[/quote]

Listerine?

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]I have never said that deforestation is a crime, nor have I said that we are anywhere near an apocalypse due to a lack of resources. I have said that we need to keep a limit on our deforestation and think for the future.[/quote]

We already have a limit--it's called price.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]Humans are no long completely part of the natural world. We have different standards from a lion, pigeon, or lizard. We do not eat our meat raw or sleep in caves,[/quote]

But I love sushi!

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]and they do not operate computers or earn wages. No other creature on earth can think, work, or interact with others of the same species the way we do.[/quote]

A cheetah can run a lot faster than even the fastest humans. Should they be thus held accountable for it? Every species is different--people build computers and earn wages now because that's what we're good at. Cheetahs run because that's what they're good at.

It's a supreme act of arrogance to say that humans are somehow different from all other animals. Each species has its own method of survival, that may be better or worse suited for a particular environment. Evolution is about adaptation, not about 'progress'.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]In the human world, success is determined by things like discipline, intelligence, and skill. In the wild, success is determined by strength, agility, and other physical characteristics.[/quote]

In the wild, a discplined tiger that intelligently and skillfully lies in wait and stalks his prey has a better chance of surviving then a stronger and more agile one that bites everything in its path.

The traits needed for survival in people and animals are a lot more similar than you think.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]The standards of a human and a wild creature are not interchangable. We cannot destroy the environment with the excuse that it is "survival of the fittest" because we are not wild animals.[/quote]

We're still genetically animals. We have to be; we're not plants, or fungi, or protists, or bacteria, right?

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]Cancer isn't contagious, and the main causes of cancer1 have nothing to do with animals.[/quote]

Cancer isn't contagious, but it can be caused by certain chemicals, which may be found in natural settings, can it not?

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]First of all, if you want to blame animals for a change in the climate, cows are actually the greatest producers of CO2 on earth. This is NOT the problem and was never a problem. Any animal's (including humans) releasing of CO2 is part of a cycle between the plants and animals. Cows convert plant matter into CO2, and plants convert the CO2 into oxygen via photosynthesis.

However, when humans take out carbon sources from the ground and burn it into CO2, which is released into the atmosphere, the net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increased, and the cycle is disrupted. Whatever you choose to believe, you cannot deny that the releasure of flatunence is no more than a necessary part of an environmental cycle. It does not add CO2 to the atmosphere. What is an issue is whether additional CO2 emissions from human industries will tip the balance and absorb enough sunlight to cause a significant change in the temperature.[/quote]

Once again, double standard. A cow's activities are considered 'natural', but somehow a human's aren't?

If you're saying that human industry tips the scale for CO2, I can make an equally good argument that cow flatulence tips the scale and we should wipe out all the cows.

In fact, my argument would be better, because you admit that there is more cow flatulence than industrial CO2. CO2 is CO2 no matter which way you cut it.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]We're already experiencing a few bad side-effects from this, anyway-yay for melting icecaps in the northern hemisphere.[/quote]

Too bad 99.7% of the world's total ice is in Antartica, very far away from the northern hemisphere.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]Oh, and there's another reason to plant more trees and plants. Get rid of all the CO2 we're making. Woohoo. Yeah, I know, it's not as simple as that...although not chopping down so many forests would help.
So, yes, it can be and is blamed on all the human industries in the world combined.
Third world countries cannot afford to use things like soil enrichening fertilizer or lime. Soil erosion is attributed to overfarming due to growing populations in poor countries, but it isn't because they aren't utilizing the environment enough. In fact, overfarming leads to deforestation.[/quote]

Yes, and we can see the devastating effects of overfarming in Pennsylvania, which has higher food exports per capita than any country in the world.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]About 5 million people live in flood risk areas in England and Wales. We can always do better.[/quote]

About 2 million people live in flood risk areas in Western Pennsylvania. No one here has died form a flood in over a hundred and fifty years. There's a difference between a 'flood risk' and a 'flood death risk'.

Moreover, flood risks result from rivers. Floods have existed since the beginning of the world. Our argument is like saying "5 million people live near rivers. We can always do better."

The threat of global warming applies mainly to coastal flooding. River flooding is the result of usually too much rainfall or natural flux.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]And of course global warming was caused by a divine force from above.[/quote]

Yes; we like to call it "Thermodynamics".

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]Even if we did destroy the rainforest, malaria flies would find a way to adapt. Destroying half the creatures that live on the earth isn't worth it.[/quote]

I'm not saying we should; my point is, far more people have been killed by rainforest diseases than have been saved by rainfoest medicines.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]They have to utilize what they have, don't they? What do you expect them to do, live in caves and eat rocks? There's a difference between a village chopping logs to build cabins and a large industry cutting down forests by the acre.[/quote]

Both involve improving your quality of life. I don't see what's wrong with that.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]Once again, just to clarify, I know deforestation is necessary, but we need to manage the speed and damage.[/quote]

We already do that through the price market.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]"...will not allow me to condone alchohol in zoos."

Gambling is as much of a sin as drinking. [/quote]

No, no, compulsive gambling is as much of a sin as drunkeness. Drinking isn't a sin; people drink at weddings; and they even drink at liturgies. There's a difference between drinking and drunkenness, the same way there's a difference between playing Texas Hold 'Em (or betting on a cagefight every now and then) with good friends and using your and your spouses' welfare check to buy lottery tickets. (Although I'd rather them buy lottery tickets than say, crack)

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]Many factors of the hunt and kill are missing in cagefights-sneaking up on prey, for example.[/quote]

But that would involve discipline and intelligence. As you say yourself, those are human characteristics, and nature rewards just strength and agility--two things that can be tested in a cagefight very well.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]When a mother lion teaches her young, the worst that can happen will be that the cub won't be able to catch his/her prey.[/quote]

Hey, and guess what happens if you aren't able to catch your prey in the wild? You starve to death!

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]The worst that can happen in a cagefight is a bloody, painful death which equals one less animal to release to the wild.[/quote]

Starving to death is pretty painful IMHO...

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]If people don't have enough morals or intellect to not do only what entertains them, we're in trouble.
You forgot to reply.[/quote]

When did I say they shouldn't? Having cagefights and improving society are not mutually exclusive. I am perfectly capable of watching a cagefight on Sunday, and then going off to my doctoring/lawyering/businessing/engineering on Monday.

I think most people are.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]1 [size=1]Insufficient good quality protien or fat, excessive amounts of transfats from hydrogenated fat or refined oils, excessive amounts of poor quality protein from overcooking and processing of foods, lack of digestive enzymes, poisoned water or air,[/quote]

...result from living in the middle of the rainforest or other areas without Supermarkets.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]excessive ingestion of drugs, vitamin deficiencies,[/quote]

Good contradiction there.

It's a lot easier to get vitamins today then it has ever been in history. If you want to argue vitamin imbalance, that's fine, but with the advent of Centrum, vitamin deficiency is rare to nonexistent in developed countries.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]hormone imbalance,[/quote]

That contradicts with the drugs again. Not everyone is mentally well-balanced to begin with. Most hormone imbalances you can live with. If you really want to treat them go use some drugs.

But that's nothing new. People have been using drugs to treat depression for centuries.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]low thyroid,[/quote]

Ouch. It would have to depend on how low the thyroid is. Like, is it just a little bit low? Or does it crush the base of your neck? Or is it as far down as the top of your lungs? I've never heard of someone with a "low thyroid" before. They should really consider surgery for that kind of thing.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]adrenal insufficiency, high estrogen,[/quote]

Guys are whipped, and there are too many feminists. What else is new?

Although I severely doubt adrenal insufficiency--it seems we have too much adrenaline, because of all the stress and steroids of modern society.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]and a weak immune system from viruses or bacteria.[/quote]

And living closer to nature, where there are even more viruses and bacteria, will cure that... how?