CrazyCatLord
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 25, 2011
Posts: 2177
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:46 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I agree. Even the extermination of an entire species is not wrong by default. Pubic lice, for example, are an endangered species nowadays. But does anybody really care? Good riddance, I say. Head lice are not doing so well either anymore, and that's a good thing.
And what about ticks, bed bugs, or endoparasitic worms? Do we really need them? Does any part of the eco-system benefit from their existence? Ok, ticks might serve as food for hungry birds and predatory arthropods, but all internal and permanently attached external parasites serve no ecological function whatsoever. The same goes for pathogenic bacteria, protozoa and yeasts. I'd say we should find a way to kill the bastards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
AngelRho
Synclavier owner/operator
Joined: Jan 05, 2008
Posts: 3753
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Ria1989
Deinonychus
Joined: Feb 19, 2011
Posts: 336
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Does any part of the eco-system benefit from their existence? Ok, ticks might serve as food for hungry birds and predatory arthropods, but all internal and permanently attached external parasites serve no ecological function whatsoever. The same goes for pathogenic bacteria, protozoa and yeasts. I'd say we should find a way to kill the bastards.[/quote]
Though I really want to agree with the pathogenic bacteria statement, I would argue that we are perceived to be those things to other people in our ecosystem. Think of all the resources we're using on earth so we can live our life. It doesn't matter if it negatively affects other species on this planet, as long as we're happy. It's a bit hypocritical for us to do the same, and not allow anyone else to do it.
Lastly, if we keep on exterminating things, what happens when we go up the ecosystem? Say, we get to birds? Now what do we decide...do we ask the world and take a vote? This is where discrimination comes into play. Where do we draw the line, and who the heck gets to decide what's good and bad?
I also do want to add a realistic statement: not many people, including myself, will die just to prove a point on negatively discriminating between species. Until there's another way to solve this, and until we know more about the implications, we can only ponder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
simon_says
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2011
Posts: 2443
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We've already decided it's not terribly important. There is a mass extinction going on. lol. If we arent eating them, we are taking their habitat.
Factory farms are disgusting. Personally I still eat some meat but I also eat fake meat. i can do a variety of things with it. Once we perfect the growing of aritificial meat I expect factory farms to go the way of the bull fights. Or at least be diminished in scale. But that will take time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Oodain
big chief wulla bamboom alakaway
Joined: Jan 31, 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 5022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ria1989 wrote: | | Does any part of the eco-system benefit from their existence? Ok, ticks might serve as food for hungry birds and predatory arthropods, but all internal and permanently attached external parasites serve no ecological function whatsoever. The same goes for pathogenic bacteria, protozoa and yeasts. I'd say we should find a way to kill the bastards. |
Though I really want to agree with the pathogenic bacteria statement, I would argue that we are perceived to be those things to other people in our ecosystem. Think of all the resources we're using on earth so we can live our life. It doesn't matter if it negatively affects other species on this planet, as long as we're happy. It's a bit hypocritical for us to do the same, and not allow anyone else to do it.
Lastly, if we keep on exterminating things, what happens when we go up the ecosystem? Say, we get to birds? Now what do we decide...do we ask the world and take a vote? This is where discrimination comes into play. Where do we draw the line, and who the heck gets to decide what's good and bad?
I also do want to add a realistic statement: not many people, including myself, will die just to prove a point on negatively discriminating between species. Until there's another way to solve this, and until we know more about the implications, we can only ponder.[/quote]
good and bad are not universal concepts, no one can decide them.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Ria1989
Deinonychus
Joined: Feb 19, 2011
Posts: 336
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| But people are when they discriminate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Oodain
big chief wulla bamboom alakaway
Joined: Jan 31, 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 5022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ria1989 wrote: | | But people are when they discriminate? |
people are??
please explain what you mean
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
shrox
Phoenix
Joined: Aug 12, 2011
Posts: 3254
Location: OK let's go.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NarcissusSavage wrote: | | shrox wrote: | | shrox wrote: | | NarcissusSavage wrote: | | shrox wrote: | In this case, it's not discrimination. The idea that animals and humans are on the same level is easily disprovable. Look around. Animals live very differently than we do. They are not as conscious of death as we are.
And if nothing dies, within 24 hours the Earth would be covered with masses of bacteria, algae and bugs, several feet deep, with weeks it would be hundreds of feet deep.
Mortals need death. |
This is not true. All of it. Shrox, why do you spout off random stuff that is so patently false? All the time, and for no apparent reason...
In that case it was discrimination, although possibly justifiable discrimination. Humans are animals, and what level are you talking about??? Animals live exactly the same as us, they eat, breath, sleep, drink, interact, deposited waste, reproduce, and die. If you are referring to their lifestyles, not the method of living, then you could make a case...but humans don't have the same lifestyles as each other, and some do live in a manner similar to other animals. You have no idea if an animal is conscious of death or not.
And seriously...if nothing dies, within 24 hours nothing will have really changed. There might be some limited plant and bacterial growth. But non claimed resources would very quickly dry up, and no further growth, in any organism, or further reproduction would happen. Nothing would continue eating, because eating would be problematic, as if you tried to eat something, it would remain alive, and thus indigestible. You would gain no sustenance from it, and waste your very finite energy stores. You would quickly run out of chemical energy, and all active functions would cease, as you could not even burn fat cells or tap your body's energy reserves properly as that requires cell death, so you would eventually become completely motionless and inactive, but due to this arbitrary stipulation of non dying, you would somehow remain alive. Bacteria, bugs etc would have only the limited non bound resources to consume before they too ran out of energy. They cannot eat each other effectively, as none of them can die, and no resources are being deposited or excreted due to lack of intake. These too would cease to operate in any meaningful way and lay dormant. So…if nothing can die, there will not be hundreds of feet of random critters. Everything would just go into a sleep like torpor. |
Umm, since "nothing dies" in the given scenario, other factors like available food, heat generated by the living mass, crushing weight of the mass on the bottom layer cells, number of eggs dying, etc, are pretty much moot.
Did you like the "heat generated by the living mass" part? I did. And you think I spout off random stuff that is so patently false...all the time, and for no apparent reason...like I don't think things out. Meh.
Oh, yes. I forgot. Why do you care, oh limited mortal that you are? |
I won! |
I'm not sure what you won...but congratulations.
You're a fan of the logical fallacy. You might well think things out, yet it is not logic you seem to use if that is the case, but a corrupt form of it. How do you like people using logical fallacies?
Since
"All dogs are animals,
and all collies are animals,
then all collies are dogs"
is true, so is
"All Jihadists are Theists,
and all Christians are Theists,
then all Christians are Jihadists." |
My point was that if nothing dies, then all the mechanics that normally govern death must be off too. You do know there are research species of bacteria that multiply wildly so one can quickly observe changes to the organism over generations in relation to changes in conditions, diet, lighting, etc.
In an ideal environment, a bacteria cell can divide approximately every 20 minutes.
Bacterial Growth in a Single Bacteria Cell Dividing Every 20 Minutes over 24 hours.
Time Bacterial Count
9:00 a.m. 1
10:00 a.m. 8
11:00 a.m. 64
12:00 p.m. 512
1:00 p.m. 4,000
2:00 p.m. 32,000
3:00 p.m. 262,000
4:00 p.m. 2,000,000
5:00 p.m. 16,000,000
6:00 p.m. 134,000,000
7:00 p.m. 1,072,000,000
8:00 p.m. 8,576,000,000
9:00 p.m. 68,608,000,000
10:00 p.m. 548,864,000,000
11:00 p.m. 4,390,912,000,000
12:00 a.m. 35,127,296,000,000
1:00 a.m. 281,018,368,000,000
2:00 a.m. 2,248,146,944,000,000
3:00 a.m. 17,985,175,552,000,000
4:00 a.m. 143,881,404,416,000,000
5:00 a.m. 1,151,051,235,328,000,000
6:00 a.m. 9,208,409,882,624,000,000
7:00 a.m. 73,667,279,060,992,000,000
8:00 a.m. 589,338,232,487,936,000,000
9:00 a.m. 4,714,705,859,903,488,000,000
4,714,705,859,903,488,000,000 bacteria at 200 nanometers in size, (very small by the way) is 3,771,764,687,922,790.4 cubic meters of bacteria. From just one bacteria in 24 hours if nothing died. Now think of the seas...or what lives on your skin.
Check my math please.
Now if things that can't find food just going to some suspended state and don't reproduce, (like in the center of the mass), then growth would drop off substantially. But if the bacteria arranged themselves into a microbial mat, complete with micro-piping to distribute food and remove waste, well then it would still grow and reproduce. |
|
| Back to top |
|
shrox
Phoenix
Joined: Aug 12, 2011
Posts: 3254
Location: OK let's go.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I won.
Thanks Pat. I'll take the gift certificate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ria1989
Deinonychus
Joined: Feb 19, 2011
Posts: 336
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was referring to when we discriminate between what life should and shouldn't exist. I understand your point: good and bad aren't universal concepts, which solidifies my reason. I don't believe we should get rid of life because it doesn't personally appeal to us. Everything is socially biased, or I guess culturally biased might be more appropriate...
I guess this might be a better way to look at it. I'm allergic to tree nuts (go into anaphylaxis shock). I will die if I don't seek medical attention. To me, it would be beneficial to get rid of all tree nuts, but then no one else would be able to eat them. Just like I can presumably eat other things besides tree nuts, certain animals could eat other things besides tics. Tree nuts are off limits to me. Tics would be off limits to them. I can only speak for myself, but I would like the option of eating tree nuts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Oodain
big chief wulla bamboom alakaway
Joined: Jan 31, 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 5022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ria1989 wrote: | I was referring to when we discriminate between what life should and shouldn't exist. I understand your point: good and bad aren't universal concepts, which solidifies my reason. I don't believe we should get rid of life because it doesn't personally appeal to us. Everything is socially biased, or I guess culturally biased might be more appropriate...
I guess this might be a better way to look at it. I'm allergic to tree nuts (go into anaphylaxis shock). I will die if I don't seek medical attention. To me, it would be beneficial to get rid of all tree nuts, but then no one else would be able to eat them. Just like I can presumably eat other things besides tree nuts, certain animals could eat other things besides tics. Tree nuts are off limits to me. Tics would be off limits to them. I can only speak for myself, but I would like the option of eating tree nuts. |
discrimination works both ways.
tree nuts are life, in a way the procreationa tool of the specie, much like our embryos.
i cant find a logical reason nor moral reason why one should consider absolutely all life sacred, i think the value of life is immeasurable but that is not the same as saying death is inherently bad.
things die, things get killed and its perfectly natural and unavoidable even in the best of societies.
dont get me wrong i loathe the casual way some people kill, especially when it has far reaching consequences, i just dont think that its realistic even in an ideal world to look at all life as sacred.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
shrox
Phoenix
Joined: Aug 12, 2011
Posts: 3254
Location: OK let's go.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What about viruses and prions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Thom_Fuleri
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 08, 2010
Posts: 814
Location: Leicestershire, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shrox wrote: | | What about viruses and prions? |
Now there you're heading into awkward territory. Many would say that a virus is not alive (and a prion even less alive than a virus). They're just machines that replicate themselves. The problem is, you could say the same about most so-called living things. Determining the difference between life and non-life is a puzzle that none have yet been able to solve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
shrox
Phoenix
Joined: Aug 12, 2011
Posts: 3254
Location: OK let's go.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thom_Fuleri wrote: | | shrox wrote: | | What about viruses and prions? |
Now there you're heading into awkward territory. Many would say that a virus is not alive (and a prion even less alive than a virus). They're just machines that replicate themselves. The problem is, you could say the same about most so-called living things. Determining the difference between life and non-life is a puzzle that none have yet been able to solve. |
Even certain buckyballs and nanotubes can self-assemble, but I would say they do not reproduce. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ria1989
Deinonychus
Joined: Feb 19, 2011
Posts: 336
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Oodain wrote: | | Ria1989 wrote: | I was referring to when we discriminate between what life should and shouldn't exist. I understand your point: good and bad aren't universal concepts, which solidifies my reason. I don't believe we should get rid of life because it doesn't personally appeal to us. Everything is socially biased, or I guess culturally biased might be more appropriate...
I guess this might be a better way to look at it. I'm allergic to tree nuts (go into anaphylaxis shock). I will die if I don't seek medical attention. To me, it would be beneficial to get rid of all tree nuts, but then no one else would be able to eat them. Just like I can presumably eat other things besides tree nuts, certain animals could eat other things besides tics. Tree nuts are off limits to me. Tics would be off limits to them. I can only speak for myself, but I would like the option of eating tree nuts. |
discrimination works both ways.
tree nuts are life, in a way the procreationa tool of the specie, much like our embryos.
i cant find a logical reason nor moral reason why one should consider absolutely all life sacred, i think the value of life is immeasurable but that is not the same as saying death is inherently bad.
things die, things get killed and its perfectly natural and unavoidable even in the best of societies.
dont get me wrong i loathe the casual way some people kill, especially when it has far reaching consequences, i just dont think that its realistic even in an ideal world to look at all life as sacred. |
I can see what you mean when you say death doesn't mean inherently bad; that might be one person's view and not someone elses view. We're potentially placing a meaning on something that might have no meaning at all.
Getting rid of something altogether would leave no view as it would supposedly be gone forever. In this sense, there would be no option. I guess we could leave a sample in a lab somewhere, and take it out if we ever wanted it back. Does anyone think that it could be taken out of hand if we were to start the process of eradicating certain life? Who would decide? I guess if the consequences of eradication are not beneficial, we might have the chance to start over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
