{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/9/2015 1:14:31 AM
11
Species go extinct on a daily basis. Do we preserve their existence as a means of moral justice, or are we really just hindering the true nature of the world. Survival of the fittest, and some species cannot continue to exist with the changing world without constant protection; so in a manner of speaking, is this not wrong?
English
-
Depends, if the world is changing because of us - then yes we should save them. If not - no. I think if we could genetically bring back Dodos - we should because WE killed them all. But bringing back wolly mammoths - no because they died naturally.
-
Species are going extinct at a rate so high that ecosystems can not keep up with the loss of biomass and regulating predators. Nature's getting -blam!-ed mate.
-
On a daily basis? Uuuuh nah bruh They don't. And if we're the reason they go extinct it's our responsibility to stop it.
-
Edited by The Peasant: 6/9/2015 1:33:39 AMThe ocean is a big place. And why is it our responsibility to nurture that which is being left behind by the rest of the world? Is it because we find it morally right? Because it's acceptable? Even if we are the cause, by no means I would feel we are the solution. We are simply not capable of compassion beyond ourselves. Even if we fool ourselves to believe otherwise. Even if a species goes extent, it will affect the animals around that ecosystem yes, but as history has shown us, it is a part of nature, and nature adapts. You can find this to be true with raccoon, deer, and many other suburban animals. Edit: tl;dr Natural Selection
-
If you wish to look at it selfishly then without certain species we as humans will die. Inb4 humans victim of natural selection then You can not care or find some edgy reasoning to dismiss it. I'm not here to argue with anyone. This isn't a debate. It's an awareness thread. You believe it futile and as an ego boost to humans? Cool! Good for you man.
-
I'm not trying to argue or debate, I just lack the same understanding you seem to. Most likely by different perceptions on our surroundings. But all beauty will someday fade, and to try to protect that beauty is also a commendable effort, but still fruitless. So why is this so important? Or rather, why is it important to you specifically?
-
Well, its best to preserve as many species as possible. Each species is almost integral to the survival of other species in an ecosystem, by preventing over population, providing food, predating predators themselves and so forth. Thus, preservation of one species or one type of species helps preserve the community. Species loss then leads to a variety of human-impacting environmental issues: Pest overabundance Less fertile soil Increased chance of flooding The loss of valuable chemicals (e.g antibiotic fungi/plant secretions) Increased rates of desertification, in which case, natural selection would result in shrubs and small bugs surviving, while larger fauna, farms and settlements 'die out'.
-
Edited by II Smiggles II: 6/9/2015 2:08:43 AMFeh It takes so little to defuse me. I'm glad I can't stay grumpy though. And also glad you're willing to step around that and listen. I only wish I were in a more articulative mood. I find that a judge of someone's core character can be made on how they treat things that can't speak or defend for themselves. It's possible in the end it's fruitless But it won't stop me from attempting to at least stave it off. The importance to me? The only reasoning I'm able to formulate at this point is I see it as abuse to let it happen. And I want to improve life where I can. As creamy as that is
-
I wont dwell too deeply into this since you seem like you would rather not, but I can at least respect the will of existence.
-
For a peasant you seem well educated.
-
I read this from a page on reddit
