Discussion in 'The Vapor Lounge' started by lwien, Jan 12, 2013.
that's about the complete opposite of my stance. I would like some more humankilling animals, that would solve a lot of overpopulationproblems, and maybe even put a positive selective effect on evolution(I would guess more stupid people get killed, as most smart people would know to stay away from dangerous animals)
and since people would stay away from those animals you get pieces of nature that aren't ruined by 'maintenance'.
and as far as personal danger goes, a human can kill me too and I encounter way too much of those in my daily life(humans, not murderers, although some could be wthout me knowing it ofcourse), but at least a humankilling animal is predictable, and in case where they don't atack to eat you you'll even get plenty of warning signs.also most of these humakilling animals have a way lower population density as humans, so the chance of encountering one is lower, so I think that the risk of getting killed would be lower in a region mainly inhabited by humankilling animals than it would be in a region (densely) poulated by humans, especially if you count traffic.
Wait... what you say sounds really dangerous to me; I think many people too could see what points are not unacceptable at all within those only few words.
I just don't think the death of a human is so damn special. humans are just a species of animal. every day plenty of animals die in nature, plenty of humans die everyday. ofcourse it sucks if that human that dies happens to be close to me. but that's life, pets die too, and nobody is making such a fuzz about the death of a pet as with the death of a human.
so for example I find it ridiculous to spend 20 years solving a rape+murder of a teenage girl, wich was eventually solved this year by taking DNA from every man in a certain radius around the crime scene. IMO, the negatives here(massive invasion of privacy, probably a lot of time and money spent) far outweigh the positives(society protected from someone not likely to do it again, since he had no victims between then and now and didn't plan it+relief for the family of the girl)
I do understand that if you are sopmeone close to a human getting killed in such a way you would do everything to pursue truth and justice, but I think that as a society we get carried away by such families of victims too much. I think as a society we should be able to stand above that, relativate that it's just 1 death(compared to all those deaths in traffic for example), and sure we should help the families of victims, but by helping them get on with their lifes instead of just going along with their emotions.
I'm sorry we're going far OT;
Humans are simply not animals... wow 4000 years of civilization to make such a mix. And I'm not talking about religion here; just your thoughts remind me a certain german guy who has strove to protect nature (within other "actions") around 1930 and 1945... you see what I mean?
Anyway just give us this damn croc skin vape that's all I need
WTF? That's like saying the earth is simply not round.
As creepy and hideous as they may be, they are the main predators of annoying bugs, particularly mosquitos.I say fuck mosquitos!
Mosquitoes do serve a purpose though. They are food for bats, spiders, birds and fish.
Me too. They transmit all kinds of disease. DDT was almost perfect . . . there is no free lunch.
So do humans.
Yeah but not on the scale that mosquitos do, especially in Africa and other 3rd world countries. Basically they are little flying, dirty, hypodermic needles and are a serious health hazard.
It's a fact that they have all banded together,this much we know. Between spiders,mosquitos and the obviously poisonous bats they have us surrounded. So what's our next move?
While it's known that the most dangerous animal/insect to man is mosquitoes, when you factor in disease, wars, accidents, suicides, homicides, etc etc, which living organism kills more humans, mosquitoes or other humans?
When phrased that way, humans definitely, of course. But I still hate mosquitoes. Always will. When my dad was a submariner they used to spray them (the sailors) with DDT when the boat got scabies . . . worked great
I hope it's us humans! They may have malaria, (germ warfare), but we got nukes. And we are willing to exterminate ourselves,just to prove a point. That and we have those electric bug-zapper things.
Yup. It just seems to me that the MOST dangerous animal to humans is other humans and as a species, I think we are unique in that trait, eh?
You know lwien, I think the last time I looked at child mortality rates, poor sanitation and contaminated food & drinking water were the #1 killer, but I could be wrong now. I still hate mosquitoes.
The most dangerous are only the stupid persons
What ? that would only happen in an eco system ! and that was debunked in a post on the Last page.
Back on topic . I LOVE Leather and skins. I would think that there are a lot of old punks,rockers,bikers cowboys,etc,etc...Who also love to vape and wear leather, eat hot dogs whatever.and thats my
I should have qualified that statement instead of relying on anyone to do their own research. While there is no doubt about the interconnectedness of things, it is false to think that any of these systems are stable or in any kind of equilibrium. Our entire lifetime is only like the briefest snapshot of the whole evolutionary process. Even the time since the Neanderthals were around represents only 0.01% of the time since mammals have existed on this planet (which itself is an even tinier fraction of the time since life began). Our inability to comprehend the bigger picture creates an illusion of stability. Species come and go, and interdependencies are constantly changing. People get hung up on the idea that everything must stay the same as it is now, and that nature exists in some kind of harmony. That is not realistic and life on earth has never been that way. Things die out, new species emerge, maybe they take their place, maybe they don't. It's not as neat and mechanical as the populist view of the "ecosystem" would have you believe.
That is a very rational point that you make, Hazy. And I agree with you for the most part.
The "problem" is that natural selection has given our species sentiment about fellow animals. It's in our DNA and it's not anyone's fault that our species has this common trait (in varying degrees of course).
So we make laws that cater to our common sense of empathy for other species (mostly the species that are cute and cuddly or otherwise fascinating to us).
If it's in our DNA, I wonder why. What purpose does it serve? Typically, things that are imbedded in our DNA has to do with survival, either personal survival or survival of the species. Hmmm......
A symbiotic relationship with 'domesticated' animals could have been a beneficial trait, no?
Or maybe it's our preference for a stable environment (I use environment in the sense of our immediate surroundings... things we can see, not in Al Gore's sense of the word). I know that I prefer things in general to be stable.
Or maybe it's got something to do with being a nurturer in general. This sometimes occurs in other species where a mother will care for a motherless animal from a different species.
Or it could be something totally different altogether, or a combination of many things... I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but I did stay at a Holidy Inn Express last night.
Sometimes, you have to be cruel to be kind. lol
Separate names with a comma.