African animals imported to North America ... - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-18-2005, 01:24 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 06:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


I guess, but I look at examples like the snow leopard which is now threatened with extinction because of human activities (hunting, traps, more farming means less land available etc) and I can't see how we can describe that as just part of nature.
For me it's a philosophical question but I don't have time to get into it. I'm not disagreeing with you, I want to save the animals as much as the next person, and do I think we are raping the earth of its natural resources which certainly impacts all life. At the same time, I do wonder how much of what even man does is part of a bigger natural cycle.
__________________

__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 01:25 PM   #17
Refugee
 
starsforu2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ashburn, VA (and permanently residing in u2bonogirls head!)
Posts: 2,070
Local Time: 09:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


I guess, but I look at examples like the snow leopard which is now threatened with extinction because of human activities (hunting, traps, more farming means less land available etc) and I can't see how we can describe that as just part of nature.
Factually it is a part of nature. If the snow leopard's predator were Lions instead of Humans, we would chalk it up to nature. We just happen to be it's worst predator, just because we have a choice doesn't make it any less "Natural". Man unchecked does what is in man's own best interest. I think you could make an argument that preserving the species is more "Unnatural" to man.

Before anyone jumps on my back, I think it would be perfectly lovely to protect them from extinction, but I do agree with NBC that "Natural" can be a bit of a fuzzy tag. I know it's silly to argue semantics, but maybe an argument based on whether or not it's right or wrong would be more effective than whether or not it's "Natural"

But really, I'm just bored on a Thursday afternoon, and no one has written anything interesting in a little while.
__________________

__________________
starsforu2 is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 01:30 PM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 01:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Obviously, humans have an impact on the environment of other creatures. But so do other animals - some devastating to species.
But humans impact is far more widespread and far more devastating. Of course there are examples of particular species becoming endangered or extinct because of another species, but the impact of human activity is so much more intensive and extensive.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 01:33 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 01:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by starsforu2
I know it's silly to argue semantics, but maybe an argument based on whether or not it's right or wrong would be more effective than whether or not it's "Natural"
In that case, whether natural or otherwise, it's wrong for humans to act in ways which have a devastating impact on the world around them.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 01:37 PM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


But humans impact is far more widespread and far more devastating. Of course there are examples of particular species becoming endangered or extinct because of another species, but the impact of human activity is so much more intensive and extensive.
Is it because of our actions, or our ability to avoid death? Overpopulation and destruction of resources is devastating on other beings. Humans have beat the system (for now).
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 01:38 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
In that case, whether natural or otherwise, it's wrong for humans to act in ways which have a devastating impact on the world around them.
Why?

I know we are very careful around FYM when labeling things as "wrong".
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 01:40 PM   #22
Refugee
 
starsforu2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ashburn, VA (and permanently residing in u2bonogirls head!)
Posts: 2,070
Local Time: 09:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


In that case, whether natural or otherwise, it's wrong for humans to act in ways which have a devastating impact on the world around them.
Now You're talking! Now we can debate on why what we do is bad instead of just labeling it unnatural.

So, is there a good example of man and the rest of nature coexisting well (on a large scale). We can flagellate ourselves to death, but if we have no goal than everything is unmeasurable.

I hear a lot of denunciations of man doing this and man doing that, and so it'd be nice to know if man does anything that is pleasing to the rest of nature, and if not... then what should man do?
__________________
starsforu2 is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 01:43 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 01:04 PM
It's wrong on a moral level - why do we have the right to destroy the environment? Why should we assume our right to tear down forests or pump pollutants into rivers is more important than the next generation's right to breathe clean air or live in a home that doesn't get flooded every time it rains?

It's also wrong on a purely practical level - environmental degredation had already begun to have an impact on humans, for instance low-lying countries which experience more flooding due to global warming.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 02:00 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
angelordevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Inside a sound
Posts: 5,827
Local Time: 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


But humans impact is far more widespread and far more devastating. Of course there are examples of particular species becoming endangered or extinct because of another species, but the impact of human activity is so much more intensive and extensive.
I was going to post the following as a new thread until I read this one...pretty seamless transition in subject, and also a Bono reference. Is it just me? Or is Bono getting a lot of flack from the 'sustainable development' experts? I think many of them view his aim as naive and misguided, but I believe he has been vocal about using all monies wisely. In spite of the criticism, nobody can deny Bono's role in raising a stink about Africa...the proof of this occurs when the 'experts' casually include his name in the same breath as global movers and shakers. That's a victory in my opinion. And now, it's a cover story in National Geographic. Should be an interesting read, based on the cover below...





By Sadia Latifi, Knight Ridder Newspapers Wed Aug 17, 5:30 PM ET

WASHINGTON - One hundred thousand images, 70,000 miles and 21 countries later, conservationist J. Michael Fay thinks Bono, Live 8 and the G-8 have been misguided.

Fay, a biologist and member of the Wildlife Conservation Society and
National Geographic Society, spent seven months flying at low altitudes across Africa, and he has mapped enough of the human footprint on his trip to be disturbed, he said at a news conference Wednesday to highlight his findings.

"People aren't connecting the dots," he said of African relief efforts. "We gotta stop talking about poverty alleviation, and we gotta start talking about sustainable development."

Fay said he believed international aid to Africa must be transformed to preserve the continent's basic resources instead of extracting them for wealthy nations. Natural resources and conservation management should be part of the psyche of African governments and people worldwide to help make African countries more self-sustaining and so that the world won't keep seeing them as places of constant crisis, he said.

Fay said he had seen mass graves in
AIDS-ridden South Africa as well as dehydrated and dead hippos at Katavi National Park in Tanzania, which he said was a result of the
World Bank's rice-development efforts, which made money but took away water from wildlife.

Fay and pilot Peter Ragg of Austria left South Africa in June 2004 to look at the "interface between humanity and what nature provides for humanity," and to find answers to questions about the origins of the land's most troubled spots, such as Sudan and Niger.

"Darfur, in my opinion, was something we could have seen 30 years ago," Fay said, referring to the region in Sudan where more than 100,000 people have died and millions have been displaced during two years of fighting between black African tribes and Arab militias. Fay pointed to the ecological warning signs: limited habitable space, little productivity of goods and a heavy human "footprint."

It wasn't all disheartening. Fay said he saw examples of a budding commitment to sustainable development. Namibia's healthy soil, grass and wildlife, for example, are the result of a new "conservancy" system that grants communities control over their land with encouragement from the government to produce wisely.

Fay also was amazed to see tens of thousands of lechwe, a type of antelope, alongside humans in Zambia, offering hope that nature and humanity can coexist.

"There is no silver bullet. We can't say we're going to change the world overnight," he said. "Humans have a natural tendency to consume; we take that as a given. But we have to take the natural resource base as a fundamental."

In 2001, Fay walked through miles of African forests to survey wildlife. His findings there led to the creation of 13 national parks in Gabon, which preserve some of the last wild places in Africa from deforestation due to logging.

Fay will address members of Congress' International Conservation Caucus in September about his research. He said he wouldn't mind chatting with
President Bush, World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, British Prime Minister
Tony Blair and U2 singer Bono, who's worked extensively on relief efforts for Africa.





__________________
angelordevil is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 02:15 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
It's wrong on a moral level - why do we have the right to destroy the environment? Why should we assume our right to tear down forests or pump pollutants into rivers is more important than the next generation's right to breathe clean air or live in a home that doesn't get flooded every time it rains?
Thus opens the great FYM question - who decides what is moral?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 02:19 PM   #26
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 08:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Thus opens the great FYM question - who decides what is moral?


you do. for you.

all of us (and the government, and academia, and the courts, etc.) are continuously dialoging so that we might be able to work out what is currently ethical.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 02:21 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
you do. for you.

all of us (and the government, and academia, and the courts, etc.) are continuously dialoging so that we might be able to work out what is currently ethical.
But to what end? If it is all relative, you can't say someone else's actions are immoral.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 02:27 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 01:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Thus opens the great FYM question - who decides what is moral?
In the interests of not derailing yet another thread, I decline to respond. We both know each other's opinions on this subject anyway.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 02:41 PM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 08:04 AM
I don't know about lions and elephants, but cheetahs actually evolved from cats native to North America
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 03:04 PM   #30
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 08:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


But to what end? If it is all relative, you can't say someone else's actions are immoral.


it is all relative.

we do the best we can with what we have when we can.

and i'm fine living my life without being able to judge things moral or immoral.

ethical or unethical, however, we can certainly lable things.

like, (to tie this back to the thread), i think it is unethical to destroy an ecosystem when we don't have to. i think it is unethical to drive SUVs. i think it is unethical to call rapacious human activity "natural" and to label things like EPA standards as beign "anti-business" -- yes, let's all be rich and dead.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com