Thread: Poor Wolves (Alaska)

I agree that hunting the wolves to control their population is BS. If we are going to do it, than we should use their bodies.

Why? Do you realize how much better it is for the environment to let the animal's carcass rot? I mean, besides providing food for the microbes that decompose the body, that process puts a lot of carbon back into the soil. Overpopulation of carnivorous animals like wolves also leads to them coming into contact with humans more often, searching for food. That means more people in danger from wolves, and wolves in danger from humans, aside the fact that prey populations would start to diminish totally. A much better way for us humans is controlled killing rather than unchecked growth. Do you realize in states like Pennsylvania that professional hunters are payed to keep deer populations down, since the deer have no other major natural predators?

I think that it would be best to just leave them alone and let natural population dynamics clear it out. I was commenting on the topic of mass extinctions.

And let the wolves drive their prey to extinction, thus leading them to extinction?

I can place a bunch of nukes around the world and kill everything.

Quote mining is fun!

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Why? Do you realize how much better it is for the environment to let the animal's carcass rot?

I was thinking along ethical lines since the main topic of this thread seems to be ethical. I don't like the idea of killing anything unless I have a use for it. We could (and I was thinking when I suggested using them) use them for organic fertilizer and take a load off the strip mining that is currently carried out to manufacture chemical fertilizers.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Overpopulation of carnivorous animals like wolves also leads to them coming into contact with humans more often, searching for food. That means more people in danger from wolves, and wolves in danger from humans, aside the fact that prey populations would start to diminish totally.

Cool. As LucidFlanders pointed out, there are too many humans anyways. I see no basis for valuing human lives or human suffering above wolf lives and wolf suffering. Care to enlighten me?

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Do you realize in states like Pennsylvania that professional hunters are payed to keep deer populations down, since the deer have no other major natural predators?

I do and I hope that they use the deer bodies for food and/or fertilizer.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

And let the wolves drive their prey to extinction, thus leading them to extinction?

See my initial post in the thread. Extinction is no big deal. Although I must say that I wonder how life existed prior to the evolution of humans. What species managed their populations to make sure that they didn't go extinct?

Cool. As LucidFlanders pointed out, there are too many humans anyways. I see no basis for valuing human lives or human suffering above wolf lives and wolf suffering. Care to enlighten me?

What are you, a misanthrope? It's called survival of the species. If you equate the death of an animal to the death of a human, then you are a seriously sick person. Humans should be moe important to you, since you are one. Wolves, on the other hand, are the problem here. Thus the solution is to get rid of them before they drive most other animals in the area to extinction. That is called population control. It means that

I do and I hope that they use the deer bodies for food and/or fertilizer.

Uh, they probably store and eat the meat like most hunters.

See my initial post in the thread. Extinction is no big deal. Although I must say that I wonder how life existed prior to the evolution of humans. What species managed their populations to make sure that they didn't go extinct?

Humans have a huge global impact on species today with our technologies and population, so we see it fit to try and preserve as many species that are dieing off as possible. Anyway, wolf overpopulation is a detriment to humans, so that's why it's a big deal there not be so many. All species manage their own and sometimes others. It's called co-evolution and survival instincts.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

What are you, a misanthrope? It's called survival of the species. If you equate the death of an animal to the death of a human, then you are a seriously sick person.

Humans are animals. Apes in fact. I'm rejecting the anthrocentric viewpoint that humans are somehow better than other animals or somehow endowed with rights that other animals lack. I see no mechanism for this to be the case and nobody has ever been able to justify it for me.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

All species manage their own and sometimes others. It's called co-evolution and survival instincts.

You're working with group selectionism here? That doesn't lead to a consistent theory. Evolution happens via selection of the individuals within a species, not the species itself. No organism behaves with regard to the well being of the whole species: only with regard to its own wellbeing and those that will statistically bear its own genes.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Humans are animals. Apes in fact. I'm rejecting the anthrocentric viewpoint that humans are somehow better than other animals or somehow endowed with rights that other animals lack. I see no mechanism for this to be the case and nobody has ever been able to justify it for me.

That is not what I said. I said that, since you are a human, you should value human life over other animal life, unless you are a misanthrope.

You're working with group selectionism here? That doesn't lead to a consistent theory. Evolution happens via selection of the individuals within a species, not the species itself. No organism behaves with regard to the well being of the whole species: only with regard to its own wellbeing and those that will statistically bear its own genes.

No, I mean that your statement was retarded so I countered with a dumbed-down explanation of something that goes like:

Shit interacting = Shit interacting. How you interpret it, is a completely different matter. You see wolf overpopuation as something natural that we should not 'interfere with' (Wait what? Interfere? I didn't think there was such a thing with your worldview!) and I see it as a problem that can be controlled to help balance the populations and keep the ecology of the area from becoming lopsided, or at least undesirable.

Certainly you belive in the preservation of rare species, don't you?

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

said that, since you are a human, you should value human life over other animal life, unless you are a misanthrope.

That's an assumption though. I'm asking you to justify it. Maybe I'm just an ananthrope.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Shit interacting = Shit interacting. How you interpret it, is a completely different matter. You see wolf overpopuation as something natural that we should not 'interfere with' (Wait what? Interfere? I didn't think there was such a thing with your worldview!) and I see it as a problem that can be controlled to help balance the populations and keep the ecology of the area from becoming lopsided, or at least undesirable.

Certainly you belive in the preservation of rare species, don't you?

If it is a rare species, then why do we need to kill them off? I see the act of killing off wolves, genetically engineering crops and everything in existence as natural. It is a meaningless word. I don't think that it's bad per se to interfere in the process but I just don't like the aesthetics of slaughtering animals and not using them afterwards. It's crufty.

The argument that we are doing it for their good falls apart upon the observation that If they didn't have their shit already in balance, then they would have gone extinct long before we got on the scene. The wolves are just on an upswing, that will put pressure on the caribou and the most fit will survive past the downturn in the wolf population that will result from the caribou decreasing in numbers and then that will in turn place selection pressure on the wolves. A lot of the wolves will die off and and the caribou population will rebound. Evolution will happen. If one of the species goes extinct, no biggie: happens all the time. Something will take it's place.

We are randomizing evolution in this case by adding a new selection pressure to avoid people in helicopters. The whole thing is pretty stupid unless we have a good reason for it.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

That's an assumption though. I'm asking you to justify it. Maybe I'm just an ananthrope.

I am a human, therefore I value human life above other life. Of course I value my own life above all other, but that's something entirely different.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

As LucidFlanders pointed out, there are too many humans anyways. I see no basis for valuing human lives or human suffering above wolf lives and wolf suffering. Care to enlighten me?

Would you like to make a sacrifice? Maybe a few of your friends can also add to the offer.
Would you sacrifice your life to save a wolf?

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

We are killing them because we need to make their population smaller, yet we can't kill other humans when we are in the billions and it's hurting us. The big picture does not count when we are interfering, the big picture is done via nature, not by us. I can place a bunch of nukes around the world and kill everything and say it was part of the big picture which of course we all know it wasn't.

Okay, start your human hunting rampage.... until you are hunted.

Why do you say that we are not part of nature? We are just as much part of nature as any other living thing. And for all we know, the 'big picture' could be what happens after the nukes, that is, if you believe in destiny.

Originally Posted by Exhalent

Would you like to make a sacrifice? Maybe a few of your friends can also add to the offer.

That's ridiculous. Of course I value my own life to much to do that. But it's beside the point. Justify the statement that a random humans life is more valuable than a random life of an animal from another species. I would like to see you try.

I do respect your opinion, as it is intelligent and thought out; but understand that I do not endorse killing without a concrete purpose.

Of course life is equal, but it mostly comes down to individuals. Should the situation that you or a dog be up for judgment, I would choose to let you to live. However, I would not choose you if you were a psychopathic serial killer. I would rather let something like a mouse live, then.

Think about this situation.. If your dog had a parasite, would you kill it? Or would you let the dog to suffer and die?

Animals of course should be treated with respect, but when it comes down to the survival of mankind, I do not see why we should just let ourselves die out because we are all the same part of life. Therefore, there has to be a tradeoff somewhere. Some things are necessary (as to whether these wolf killings are or not, is debated)

[And about the point I made earlier, I was referring to the so-called "human population overload".]

Well, I'm off to save a slaughterhouse full of cows.

If you were a dog, I am sure you would think another dog's life is more important than a humans. Even if humans are not more valuable than animals, their still humans and we got to stick together. So yea, a human's life is more important than an animals.

nope. I got attacked by a dog one time in my yard and "my" dog laid into the other dog so quick I barely saw him coming up. The other dog ran away but I have no doubt that "my" dog, bill, would have killed him if he hadn't. Reverse the situation. If some other human was attacking my dog, what should I do?

At any rate, your argument is for why we should behave as if human life is more important, not for why it actually is.

Originally Posted by Alric

If you were a dog, I am sure you would think another dog's life is more important than a humans. Even if humans are not more valuable than animals, their still humans and we got to stick together. So yea, a human's life is more important than an animals.

People live for up to a hundread years, animals like a dog live up to 8-30, i'd say a dogs life is more valuable because their life span is MUCH lower. This goes to any animal, we live much longer thus our lives are less valuable then animals who lives MUCH less lives, but we are a pretty stupid race. We don't like to follow common sense, but we know better, animals don't which is why we are already better then animals.

Originally Posted by Exhalent

Would you like to make a sacrifice? Maybe a few of your friends can also add to the offer.
Would you sacrifice your life to save a wolf?





Okay, start your human hunting rampage.... until you are hunted.

Why do you say that we are not part of nature? We are just as much part of nature as any other living thing. And for all we know, the 'big picture' could be what happens after the nukes, that is, if you believe in destiny.

I'm not saying we aren't a part of nature, but the big picture is not us killing things. I don't get human superiority, just because we are better we are more privaliged(sp), and can do whatever we want? we kill for sport, animals kill to survive, i would have no problem if the deaths were to survive, as they would do the same but to kill for sport, or to kill them off is pretty dumb. Yeah, let's kill for the sake of killing. Humans do that with humans, but what did animals do to force us to kill them? they only wanna survive, and they all live in the moment, and that is all they know.

Who cares if they over populate, we are in the billions. They will die off the way they were meant to die off, we are just murdering them. When there is alot of animals, there is alot more food, and there will be a battle untill the end, it's not like a never ending battle.