Animal charities

[Sharp]

Oh trust me, nature is going to take care of people. ha ha It has a way of cleaning up messes on it's own.

btw, I didn't mean to sound so blunt; I just feel people should focus on getting people to start acting right before we start trying to tame all the chipmunks out there. Kind of hard to convince the world to stop beating their dogs when they have no problem committing genocide. Why not start at the source of the problem right?

Genocide will always be there. It will always happen. The source of the problem is people breeding.

Without charity, poverty would take its toll and the inefficient subsidised people would die out. Its a horrible way to look at it but its true. We're keeping alive inefficient races of people, but as Christians, we are obliged to.

 

[nobadee]

Genocide will always be there. It will always happen. The source of the problem is people breeding.

Without charity, poverty would take its toll and the inefficient subsidised people would die out. Its a horrible way to look at it but its true. We're keeping alive inefficient races of people, but as Christians, we are obliged to.

Wo, wait a second, how would animal charities fight poverty or are you talking about charities in general? If you are talking about charities in general than ya, you are right; but, I don't see how charities to animals will help support the human race unless you are donating to produce more live stock and poultry.

It seems to me, that every time people get involved in trying to save some poor animal, all they accomplish is creating more turmoil.

Example: There was an incident in the northern states here; where they tried to transplant some wolfs into a new region to see if they would repopulate. Well they did; but, not how they expected. The wolves swelled in massive numbers and took over the entire area. The huge number of wolfs began killing off all the other animals quickly. This became such a huge problem that they had to put bounties on the wolves to significantly cut down their numbers.

Point is, these animals live in the habitats they are from for many reasons and any attempt to manipulate that environment or the animals themselves will have devastating effects, weather the intentions are good or bad.

The only charity that would truly save mother nature is one that has the desire to quell the growth of humanity. The only people you'd find who would support that idea are some extremists who wouldn't mind killing a few billion people to save a butterfly. I find that to be a tad on the side of hypocrisy.

 

[Sharp]

Wo, wait a second, how would animal charities fight poverty or are you talking about charities in general? If you are talking about charities in general than ya, you are right; but, I don't see how charities to animals will help support the human race unless you are donating to produce more live stock and poultry.

It seems to me, that every time people get involved in trying to save some poor animal, all they accomplish is creating more turmoil.

Example: There was an incident in the northern states here; where they tried to transplant some wolfs into a new region to see if they would repopulate. Well they did; but, not how they expected. The wolves swelled in massive numbers and took over the entire area. The huge number of wolfs began killing off all the other animals quickly. This became such a huge problem that they had to put bounties on the wolves to significantly cut down their numbers.

Point is, these animals live in the habitats they are from for many reasons and any attempt to manipulate that environment or the animals themselves will have devastating effects, weather the intentions are good or bad.

The only charity that would truly save mother nature is one that has the desire to quell the growth of humanity. The only people you'd find who would support that idea are some extremists who wouldn't mind killing a few billion people to save a butterfly. I find that to be a tad on the side of hypocrisy.

I mean charities in general are fighting human poverty in a way that is perpetuating poverty.

You say that wolves shouldn't be relocated and, and perhaps nature should dictate which animal species survive and which prosper. If this was the case, many species would die, and it could even affect our food supply.

If humans were heartless and efficient, we could apply this principle to ourselves too. But we're not.

Anyway.......

 

[nobadee]

I mean charities in general are fighting human poverty in a way that is perpetuating poverty.

You say that wolves shouldn't be relocated and, and perhaps nature should dictate which animal species survive and which prosper. If this was the case, many species would die, and it could even affect our food supply.

If humans were heartless and efficient, we could apply this principle to ourselves too. But we're not.

Anyway.......

I know you are trying to show me that you are empathetic to nature; but, underneath every good deed is a self serving motive. People don't just do things because they are nice creatures. If people were to suddenly change over night and decide building more highways and more homes was a bad idea for the environment you'd have to give them a pretty reasonable motive. Telling them that they are killing the earth isn't enough because the rate of extinction is nearly impossible to estimate. So as far as humanity is concerned it's not a problem for them in their current life time. I'm sure you can see where this is going now.

Since the majority of the world is more concerned with the here and now; then fighting to preserve every animal on earth is the least of their worries. Making the effort to save every animal and plant seemingly futile. Why do I say this? Because species are dying off faster than they can discover them. It's human fantasy to want to single handily save the world; but, when you look at the swelling numbers, you find that you are battling to stop a singularity.

I have more faith in the cause of educating and uniting humanity to a single system of values and morals. Societies reach precipices, species come and go. They extincting will increase faster and faster; but, once the planet has reached a new cycle new species will come back in their place. Earth has been through this billions of times.

Humans are only a tiny element in the cause of extinction. Nature is killing off animals much faster than we could try. This is why I say it is futile; because, you can't stop nature, any time we try we end up with wolves in our backyard eating all of our live stock. That's not helping to fight poverty much now is it?

 

[Sharp]

We're not even talking about the same thing.

Discussion over.

Thanks for your contribution everyone.

 

[NodMyHeadLikeYeah]

Kitty has something to say