| |
| From | Message |
|---|
|
 big fish
|
|
What a shame. Now there probably will be a seal population explosion and they will have to import other predators which will cause the seals to become an endangered species. Then the predators will get sick from malnourishment and start dying on public beaches which will spread disease throughout the land dwelling populations. Vicious cycle.
|
|
sad
i cannot believe the way people think. it was 'stealing' their catch. how dare it even think about eating dinner! didn't it know that the whole world belongs to people?
|
|
and
www.guardian.co.uk
|
|
How
dare people even compete with wild animals. People should starve.
|
|
go veggo... why not?
|
|
It's all about ...
... understanding what our role actually is in this World.
|
|
chaz
you mean to consume the world like locusts?
|
|
Zorro ...
... our role very well mean that we're locusts ...
I guess what holds me back from that conclusion is the fact that we have self awareness and deductive reasoning ... which leads me to believe that we are more likely a part of the solution than we are the problem. Trouble is, it is still a few generations off before we weill be able to detect meaningful evidence of our role ... I wish I were genetically younger.
|
|
I hope
That in the future we will look back on the way we treated animals at this time and be horrified.
|
|
j2000 i agree
|
|
How should "we" "treat" animals if the way "we" "treat" animals is so horrifying?
This story looks like natural selection in it's most pure form. The sharks merely need to adapt
to the selection pressure, or go extinct. It's been happening for what, 3 billion or so years,
what is so ghastly about it happening now?
|
|
ghastly
is cutting fins off of living sharks and throwing them back into the ocean alive to die slowly so some chinese can eat shark fin soup.
i have no problem with killing animals to eat them. i do have a problem with hunting them to extinction. it is counterproductive. we should have more sense than that.
i do understand that this shark was not hunted, but it is still sad when a beautiful and majestic creature dies needlessly. imagine how old that shark was...
|
|
Jeff
Animals go extinct all the time, have been billions of years. I'm confused why this is
counterproductive. It's natural. Is gravity "counter-productive"?
|
|
counterproductive
to human survival.
|
|
Jeff
Don't you think we'll also naturally select ourselves as well?
|
|
yes
i think we are dooming ourselves. i just find it sad that we seem insistent on taking all the rest of the world's species with us.
|
|
Jeff
They won't all die, not even most of them will die. That's more than a little dramatic and a bit
ego-species-centric don't you think?
|
|
sure
but all the large, cool (how's that for species-centric : ) species will go away. all the large mammals, birds, etc.
sure...bacterias, insects, and many small animals like rats and mice will probably survive. and yes, the planet will evolve and new species will form and in a million years another dominant species will have a choice whether or not they are going to live sustainably or destroy themselves and a bunch of other species. and so it goes. that is why i can remain positive.
but it is still sad to think of a world sans tigers, elephants, great white sharks, whales, and rhinosauri.
|
|
Jdh
What I mean by the way we treat animals is exactly the kind of thing Zorro is describing. Look at the way battery chickens or animals in a slaughterhouse are treated. Hopefully, in the future, we will at least only kill animals in order to eat all of them and treat them well before we kill them. Just 2 centuries ago we treated non-whites dreadfully in apartheid regimes. I hope that in 2 centuries we will see the current way of treating animals as cruel and unfair.
So far there have been 5 great extinction events in this planets history. We are the sixth. We have no right to wipe out species for pleasure. It's not natural selection. You don't see many people eating shark stakes or tucking into tiger meat. We have only killed these animals so that we might live a little better.
|
|
If the shark would have had the good sense to go vegan, none of this would have happened.
|
|
Illi
The shark in Zorro's article, the basking shark is harmless. If you don't believe me, read this.
en.wikipedia.org
|
|
j2000
What do you mean we have "no right" to wipe out species. You base that on what, exactly?
And if it's not natural than what is it? It's not like this is taking place outside of the universe -
the confines of space and time. How could it not be natural. Is it your position this is then
"super"-natural?
|
|
jd
now you are the one being intellectually dishonest. by your standards, there is nothing that is unnatural - including nuclear bombs, ddt, or me coming into your house and shooting you in the face. that may in fact be true, but it makes the distinction meaningless. we do say things like 'died a natural death,' to distinguish it from murder and suicide. so if dupont or 3-m dumps a bunch of carcinogenic toxins into your drinking supply, that is natural because it is occurring in the universe.
kinda silly...
killing a deer to eat is natural. killing millions of sharks by cutting off their fins and throwing them back in the ocean to die is not natural in any meaningful definition of the term 'natural,' although it does occur in the universe.
|
|
My two cents.
Man has dominion over animals but he also has a duty to use common sense. Animals are not our equal but it doesn't mean they are at our mercy and disposable. A lot of the problems animals have are due to man but man is also the only species that can recognize his damage and tries to help other species. Some animals would already be extinct if not for human intervention.
JD I have to slightly disagree with you on this one. Although I know what you mean, for a species to adapt and evolve it takes millions of years. Humans have technology and can kill at a very high rate. For a shark (or any animal) to be able to evolve to counter this , we would have to wait for them to become intelligent. You can't evolve to not be killed by hunting. At least not hunting with technology. Not even man has evolved to that measure. Very fast changes usually wipe a species out completely. If there is a catastrophic event then I would say it was natural selection but hunting to extinction can be avoided.
J2000, I don't agree with the mistreatment of animals but other than being cramped, slaughter houses do the best they can. I use to work in a meat packing company where we slaughter pigs. There was always a veterinarian present to make sure they were killed humanely. If you start pampering animals too much before you kill them we couldn't afford meat.
|
|
good god that thing is ugly.
|
|
Stinky ...
... you gave a good, reasonable "two cents" worth in your comment.
|
|
snowdog
it was a lot prettier when alive... it probably looked like this handsome fellow, only bigger..
templecuttingedge.files.wordpress.com
|
|
natural selection pah.. that's just idiocy given current farming and fishing techniques. we
have commidified the slaughter and cruelty of other species to support greed rather than
need. Animals are NOT treated humanely from birth to plate as they largely would have
been in preindustrial times. Going veggo avoids unnecessary cruelty, is a net gain for the
environment and would enable many more humans to live without hunger.
|
|
"man has dominion over animals"
Someone forgot to mention that fact to the two coyotes that just killed the Canadian pop singer.
I wonder what "dominion" means in that context?
|
| |
Please log in to your account to play chess online!
