Monday, June 29, 2009

People are adaptable. Look at us, we live on mountaintops, in the darkest of jungles, the most arid deserts, and in homes made of snow. We eat SCORPIONS, okay? SCORPIONS!

As responsible creatures, capable of understanding what is right and what is wrong, if we see ourselves negatively effecting what is around us, we should make the correct decision to move ourselves to somewhere more appropriate, as animals, trees and the like cannot simply pack their backs and move if we cut down their home and start raising cattle.

Tell me why it is that any human being is going to belligerently spit in the face of conservation because of what THEY as a person have to lose, when something MUCH bigger than them, their accomplishments, their bank statement and their entire family, could be destroyed?

For example...

How hard is it to understand that if a tiny little species of smelt dies, the shitstorm gets kicked up? That when one little fish goes extinct, so does every other species in the ecosystem? That when that little fish disappears, the water system in which it once lived would become choked by algae, bacteria and all other sorts of single celled floaters?

The argument against the effort to save the Delta Smelt in California amounts to 'Moooooooom, but I want THAT toy, NOW!' Adolescent bitching and moaning about petty and immediate desires. No counter-argument to this specific conservation effort has hit a note other than 'What happens tomorrow doesn't concern me at all.' followed by chalking the extinction of the species up as 'Progress.' Toward what? Your extinction, dumbass. The picture is bigger than that!

Life is hard. Californians, you have to ration water now because IF YOU DON'T you're going to have a lot more trouble later trying to get your hands on it. You think water is inaccessible and expensive now? No one said it would be easy.

Furthermore, if you don't like animals having more say over the land than people, trying to back your ridiculous, short-sighted opinion by pulling things out of your ass, like saying the the farms effected 'feed the country' or that the Smelt has more than one threat facing it and we should just let it die out, makes you look like you're just saying anything that will back your argument, regardless of what you actually believe in. You can't expect people to believe you when you're such an obvious whore.

Biodiversity is something that needs to be preserved for humans to continue to exist. Life exists on a bigger playing field than the next year's gross income, or not being able to wash your car this month.

17 comments:

eura mura said...

Be a fucking optimist for once, Jim. Look at the silver lining. The best part about man's ability to adapt is his ability to adapt to a fucked up environment that he's created for himself. Necessity is the mother of invention, so fucking up the environment essentially serves to advance our own species' ingenuity.

Jim Kauterman said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Jim Kauterman said...

I don't want to let a species die and count it in as a 'lesson learned'.

I don't care about what happens to our species.

eura mura said...

But if we don't learn a lesson from it, what's the point?

Jim Kauterman said...

The lesson is already learned.

eura mura said...

I dunno man. Sure, the deaths of species have had adverse effects on the eco-system in the past, but to assume the death of this species will have the same effect, based solely on relation to past occurrences? That's pretty weak reasoning, mah boi.

Jim Kauterman said...

What I'm saying is that the effects can be determined ahead of time just by looking closely at the ecosystem...

Sure you can't be positive, but you can be pretty sure.

eura mura said...

Well some fools are "pretty sure" man evolved from a monkey, but I think we all know what really happened. (God created man.)

Erd Tird Mans said...

@eura mura

Just because we /might/ have the tools and ingenuity to survive an extinction event doesn't mean it's wise to invite one.

I'll assume your most recent comment was made of trolls and lols

eura mura said...

What do you mean?

Equality said...

I know nothing about this specific situation, and I would rather watch sportscenter than read about fish so I won't know anything about it, but as some general comments.

"Tell me why it is that any human being is going to belligerently spit in the face of conservation because of what THEY as a person have to lose, when something MUCH bigger than them, their accomplishments, their bank statement and their entire family, could be destroyed?"

It seems to me that as the keystone of your argument you have this assumption that the health of the ecosystem/planet is bigger than a person's individual life. Honestly though what is more important than an individual's life besides perhaps the well being of one's family. What good reason does a person have to sacrifice personal well being for the well being of nature, especially when any adverse effects of such a sacrifice will most likely not be felt by him or even his children.

I'm not sure why you are so willing to make such sacrifices. It's obviously not for the well being of humans, as there are much more direct ways of improving human suffering. Why would you sacrifice personal gain for some abstraction you say is bigger than yourself.

Also I think your position is a very easy one to make coming from a relatively well to do background. It's simple to ask people to make sacrifices in such a position, but when you are faced with the decision between financial ruin or environmental protection would you side with mother earth or on the side of your hungry children. Not saying you wouldn't, but to make the decision seem so 1d seems out of place.

Equality said...

Actually to be specific for a moment, this is more of a question than anything else. You say the effects of an animal's extinction can be known simply by examining the ecosystem. With what certainty can we know that. I know biologists like to claim ecosystems exhibit the behavior of a non-linear dynamical system, in which case such a small change in conditions would have consequences which would be nearly impossible to predict. Is there something I'm misunderstanding here?

Jim Kauterman said...

No one's life is at risk, just their wallets.

No offense, but you had to assume a mountain just to have an argument. You also factor in quite a personal opinion in that you're saying '(nothing) is more important than an individual's life besides perhaps the well being of one's family'. Something which, honestly, I don't agree with at all.

The life of everything else may just be just as important. Personally, I like to take responsibility for those things on this planet which cannot defend themselves. Lesser men, parasites, might think differently.

Furthermore, I'm not beyond saying that life doesn't begin, or end with a single person, or their family. There is much more living on this planet than people.

Equality said...

To some people their wallets are their lives. Like I said I was speaking in generalities rather then the specific situation, but it's all to unreasonable to think that somebody could possible at the risk of financial ruin from the situation.

That and the fact that people value their life more than outside factors are my only two assumptions. The second I would think applies to well over half of the world and isn't so devious of an assumption.

And lol yes anyone with my viewpoint is obviously a parasite.

Jim Kauterman said...

I try to aspire for something greater.

Equality said...

That comment makes no sense in relation to anything I said.

Jim Kauterman said...

Greater than myself. I think it did.