The Care and State of our Animal Kind

[Rem Nightfall]

I'm going to try and not make it bloggy this time. I think that is why my thread got locked down. I guess asking people if I am bias makes it bloggy man, so lets make it normal.

The Care and State of Our Animal Kind

One of the biggest things I have been thinking about lately, due to watching nature documentaries, is about animal conservation, animal rehabilitation, and animal placement.
I think one of the biggest issues I have when you find an animal with a broken leg or it's sick is when they put it back in the environment. In most cases they don't put him back in the same place of land he lived, they usually put him farther away from where he got hurt. But each piece of landscape on one piece of land has a carrying capacity. And you may be throwing the carrying capacity of that environment by putting that animal. A second thing is if the animal had a serious illness, you bring him back to health and put him back in the world you aren't carrying for the next generation really. Natural selection weeds out weak genes, but if all we ever do is let the weak genes go on living then we may have more sick animals.

Another issue I have is when an animal wonders into a human habitat, a place full of houses and trees. I remember watching a documentary about a human place full of vehicles and this suburban lifestyle. In the middle of a rain forest, they were surrounded by rain forest and everything. Some animals wonder into the human side of the rain forest and people get all defensive about it. Then someone has to go off on the lines of, "We're just putting them in the forest where they belong,". But they don't put two in two. We're surrounded by rain forest, this was once part of their habitat and they'll continue coming here. This use to be part of their habitat, it isn't that they belong back in the forest. It's a case of that once was part of their forest and they'll still want to live there. We're the ones who invaded their home not them.

Then another issue I may have and I'm not sure why. Is animal conservation. What really makes me angry is that their trying to stop these creatures from going instinct and their trying to shard because some how we're humans and we hold the fate of this world in our hands. And sadly I can see the good side of it and I'm all for it. Then I see another side, what if nature and evolution are killing off these creatures so they can create creature who can handle our pollutions and toxin much more. That means we're stopping the natural balance of the earth and it's process. What are your views?

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

People don't know where exactly animals live, it's in a range. Or animals are nomadic (migration, ect.)

Second, we realize that we're destroying animal habitats but as the human population grows, the more space we need to bare the growth leading to the destruction of habitats. Humans just generally don't want to have to deal with nature, leading to why they don't want animals into the humans' habitat,

And animal conservation is good. Instead of letting species go extinct, save them. No loss in trying.

[Rem Nightfall]

And animal conservation is good. Instead of letting species go extinct, save them. No loss in trying.

Yes, but watching other animal documentaries on evolution and what not. I find what if the creatures know they needed to evolve. And if they are going extinct are they going extinct to evolve into something that can balance out human activity with their own activity?

[Sanosuke23]

Yes, conservation stunts evolution. So does the way we live our lives in general. If this upsets you, go live naked in the woods.

As for the home invasion stuff I'm not in the proper mindset atm to think about it rationally ( http://www.animeforum.com/blogs/viewblog.php?entry=48916), and so I won't comment on it.

[Rem Nightfall]

Yes, conservation stunts evolution. So does the way we live our lives in general. If this upsets you, go live naked in the woods.

It doesn't upset me. I was just thinking about it for the moment. I have never thought this way. It's new for me at this moment. It was when I was watching evolution documentaries that it suddenly came to me.

[Rem Nightfall]

We're trying to save them. Some of us want animals to live. If you're so upset, don't take medicine anymore, no more doctor/hospital visits for you either. Then you'll have a reason to rant.

And most of us hunt them for food, LIKE OTHER ANIMALS, for torturing animals, I completely agree. Go to hell.

That's a bit of a rude statement don't you think.

[Sanosuke23]

That's a bit of a rude statement don't you think.

I believe the statement was directed at the hypothetical people torturing animals, not the quoted member.

[Rem Nightfall]

I believe the statement was directed at the hypothetical people torturing animals, not the quoted member.

Oh....sorry about your rat problem by the way.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

Then another issue I may have and I'm not sure why. Is animal conservation. What really makes me angry is that their trying to stop these creatures from going instinct and their trying to shard because some how we're humans and we hold the fate of this world in our hands. And sadly I can see the good side of it and I'm all for it. Then I see another side, what if nature and evolution are killing off these creatures so they can create creature who can handle our pollutions and toxin much more. That means we're stopping the natural balance of the earth and it's process. What are your views?
A) You're anthropomorphizing nature way to much. Evolution is an impartial process.
B) There's no such thing as balance in nature. There is no ideal state for the entire biosphere, people only assume there is because they only see it for about 70 years before they keel over, and it usually takes a lot longer for large-scale changes to occur.

[Rem Nightfall]

A) You're anthropomorphizing nature way to much. Evolution is an impartial process.
B) There's no such thing as balance in nature. There is no ideal state for the entire biosphere, people only assume there is because they only see it for about 70 years before they keel over, and it usually takes a lot longer for large-scale changes to occur.

A. I might be or I might making an inference that nature knows what to do when it comes to extreme situations...which means I'm anthropomorphizing nature again.

B. Balance means that nature seems to know what to do in most situations.

[Ωmega]

Sure, its sad to see some creatures go away, but Im a supporter for natural selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection).

[Rem Nightfall]

Sure, its sad to see some creatures go away, but Im a supporter for natural selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection).

That is what I was saying.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

A. I might be or I might making an inference that nature knows what to do when it comes to extreme situations...which means I'm anthropomorphizing nature again.

B. Balance means that nature seems to know what to do in most situations.

Nature deosn't know anything, because it isn't intelligent. Nature is merely an abstraction of reality.

[TheAsterisk!]

You're falling into one of the many traps about nature, thouh I can't tell which one.
Essentially, humans are not distinct from nature, though we constantly act as though we are. To preserve a habitat, active management is needed; leaving it alone doesn't kep it static, even though so many labor under such a delusion. Trouble is, we have no idea how to manage any environment or ecosystem. Try reading up on the history of Yellowstone National Park to see.
The reasoon we might want to maintain a more or less static environment, or at least slow its change, is because we're pretty well suited to this particular setup. Sure, we can adapt, but that takes a whole lot of behavioral change, since we don't evovle physiologically as much as simpler organisms. Most seem to think it's more straightforward to try to maintain our present station.
If we were to allow our surroundings to proceed as they may given our actions, we lose a sense of control, and humans typically don't enjoy helplessness.
As to the assertion that we slow or otherwise meddle in evolution: hogwash! We, ourselves, are an selective pressure, and those organisms we interact with will adadpt or will not adapt, through behavior or physiology, given time. Think about how seagulls follow a boat's wake, looking for fish guts. To say that we interfere with nature is the ignorant belief that we are somehow just too special to be nature, as we are. Since we are nature, nothing unnatural happens when we act. Surely, it may be beneficial or detrimental to us or another species, but it is not unnatural. We don't stop evolution; we're in it, along with every other part of the environment. The same is true of our creations. Sure, a house is bigger than a bird's nest, but we just have engineers who like bigger designs. That's all.