Beat her up.
But seriously, when dealing with idiots just ignore them most of the time. As for the dog thing, if you let the dogs keep living and then a large amount starve to death, the other ones who survived will be stronger than the ones who died and will keep living until there's too many again and then the cycle will repeat.
Eventually we'll have a race of super dogs that take over the planet. Way to go, science.
For this, let's consider two scenarios:Originally Posted by JoeTang
1) Humans bring dogs across the ocean to Puerto Rico, which separated them from their original species. This allowed for divergent evolution to occur.
2) An earthquake occurs, splitting a hypothetical island from the rest of the world. The dogs that are isolated experienced divergent evolution.
In scenario 1, according to the view held by Isaac, people are responsible for their evolution, which is for the most part understandable. In scenario 2, which happens much more frequently than scenario 1, the environment is responsible for their evolution, but there is nobody to blame.
So therefore, no matter how evolution came to be, as long as there is human intervention, there must be human saviors to "preserve" these Puerto Rican dogs? What about all of those that resulted from divergent evolution which occurred "naturally"?
The point is that species come and go. Why should certain species be preserved based on human sentiment?No.Or if people really want to intervene, give the dogs a peaceful death by lethal injection. That'll be both cheaper and more efficient.That's not science, that's sarcasm...
Last edited by Harrisonized; 2009-03-22 at 10:37 PM.
For the sake of knowledge.
Another way humans could force evolution was to split dogs into groups A and B. Keep group A away from B and pour RADIOACTIVE WASTE on group B.
Bam. Evlolution.
But seriously, if we tried to save every single living thing on earth from dying, we would die out ourselves because we'd have nothing left for ourselves >_>
Encyclopods would be helpful.
Yeah the dogs can die for all I care.
If this was about cats, however, woulda been some rage up in here.
At the animal shelter (no-kill, of course) where I volunteer, we normally spay or neuter every stray we take in. Many (but certainly not enough) of the animals are found new homes.
I don't believe those dogs should be left for dead; I just wish that the Puerto Rican government could put aside some money in order to build shelters like the aforementioned.
Perhaps I should have posted this in the Rubik's Cube to avoid the spam.For our purposes, let's just use humans and animals, though the original post was focused on dogs, the idea works in general for all animals, not limited to dogs.Ok, another way to do it is to spay all of the animals on the street so that the next generation is reduced. However, while this method works, the dog's lifespan is too long to sustain this type of barrier against reproduction. Seriously, the number of shelters required for ALL (or most) of the dog population is not worth the effort, and most likely the dog population will still outgrow the number of shelters available.
Thus, building a shelter, while may give the impression that the government is doing something, actually has no practical use whatsoever.
Let's stop sending food to Africa too, why don't we.
That's a different matter, because that's addressing the population as a whole. The problem with dogs is that no matter how many shelters you build, there'll always be more of them. With the people in Africa, there can only be a contained population.
You cannot compare the two as they're in completely different situations.
Dogs breed with each other. They spread their puppies over the face of the land.
People in Africa have sex with each other. They spread their children over the face of the land. Quite frankly, there's a LOT of land. Not very contained, is it?
They're both organic. They both need food. They both need water.
What's the difference? Humans evoke a significant amount of emotions and morals, to the point where they can cause civil wars. Dogs evoke just enough emotions to get people to start whining about how the not-well-to-do need help.
The rates at which Africans breed and dogs breed are quite different. You could say the dogs have reached their carrying capacity while the Africans have not.To survive, yes. However, which would you find priority over? You're pet or your neighbor? Or neither, in which case would be important if you're trying to survive yourself.Do you believe that cognitive development in humans has resulted in a deterioration of the human's instinct for survival?
In some environments, yes. But we could place dogs in Africa then see them multiply if they can survive long enough. I highly doubt that dogs have reached their carrying capacity if they're given the same amount of space as the Africans enjoy.
Personally, I like to look ahead into the future and see what could happen for one or some of us. If I die, so be it, history wouldn't care. But usually there would be interest in the neighbor since it's easy to collude and work together.
Probably Harrisonized, probably. I would argue that the survival instinct of society is a lot stronger, and society is what most social organisms serve first. In the events preceding the Civil War, the Union wanted to give African-Americans equal rights that nearly every other male enjoyed (sorry women, your time to shine with lady liberty came much later), and they felt that it was unjust of the Confederation to just walk away and keep on practicing slavery. (I personally didn't like how the Union didn't honor the secession clause in the Amendments) I don't know about you, Harrisonized, but some of the soldiers who fought the war put their society's values before their lives. They fought because they believed the future would be a much better place if their side won the war.
Then let's take a look at recent events. Those 9/11 hijackers probably didn't agree to hijack the planes to survive >_> They did it partly because of their religious background, and partly because America is "The Great Satan" or something to that effect. This keeps going on in the Middle East because one society (or in some cases a religious faction) believes they are better than the other. Darwinian's survival of the fittest creature just became survival of the best society/ideology.
May I quote the website originally mentioned:
http://www.charitybuzz.com/area.do?id=897* To provide children with "Kind News," a humane education program encouraging kindness to animals, respect for natural habitats, good citizenship, and peaceful conflict resolution.
* Feed and medicate homeless dogs living on beaches throughout Puerto Rico.
* Offer clinics providing fee or low cost spay/neuter services. Provide rescue and rehabilitation services for abused and adaptable animals.
* Advocate shelter adoptions and work to eliminate puppy mills.
* Promote responsible pet ownership.
In reality, all it does is build shelters, advocate adoptions, and feed dogs. We already established that only feeding the dogs will not do much, and neither will building shelters. Thus, really the only thing I see from that list that helps is setting up the dogs for adoption, but I highly doubt ALL the dogs can be adopted by someone, especially not in a time of economic crisis.
Hypothetically, you could start a breed on a plot of land that is free of predation but then the ones left in Puerto Rico will once again reproduce massively (as it would be free of competition), and soon enough, nothing will be solved as the dogs in Puerto Rico once again reach their carrying capacity. Then you'll see such organizations popping up again telling people to help these dogs from being "starved, diseased, and murdered".Eh, you're interested in your neighbor to engage in illegal activities? I see...Or you could try advocating peace. I'm pretty sure that not everyone goes to war with the intention of dying. Why would someone go die for a cause should they not live to see the effects of their actions? People who go to war either choose to based on some sense of "patriotism" in which they felt obligated, or they did not live adequate enough lives to do anything but serve in that field, or they decided that the chances of them dying were not enough to consider a gamble. Whatever the reason, they realized that they would either live on a winning side or losing side, and losing side meant a worse living condition or death.
There must be a greater intention at play, and as you mentioned, it's dying for a specific cause such as abolishing slavery or religion. For a cause to trump individual need for survival must mean that human cognitive development is a retrograde.
facepalm.jpg is not enough to emote what I feel.
Perhaps what I said on human cognition being self-defeating is true after all.Spoiler
facepalm.jpg is not enough to emote what I feel.
Anyways, I don't see in any way, how what I wrote could possibly frustrate you.
All we're doing in Africa is build shelters, feed people, and advocate local society norms. We already established that feeding people will not do much [for the impoverished, diseased, and starving people], and neither will building shelters. Thus, really the only thing I see from that list that helps is setting up their children for adoption, but I highly doubt ALL the children can be adopted by someone [in well-to-do countries], especially not in a time of economic crisis.
Those guys don't like seeing the inconvenient truth. Let them do what they want. Or you could get an overwhelming base of opinion and shove it in their face. Especially since these dogs aren't part of a national park or zoo.
Or just surviving and stabbing you because you're hoarding all of the food to be found on the island. Hypothetically speaking.Eh, you're interested in your neighbor to engage in illegal activities? I see...
Ask the people who sacrifice themselves for their loved ones or the ones they care about.
As for peaceful examples, they don't illustrate the point very well. I would say government regulations (especially socialism and communism) and charities if you really want examples.
Hey look! Society being stronger than individual humans! Social instinct IS stronger! It also proves that human survival instinct is degraded.
Society is funny like that. It's not like you or me where we have our own set of ideas and behaviors. Society is like a melting pot of stuff, where you might have your lipids at the top and water in the middle and acid at the bottom. And of course, society isn't that segregated.
Also, no one said life was fair, was it? Those dogs certainly didn't get the winning side of the (passive) war against each other.
Bingo!!
Well, self-defeating isn't exactly correct. It's just that society usually wins. And then there's society whose people keep blasting themselves back into the stone age or something; those guys you can say are self-defeating.Perhaps what I said on human cognition being self-defeating is true after all.
Anyways, I don't see in any way, how what I wrote could possibly frustrate you.
You're right. We should all just give up on our silly ideals and let the stray population grow at an ever more alarming rate. Maybe we can use the lots where the shelters once sat for even more practical purposes, too. Do apartment buildings and liquor stores sound good to you?
xd
As I said, the two are different scenarios. You can't just cram them together and try force-solving them the same way.Hypothetically speaking, yes that does make sense. However, since you keep saying that humans are social animals, perhaps there is more survival value keeping BOTH me and you alive.
However, if forced into a situation in which one MUST die, I'd say save yourself or I'll probably save myself and leave you for dead.Obviously, if you're talking about loved ones, that's a different matter. We're talking about strangers, people you're fighting for but don't know about. And obviously if you don't know the people you're fighting for, you don't love them. How do you love someone that you don't know? That point has never made sense to me.Communism and socialism do not work well, because what ends up happening is that the government acts as a giant leech that saps people of their property. Peaceful example: people negotiate with each other to come to an agreement, in which case, nobody gets hurt and the issues are addressed.Fitness, the survival of an individual organism and it's offspring, should be prioritized, the society comes second. After all, would your society back you up? I would highly doubt it.
Governments send their troops into wars as pawns. Do they care if you die? To some extent, if they lose a high amount of people, However, should a casualty occurs, it's merely a mishap and you'll just become another statistic. Your government does NOTHING (except maybe send your wife and children cards but that's all).
Also, why should it be limited to societies? A person is a person, is a person. People are killing each other. Other people care about you? Nope. So why should you care about them.I did not say that life was fair. However, that still doesn't change the idea that the dogs should not be leeching off people.No. They'll die off without the aid.
And yes, apartment buildings do sound good, though I wouldn't want the liquor stores to be there, as those wouldn't be much more beneficial than the dog shelters.
I don't think you understand the idea of no-kill animal shelters, but maybe it's different where you live. At the Pawtucket Animal Shelter, we take in strays brought in by animal control/concerned people, rehabilitate them as best we can, get them spayed/neutered by a local veterinarian, and either find them permanent homes or a suitable animal sanctuary. Though you may not care much for animals (which doesn't make you a bad person), why shouldn't the government toss some money to give these animals happier existences?
No matter whether you agree with animal charity or not, the fact is that it's thriving in our modern society.
Just curious: in where do you base this idea, anyway?
Posting Permissions
|
|
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks