Quote:
| Originally posted by Leopard,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Leopard,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>you make the assumption that those species which have become extinct (whether or not due to human influence) are 'valuable'. The cost of a 'deer' would not necessarily skyrocket if they were not considered valuable, and so 'could' become extinct. My guess is that those who desire to hunt such animals do value them (probably more so than 'environmentalists' or animal rights groups) and where therefore work to preserve this 'valuable' to them, resource.[/b] |
Pardon me? Those animals that became extinct became so by hunters. The dodo was hunted for food, by the way - sure they were valued. Your whole "hunting is for those who care about animals" is a crock. I've heard it by so many red-necky hunters I was assuming only the ignorant used it. Sadly, apparently not.
<!--QuoteBegin-Leopard, Your opinion. Fine. But I think there are plently of historical evidence to point out that most folks do desire to live longer and will continue to pursue this goal, whether or not it is 'egoising' is rather moot.[/quote]
And there is plenty of historical evidence to prove that our trends are only leading us into a serious environmental catastrophe. If humans want to live longer, that's fine, but what's the point in living long only to find there is nothing worth living for - or nothing left to support you.
It's not just a matter of simple human egoising - it's a matter of intelligence. If we live longer that doesn't solve any problems, but creates more. And when we have populated this world to the breaking point (as far as resources go) then all that living longer was for nothing. We're dead.