ADHD drugs + brain

[Kevin L]

After I wrote the above, a better example occurs to me.

Bats carry rabies, which is about 100% fatal if left untreated.

So--on the surface--it would seem like a good idea if they were eradicated.

Yet many of them eat their weight in mosquitoes every night. Mosquitoes spread zika, dengue, malaria, encephalitis, and so on.

We would kill far more people from mosquitoe diseases by eliminating bats than we would save by eliminating rabies.

So bats are worth protecting even if we need to divert water (like in California), or put up with a lot of other hardships.

 

[TexasFreedom]

Kevin,

OK, good, we agree on that part.

Now for the next step: what 'price' is acceptable?

For example, if to save a certain critter, all people have to move out of California. If we don't leave, that creature will go extinct. Not just Los Angeles, or one county. The whole state, and we have 30 days to leave or they go extinct. What do you do, you're the governor of CA?

That may seem like an extreme example, but assume it's true.

There is also the natural order. I've heard where lots of jungle frogs are dying because of Chytrid fungus. Let's assume the fungus spread naturally to the species that can't handle it. What extraordinary efforts do we do to preserve those species? Or do we?

And if you want to blame humans for everything, look at TRex. They went extinct long before mankind could cause anything. Do we leave them extinct? Do we play "Jurassic Park" & bring them back? Hard decisions.

As with your bat example, there are real tradeoffs. (BTW, bats are only one of many animals that transmit rabies, but you know that)

 

[Kevin L]

Kevin,

OK, good, we agree on that part.

Now for the next step: what 'price' is acceptable?

For example, if to save a certain critter, all people have to move out of California. If we don't leave, that creature will go extinct. Not just Los Angeles, or one county. The whole state, and we have 30 days to leave or they go extinct. What do you do, you're the governor of CA?

That may seem like an extreme example, but assume it's true.

There is also the natural order. I've heard where lots of jungle frogs are dying because of Chytrid fungus. Let's assume the fungus spread naturally to the species that can't handle it. What extraordinary efforts do we do to preserve those species? Or do we?

And if you want to blame humans for everything, look at TRex. They went extinct long before mankind could cause anything. Do we leave them extinct? Do we play "Jurassic Park" & bring them back? Hard decisions.

As with your bat example, there are real tradeoffs. (BTW, bats are only one of many animals that transmit rabies, but you know that)

It's difficult at best for me to put a price on human life.

If you're a believer in God, then we can say that God created the naturall world as it is for a reason, and preserving these species needs to be a priority.

If you believe in a naturalistic world, then preserving the natural world to protect humanity means that these species must be protected.

Are we goung to render several extinct?

Of course.

Does that mean that we need to make no effort or sacrifice, and just do whatever we want?

Absolutely not.

 

[tmttactical]

If you want to save animal (critters) species, then you need to reduce the number of humans. Humans will continue to breed, out of control (no natural predators) and a Nanny state to protect the stupid. As long as they continue to repopulate at the current rates ( faster than the death rate) then land will always be at a premium. With the development of the land, the loss of habitat is required. Bottom line --- it is really not a choice of preserving the critters as much a matter of can the current species adapt to the changes. Maybe we will bring about our own downfall but it won't be from trying to save the animals.

 

[Kevin L]

You are very correct about overpopulation.

If we assume that man could--somehow--lesrn to eat star matter as food, and if there was no speed of light limit in the Universe.....then mankind would fill up the entire accessible Universe in about 6,000 years.

Plainly, something has to give.

 

[tmttactical]

You are very correct about overpopulation.

If we assume that man could--somehow--lesrn to eat star matter as food, and if there was no speed of light limit in the Universe.....then mankind would fill up the entire accessible Universe in about 6,000 years.

Plainly, something has to give.

Yes and it will be the animals. Until they become the dominate species, they will always lose. If some new plague comes along and kills off about 90% of mankind, then the critters will get a slight reprieve but it won't be permanent. We will breed ourselves back into needing more land and resources.

 

[TexasFreedom]

Oh, you want forced population control?

Well that is easy, go for communism/socialism. They are great at killing millions and millions of people. They are not environmentally friendly (look at China), but they will both kill people and control population growth (because they can't produce the food to feed people). Consider the 1-child policy in China for decades...

 

[lonewolf]

a nice SHTF event should sort out the overpopulation problem, all within about 6-12 months with a bit of luck.
take humans away from their comfort zone, deprive them of all the systems that help them survive and see just how many can be self reliant, not many i'll guess, probably much less than 10%.

 

[tmttactical]

I am not rooting for the critters. They are on their own, same as humans. I am a realist in the fact that land and resources are finite and the population of the world is not. We will breed ourselves into a major SHTF event. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Also it does not take a genius to know there is nothing that will change the outcome. The majority of people are not self regulating. Soylent Green anybody?

 

[lonewolf]

I've always said humans will breed themselves out of existence. too many humans not enough resources left.

 

[Kevin L]

Oh, you want forced population control?

Well that is easy, go for communism/socialism. They are great at killing millions and millions of people. They are not environmentally friendly (look at China), but they will both kill people and control population growth (because they can't produce the food to feed people). Consider the 1-child policy in China for decades...

Speaking of socialism, I found something that I think you (and everyone else on the forum) would find bitterly amusing:

A socialist version of Monopoly