Victims of a New African Massacre

[Grimbold21]

Humans are a part of nature. So yeah it's still a part of nature. We are not separate from it, we are a part of it.

Yes, and? That only makes it worse, since we're the only species that consciously and purposely destroys these enviornments.

- - - Updated - - -

Just curious. What do you propose we do? Stop human development?

Responsible development and management.

[Leyre]

"The strong shall live and the weak shall die, that's the natural order of things"

There's a reason why we are at the top of the food chain, if animals havent adapted trough all these centuries, well, they are bound to get rekt

[Techno-Druid]

"The strong shall live and the weak shall die, that's the natural order of things"

There's a reason why we are at the top of the food chain, if animals havent adapted trough all these centuries, well, they are bound to get rekt

Animals can't adapt against genocide.

[ParanoiD84]

"The strong shall live and the weak shall die, that's the natural order of things"

There's a reason why we are at the top of the food chain, if animals havent adapted trough all these centuries, well, they are bound to get rekt

How the hell is a animal supposed to addapt to firearms and the idiot people who lives there and keep butchering eachother all the time. I say move them far away from people and let the people slaughter eachother and not the animals.

[Orange Joe]

How the hell is a animal supposed to addapt to firearms and the idiot people who lives there and keep butchering eachother all the time. I say move them far away from people and let the people slaughter eachother and not the animals.

Again. Are we out their killing them with guns? Or are they dying due to human development/decreased habitat? the article itself doesn't seem to mention this.

[ParanoiD84]

Again. Are we out their killing them with guns? Or are they dying due to human development/decreased habitat? the article itself doesn't seem to mention this.

The civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo means military groups remain in the forest for long periods of time. Thus, poaching has increased as militia and refugees become hungry. Military leaders have also disarmed the park security guards in national parks meaning they have virtually no control over the activities that occur within the park.

Then there is a problem with the people Over-harvesting the forests.

Over-harvesting is an illegal practice often conducted by legal concession holder and encourages deforestation and illegal resources exportation. The areas logged are prime gorilla habitat and is considered an international concern. Companies involved in illegal exploitation therefore encourage environmental destruction in the area and fuel the illegal export industry controlled by militia groups.
References

[ParanoiD84]

i say let them die out thats just part of nature

lol how is people having a civil war slaughtering everything part of nature? Does not help they are destroying the forest either, so this is all people's fault and nothing the gorillas can help at all.

[Slant]

Nice clickbait title.

[Osmeric]

We have had many mass extinction events. Earth has recovered from every single one so far.

Anthropic selection renders such an observation feckless. If the Earth hadn't recovered, we wouldn't be here to observe that.

[ParanoiD84]

humans are part of nature????

are you a religious nut or something and think we are created in god's image / the world was created just for humans or other nonsense

I know very well there have been constant warfare since the recording of man, not a single time of worldpeace, that does not mean we must destroy every single species on this planet. Why cant we just keep it to killing of eachother then.

A world without animals would be so fucking boring that i would kill myself the moment that happened.

[Mihalik]

"The strong shall live and the weak shall die, that's the natural order of things"

There's a reason why we are at the top of the food chain, if animals havent adapted trough all these centuries, well, they are bound to get rekt

Let me translate what you are saying.

I'm too dumb to understand the meaning of things like "ecosystem" and "intrinsic value", so I'll "quote" some utterly out of context semi Social Darwinist/Randian line from a TV show.

- - - Updated - - -

A world without animals would be so fucking boring that i would kill myself the moment that happened.

You wouldn't need to. You'd be dead by starvation.

[ParanoiD84]

Let me translate what you are saying.

I'm too dumb to understand the meaning of things like "ecosystem" and "intrinsic value", so I'll "quote" some utterly out of context semi Social Darwinist/Randian line from a TV show.

- - - Updated - - -



You wouldn't need to. You'd be dead by starvation.

Not if i hunted and ate people

[Mihalik]

Not if i hunted and ate people

You'd still be dead pretty fast. It's the disadvantage of being purely carnivorous. It is very energy inefficient. If all predators have to eat is other predators, you'll run out of things to eat on a very short notice.

- - - Updated - - -

why would there be a world without animals unless life on earth is compleatly wiped out

Ecosystem.

Things are interdependent in ecosystems. Do too much damage to one part of the ecosystem and you cause a chain reaction known as a Mass Extinction Event. Short of a natural disaster like a comet or a solar flare, humans are the only things that could potentially wipe out most life on Earth above the bacterial/fungal level.

[Mihalik]

we have these things called "Farms"

i know they are really high tech and hard to understand but we as humans can avoid having to rely on a natural ecosystem

...Uhm...No we can't. At least not in a sustainable and economically viable manner. Even if economy wouldn't be a factor, sustainability is debatable.

Pollination, bacterial and fungal diversity, pest and disease control are highly reliant on a functional ecosystem.

Cultivars and crops often collapse in damaged ecosystems. Even with access to genetic modification, fertilizers and chemical pest control bacterial or fungal plagues that emerge when the balance is upset by the elimination of a key controlling element or the introduction of a destabilizing factor are often beyond our control.

If you think that farms exist in some sterile artificial environment you either never went anywhere near a farm, ever worked in agriculture or in general paid attention in school.

Cod examples to what ecological imbalances can cause:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chestnut_blight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_corn_leaf_blight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine...encephalopathy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony...logical_impact

Other interesting reads.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species#Economic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_biodiversity

The point is that we don't always understand the roles each moving part has. Damage to a specific element can cause unexpected ripple effects.

Preserving biodiversity an all areas allows us to repair damage through selective breeding, diversification and so.

Also as I've said before. Biodiversity has an intrinsic value for humans that goes beyond sustenance into the cultural, social and even the spiritual realm. (I'm not some green leaf hippy, but some animal or plant that would have little significance for me might have a huge significance for others.)

Preventing irreparable damage is difficult, but it is still easier than undoing irreparable damage.

[Mihalik]

im not sure you understand what a farm is

a farm can be "infected" by the natural ecosystem that's what you just linked... im not sure why

without the outside ecosystem threatening the farm it has less threats

climate and infrastructure keeps the farm alive... its not natrual ecosystems lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem_services

[Spiffums]

1. They're a cousin 2. They serve an ecological role which in turns effects us. 3. We're the ones killing them.

We? I thought they were in Africa not the US and I haven't been to Africa so there is no "We". Maybe you meant THEY are killing them as in THEY the people over there.

- - - Updated - - -

So give them welfare then?

You missed the point of the statement............we do all that now and they use it to feed and build their armies......it don't go where we "intended" it to go.

- - - Updated - - -

I keep seeing "we are doing this" through out this thread.......Here is an idea why don't you people are in the "we" stop killing them.

[Deleted]

We are not acting to stop the constant massacres of helpless humans in Africa, why on earth should we act to help a gorilla?

Gorillas are a hell of a lot more important then humans are. I could not care less that humans are massacring themselves. Our "intelligence" over the animals allows us to do that.

[Mihalik]

farms are a "agricultural ecosystem" and do not rely on the "Natural Ecosystem"

farms are put at RISK by Natural Ecosystems
farms do not rely on Natural Ecosystems

I have no idea what SJW shit you are talking about. That's retarded. What the fuck are you talking about?

Ecosystem

the complex of a community of organisms and its environment functioning as an ecological unit

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ecosystem

Agricultural Ecosystems are a subset part of the Ecosystem as a whole! They are part of it and tied to it. As I said before completely artificial ecosystems could potentially be created, but they are utterly unsustainable because they are not complete systems and are extremely expensive to maintain and are largely dependent on fossil fuel fertilizers, but how long such a system can function in that state is questionable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2 example of an attempt at a self sustaining system that is disconnected from Earth's ecosystem.

But even this can only sustain human life for a very limited time of a couple of years.

What you are claiming is that farms are closed systems that exist separate from the actual physical space they exist in, in the sense that they are only threatened by it.

That is fucking retardedly ignorant. Just because you keep parroting it, it doesn't make it true. Give me some source that actually argues that dipshit delusional statement.

Fucking bees are literally the most elementary proof of you being wrong. Birds that control insect and rodent populations is another. Maize crop failures tied to lack of genetic diversity another. Basic bacteria regulating soil composition and allowing decomposition another and so.

You can't be that dense.

[Zepherin]

Lot of fallacies being seen here, so let's see. One, "why help gorillas if the people are suffering?" Well, the people receive aid all the time. Their children are adopted, relief programs assist. There's only so much one can do however, as the initial problem is caused by people anyway. As a species, gorillas aren't causing issues for themselves, the threat is external.

Two, "isn't this the natural order of things? Let them die if they can't adapt!" Animals can't adapt to getting shot down with guns, I'm afraid, as neat as that'd be to see. If we have the power to wipe a species out, and consider it the natural order, we also have the power to save them, and also consider that the natural order, if you want to consider human development and actions part of nature, anyway.

Three, "why bother trying to save one species, shit goes extinct all the time!" Almost a fair point. A species going extinct will have an impact on the local ecosystem, and lead to larger environmental issues. This leads into four, "the earth has survived other mass extinctions!" Well yes, but considering the extinction rate, I would hate to see the impact it'd have on humanity, especially considering the extreme human bias most of the posts here are expressing. Who can say how a mass extinction of plant and animal species would effect us. That considered, it'd be more prompt to save what we can and soften the blow of such a thing. By putting in effort now, perhaps we save a larger job after the fact.

Besides, the great ape species are the most closely related to us of all animal species. If nothing else, I suppose there's sentiment there, not to mention whatever else we can learn about our own biological development by studying living offshoots.

tl;dr there is very little justification to let the entire species die.

Besides, aren't we the intelligent species? Don't we remind ourselves of that constantly? If we're so great, why are we slaughtering ourselves and causing the deaths of other species? Last time I checked, the gorillas aren't massacring each other and nearby species, and we're supposed to be the betters.

[nathrizarri]

Holocene extinction event, which is an ongoing extinction tied to human activity is one of the largest mass extinction event ever the life on earth faced.

Humans are to blame, you may be badass with your self righteous comments and turn your ears away from the truth but it does not change the reality.

I wish such commenters would instantly teleport to those nearly extinct species and witness the life they have and the suffering they had to endure thanks to human activity.

It takes much greater confidence and self awareness to inspect yourself and fight with the flaws instead of ignorant/arrogant denial.