"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
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
Nice clickbait title.
Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.
"There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
"The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
"Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"
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.
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.
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 - - -
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.
Last edited by Mihalik; 2016-05-01 at 12:19 PM.
...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.
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 - - -
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.
Me thinks Chromie has a whole lot of splaining to do!
I have no idea what SJW shit you are talking about. That's retarded. What the fuck are you talking about?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ecosystemEcosystem
the complex of a community of organisms and its environment functioning as an ecological unit
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.
Last edited by Mihalik; 2016-05-02 at 10:04 AM.
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.
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.