Will humanity in the future decide to eradicate certain species, on purpose?

a reply to: JamesChessman

Don't we already? We lived in the Garden at peace with all creatures.

Then, we began killing and eating them....or their carcasses when they died...

Sounds like today's ...

Fleas and ticks can go on the list. And bot flys, round, and hookworms plus tapeworms of all types.

a reply to: JamesChessman

They put it to a vote, and 98. 673274 % of species voted Humans off of the planet.

The fight, I believe is, whos morals are correct? Me, I put my belief in God. I believe there is only one God. I used to read the KJV bible a lot. Not so much any longer.

Ya. So I pick answer A. Morality. As long as free will exists. Your question of "The question of whether future humanity will pick-and-choose which species will exist, on purpose? " will remain perpetual..a reply to: JamesChessman

The final coup de grace will be when man invents his own replacement-yes we are that stupid

a reply to: JamesChessman

Uuuh what do you have against crocodiles?

You want to go around wiping out species you don't like?

originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: JamesChessman

Uuuh what do you have against crocodiles?

^They're cold-hearted reptiles without capacity of thought or feeling. And they cause infinite suffering for the much more-advanced life forms which need to drink water: Zebra, gazelle, etc. These are mammals, like us, with capacity of intelligence and feelings.

So eliminating crocs would improve happiness and quality of life for wildlife across Africa and the whole world.

Predators' roles should be better filled with predators who are more advanced, like an increase in feline species (to replace the predation of the crocs) would seem a wonderful thing, for the world. Cat species are infinitely more valuable, intrinsically, and for the whole world, aren't they?

Like this, future-man will have to make such decisions.

originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: JamesChessman

Uuuh what do you have against crocodiles?

You want to go around wiping out species you don't like?

Someone clearly never watched much Steve Irwin.

Crocs have their place in life as do all the other reptiles. The problem I have with this thread is that the arguments being made could so easily be applied in terms of eugenics, and it's slightly creepy.

Crocs, sharks, all the predators for that matter, have their places and their roles. And while I'm still waking up, it should be considered that there are things the crocs will and can do that the OP's preferred predators cannot and will not -- things they will and can eat even that give them a really important role in every eco-system they occupy.

originally posted by: JamesChessman

originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: JamesChessman

Uuuh what do you have against crocodiles?

^They're cold-hearted reptiles without capacity of thought or feeling. And they cause infinite suffering for the much more-advanced life forms which need to drink water: Zebra, gazelle, etc. These are mammals, like us, with capacity of intelligence and feelings.

So eliminating crocs would improve happiness and quality of life for wildlife across Africa and the whole world.

Predators' roles should be better filled with predators who are more advanced, like an increase in feline species (to replace the predation of the crocs) would seem a wonderful thing, for the world. Cat species are infinitely more valuable, intrinsically, and for the whole world, aren't they?

Like this, future-man will have to make such decisions.

I think you meant reptiles are /cold blooded/. Ascribing feelings and emotions to animals is, as mentioned earlier, a hopeless exercise in anthropomorphism that's not well grounded in science.

Speaking of science, recent research has demonstrated that just because animals are cold blooded doesn't mean they're not intelligent

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: JamesChessman

Man will attempt to control nature and it will end disastrously.

Only for man. Nature shrugs and carries on as it always has.

a reply to: JamesChessman

Maybe a systematic vote will be in place for the people to decide.

originally posted by: CopeLongCut
The fight, I believe is, whos morals are correct? Me, I put my belief in God. I believe there is only one God. I used to read the KJV bible a lot. Not so much any longer.

Ya. So I pick answer A. Morality. As long as free will exists. Your question of "The question of whether future humanity will pick-and-choose which species will exist, on purpose? " will remain perpetual..a reply to: JamesChessman

I enjoy reading the Bible occasionally. Though I don't think it perfectly settles such questions.

Also, re: morality: I wasn't proposing that species need to be violently eliminated, in the distant future. There'd be a better approach of probably doing something to simply stop their reproduction, and soon the crocs etc. could die out, in their natural lifespan.

Or maybe future mankind will have even a better method that we can't imagine right now.

Regardless, I'm slightly surprised that no one seems to agree with me, that future man will need to prioritize creatures which are more advanced, over those that aren't. The predators' roles in ecosystems can be filled by other predators which are more preferred, such as letting lions' numbers explode, to fill the need of predators, once the crocs are vanished from Africa.

I'd think that it would be undebatable that the world would be better, if crocs were replaced by more lions etc. Daily life of other animals, would be happier, in the African savanna.

Plus, as a whole, surely Earth is better loaded up with beautiful feline species, full of intelligence and love, while eliminating the most primitive monsters, like crocs and sharks, who have no capacity for intelligence or feelings at all, contributing nothing to the world beyond their predation numbers (which should go to lions, instead).

The more feline species in the world, the more they fill the world with mammalian intelligence and emotion, which goes into the world as a whole. It's better for the world, overall (than the presence of primordial beasts, like crocs etc.).

The same for the oceans: OF COURSE the oceans' needs of predators would be much better filled by mammalian predators, like dolphins and whales, who will hopefully someday replace the niche that sharks currently occupy. I'd think it's obvious that the oceans would be a much nicer place, with zero sharks, and increased dolphins and whales.

Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens in a few thousand years.

originally posted by: CrazeeWorld777
a reply to: JamesChessman

Maybe a systematic vote will be in place for the people to decide.

Well maybe it will be decided by different species' effects on the world.

For example, the South American jungles supposedly have a minuscule fish that slips into the hole of a man's penis, and attaches inside, and then grows, while painfully destroying that penis.

I think it's argued whether it's real or not, but if that fish is real, then it would seem an obvious candidate for a species that the world is probably better off, without...

Not to mention eliminating the species of the very real diseases and afflictions, that definitely do affect mankind...

a reply to: JamesChessman

Understand something, I'm an aquarium hobbyist, and I've learned a lesson. You can't maintain a healthy tank without the bacteria. They're your first residents and the most important ones. Yep. The germs.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JamesChessman

Understand something, I'm an aquarium hobbyist, and I've learned a lesson. You can't maintain a healthy tank without the bacteria. They're your first residents and the most important ones. Yep. The germs.

Yes, of course we need germs / bacteria etc.

I was thinking of terrible parasites that terrorize mankind, like tapeworm etc. Eliminate 'em, in a few thousand years, I say.

And we'll hopefully also eradicate harmful viruses by that point too.

But of course, bacteria is a general presence everywhere, which will always exist...

originally posted by: ketsuko
...
Crocs have their place in life as do all the other reptiles. The problem I have with this thread is that the arguments being made could so easily be applied in terms of eugenics, and it's slightly creepy. ...

Thought we were speaking in code, about the good people uhmm, 'dealing-with', the reptile-minded parasites : like Snoros, Billy Windows, Klaussless Shwib, and that ilk, no ?

Damned cold-blooded, parasitic predators to the good people of the world.


Once asked a wise man, why some 'people' were like that.
After thinking a spell, he answered : " There is no use in asking why there are wolves and foxes in the forest. One can only understand that they are there, and prepare for them the best they can. "
( Paraphrased. )

originally posted by: khnum
The final coup de grace will be when man invents his own replacement-yes we are that stupid

Yes, you are.

They're called children.

Deny Ignorance.

a reply to: JamesChessman

Terrible parasites? You understand that in some instances those parasites in the species they are supposed to inhabit don't cause much, if any issue, but when they step outside their intended host by mistake, that's where the problems start.

It's also suspected that some of our own health problems like allergies may be attributed to a lack of parasitic infections in humans. The part of the immune system that causes allergic reaction was the part that developed to respond to parasitic infection, and with the lack of parasites in modern countries, that part of the system has nothing to react to, so without proper training through parasitic infection, it tends to turn against the human system which is what allergic reactions are.

"Also, re: morality:"...

"I'm slightly surprised that no one seems to agree with me"...

"I'd think that it would be undebatable that the world would be better"...

"Plus, as a whole"...

"The more feline species in the world"...

"The same for the oceans:"...

This is why I believe morality is perpetual. Morality comes in all sizes. There's small and large pockets of like minded individuals. Within those pockets, morality is even more individualized. Smaller and smaller morality continues which, stops at you (not us but, me, you, and the rest of us).

Is putting your hands in your pocket that much different than opening up your hands to receive something? Each takes a conscious effort, you, as an individual made up your mind to do.a reply to: JamesChessman

a reply to: JamesChessman

I guess that's my real question, because I think it will happen inevitably. And I don't believe every single creature is really needed, when considering the most primitive, destructive species that plague the world today. Mosquitos, roaches, sharks, scorpions, poisonous spiders, etc. I just can't believe that the world is better with them, than without them, lol. There are much more favorable species which can fill their niche imo.

I wondered that myself, and upon researching the different species I THOUGHT were unnecessary I discovered the part they play in the balance of our ecosystem.
Everything seems interconnected- almost like some divine design.