Animal Rights page 5

Plankton does more for the planets oxygen level than all the trees together so stop going on about that. If we do manage some how to run low on oxygen we will be able to wipe out any of the species which eat the plankton.

As well as the Sahara desert being forest not long ago.

Plankton does more for the planets oxygen level than all the trees together so stop going on about that.

Actually, plants and trees make for 50% of the oxygen production, and phytoplankton as well. Source

If we do manage some how to run low on oxygen we will be able to wipe out any of the species which eat the plankton.

So you’re saying we shouldn’t give a shit about the entire Amazon forest because we could always go kill all zooplankton, whales, and other animals that eat phytoplankton? RMcD for president!

As well as the Sahara desert being forest not long ago.

True. And it could happen to more forests as well.

Actually, plants and trees make for 50% of the oxygen production, and phytoplankton as well. Source

Plankton is algae right?

70% to 80% of all the oxygen we breathe comes from algae!

http://ecology.com/features/mostimportantorganism/

And interestingly

Seaweed are not plants, but are algae.

So plankton isn’t a plant.

So you’re saying we shouldn’t give a shit about the entire Amazon forest because we could always go kill all zooplankton, whales, and other animals that eat phytoplankton? RMcD for president!

Duh. What do we need whales for? We don’t. Unless you want to eat them. We could put a section of the ocean or a group of whales to be killed for entertainment purposes.

True. And it could happen to more forests as well.

I know.

Okay, apparently algae are much more important than I thought they were. But I find your ideas on the value of animal life, nature, and the planet shockingly selfish. No moral values or long-term vision whatsoever.

Originally posted by Searth:

Okay, apparently algae are much more important than I thought they were. But I find your ideas on the value of animal life, nature, and the planet shockingly selfish. No moral values or long-term vision whatsoever.

Nice to meet you too. I don’t see any reason to not be selfish. Or look more long term than the end of my life. T’is my life. I’m not going to live it for someone else.

Plankton is algae right?

Not just algae, no.

Nice to meet you too. I don’t see any reason to not be selfish. Or look more long term than the end of my life. T’is my life. I’m not going to live it for someone else.

barring the obvious selfishness here, if the animal serves no purpose, why the hell do I care about it? I’m not a fan of whale meat, and they don’t DO anything for me, so why should I care whether or not they go extinct? It’s not like them not existing is going to negatively effect my life.

barring the obvious selfishness here, if the animal serves no purpose, why the hell do I care about it? I’m not a fan of whale meat, and they don’t DO anything for me, so why should I care whether or not they go extinct? It’s not like them not existing is going to negatively effect my life.

You shouldn’t.

You shouldn’t.

Exactly.

Originally posted by Kasha4890:

You shouldn’t.

Exactly.

Nope, you’ve lost me. Exactly what?

barring the obvious selfishness here, if the animal serves no purpose, why the hell do I care about it? I’m not a fan of whale meat, and they don’t DO anything for me, so why should I care whether or not they go extinct? It’s not like them not existing is going to negatively effect my life.

The whale might not directly serve your interest, but it serves a role in the bigger picture. You might not eat whale meat, but I’m guessing you eat fish. Preserving the whale populace keeps the ecosystem functioning as it should.

Here are some sources that show you how important whales actually are.

Slaughter of Great Whales Leads to Ecosystem Decline

Ecosystem Effects of Fishing and Whaling in the North Pacific and Atlantic Oceans

However, we can now handle this! A couple of decades time we’ll be able to manage the ecosystem as we wish, to an extent.

‘’However, we can now handle this! A couple of decades time we’ll be able to manage the ecosystem as we wish, to an extent.’’

Errm how exactly? Ecosystems cover massive amounts of space, especially oceanic ones. How on earth do you believe that technology we have or will have would enable us to control these vast amounts of space?

With guns.

I think your missing the point… Removing a species from an ecosystem has farther reaching consequences than just removing that one species.

Of course. Didn’t you take basic biology?

Then why do you insist on killing every “useless” animal?

do not eat animals or meat animals have rights to live too

Originally posted by pryochick:

do not eat animals or meat animals have rights to live too

Here’s part of the conundrum (note: not relevant to me). Many people NEED meat in order to survive. They either cannot afford or do not have access to enough vegetables/fruits to feed themselves. However, many of the animals that we domesticate eat vegetation that we cannot digest, some of which grows on land that cannot be cultivated.

Therefore, depriving them of meat could very well be depriving them of sufficient food, and, by extension, life. So my question is this: Does the animal’s right to life overrided the humans? At best, it is equal, and I say it is worth less (not worthless, though. There’s a space!).

Originally posted by Aaron_:

Then why do you insist on killing every “useless” animal?

I don’t. Only kill them if its fun.

Only kill them if its fun.

Keeping with your total moral subjectiveness line, why does it have to be fun? Why does there still have to be reason?

Originally posted by RMcD:

What do we need whales for?

Biodiversity. And, no, by biodiversity I don’t mean “How cute, there are 2324 different species of turtle!”, but the fact that a greater gene pool can benefit science and medicine.

do not eat animals or meat animals have rights to live too

Could you at least conjure up a great argument as to why, instead of just saying it’s true, end of story? I don’t mean to sound cruel but humans are naturally omnivores. Back in cavemen times we would’ve stabbed animals to death with stones horribly. I’m not saying we should do that, because if we have a choice, we can take it, obviously. And when we do kill animals, it ought to be humane, because it does nothing to the taste of the food, it is not more expensive…anyway, I am not against eating meat, but I am VERY opposed to hunting for no reason besides entertainment.

Originally posted by RMcD:

However, we can now handle this! A couple of decades time we’ll be able to manage the ecosystem as we wish, to an extent.

Yes, because clearly we’re doing a marvellous job of managing the earth and preserving our ecosystems and environment. I’m somewhat stunned at your train of thought in this thread. You called someone out earlier by stating “Well are you a biologist?” Well, are you? How do you know what the human race can and cannot do to the environment before it all dies off taking us with it? How can you predict how much our level of control will be over the weather, or over infinitely complex food chains that have existed for millions of years?