Let me start off by saying, I would gladly slaughter the majority of the human race to save the incredibly high number of endangered species that have only reached that point because of us. Like this one. It wasn't in natures plan for them to die, it was a side-effect of ours, and that is inexcusable.
That leopard... Is beautiful, I'd love to be able to see it in person, though I know I really shouldn't in the end.
I believe that the human race is rather... Inferior, in many ways. Primarily because of the most important factor in any species survival.
Adaptability.
Whereas animals have a bred-in ability to adapt to their surroundings by any means necessary, humans almost always have to adapt the surroundings to themselves.
However, whereas an animal can generally use what's around them to adapt themselves, humans almost always need outside resources. And, to the few that can survive off the land... Bravo, don't become like the rest of our pathetic race.
Not to mention, in order to obtain those resources, we most often need to destroy our surroundings and nature (ex. drilling, foresting, both easily destroy the surrounding habitat...).
Quote:
Originally Posted by noodle
Simple reason why we're superior to ANY creature... WE CAN KILL THEM ALL...
|
Not sure if this has been said yet but...
I guess that means I'm superior to you.
I have access to multiple forms of weaponry, I know vulnerable points on the human body, and I have a knack for figuring out behavioral patterns and making plans.
If I had the inspiration right now, I could easily kill you. And you wouldn't even know what happened.
In fact, if this is the criteria that you judge superiority off of, than I know of only one person to whom I'm undoutably inferior, and that's only because she knows me as well as I know her. If and when I make any mistake at all, there wouldn't be a second chance.
Now, please, what do you say to that?
Oh, BTW, To most of those people who say "I'd save the dying child before the endangered species," let me ask you...
Inevitably, a human is at fault for both in some way or another unless a disease is involved. However, whereas humans had a choice in the dying childs case (parents could have taken better care, parents could have waited to have sex until they knew they were able to support children, another human could have helped the child...), the animal very rarely has a choice in it's own extinction.
You say you would save the child, who had more choice involved and is without a doubt unnecessary for this earth to reach its balance, seeing as how there's millions of others left should that one die, before the animal, who had no choice and would be survived by less than a hundred of it's kind... Why?
Also, let me pose to you another question... Would you have saved Adolf Hitler before an endangered species? And, if you said no, why would you make a distinction between saving a good human and a bad human? I mean, they're both human, they're both "superior" to the animal by many of your standards.
There a million more questions I could ask, but I think this post has run a little too long. I'll post again eventually...