Support NeoGAF

[DedValve]

There is a difference between extinction and genocide. This is the latter.

 

[Sakura]

So are Northern Rhinos actually a different species than the southern ones, or are they literally the same, some just live in the north...? If they are not a different species then I don't see the huge problem...

Also I understand poaching is an issue, but how the fuck can you not protect like literally half a dozen animals from being poached? You'd think with so few it'd be easy to keep tabs and protect them.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Why are you coming off so angry, though?

Because for far too long the real villains escape prosecution or scorn. Nobody talks about grounding up the ballsacks of Chinese and Vietnamese men to make an aphrodisiac powder...but they and their superstitions are the reason we have 6 northern white rhinos in the world. We have 6 left and they are responsible.

Count how many posts in the thread before mine bothered to toss them any vitriol at all. If people don't place their blame correctly, the most responsible will not be held responsible.

 

[Skinpop]

I wonder how much money is spent on these breeding programmes. Would it not be cheaper and easier to employ groups of protectors for these animals who are authorised to shoot and kill poachers on sight? Make their habitats off limits to unauthorised people (clearly marked) so if anyone crosses over they're fair game.

Legally hunting humans? mmm

 

[Jaeger]

Because for far too long the real villains escape prosecution or scorn. Nobody talks about grounding up the ballsacks of Chinese and Vietnamese men to make an aphrodisiac powder...but they and their superstitions are the reason we have 6 northern white rhinos in the world.

No one is saying they aren't part of the problem though. Take your aggressions about conversations you may have had with others prior to this one somewhere else, please.

There is a difference between extinction and genocide. This is the latter.

Exactly. behavior that humans dally in of this heinous nature is not natural. Taking horns, and tusks, and skins for shit like pelts and rugs is not natural.

C'mon, GAF. Get it together.

 

[Valhelm]

Stating it is technically natural selection does not mean I condone it. A human dying from disease is also natural selection, but I dislike when it happens.

Agreed. Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it's better.

 

[cpp_is_king]

No. It is not. No matter how many times you try and summarize it, that's not how natural selection, works.

No matter how many times you try and claim that it's not how it works, it actually is.

That's a good question. I guess Manson was just doing his natural inclination to lessen the population, too. And ISIS is alright! Just "natural selection", baby.

It's not a good question. Natural selection does not govern the deaths of individual people. If I get shot tonight walking down the street, I didn't die to natural selection. If, on the other hand, the entire human race is wiped out due to a nuclear war of our own doing, then humans will have become extinct due to natural selection.

 

[yogloo]

Implying poachers are the ultimate problem is like implying the street corner drug dealer are the ultimate problem.

No, you want to capture and imprison the wealthy southeast asian buyers who are creating the market in the first fucking place.

Those are the poster children. If they're not creating a market, poachers don't risk their lives trying to kill these animals. But perhaps they're not an attractive enough face to put on this. Never ceases to amaze me how often your average person will fail to see the forest for the trees when it comes to this kinda shit.

I agree we should do the same for drugs.

Half of Gaf is in trouble.

 

[Lum1n3s]

No matter how many times you try and claim that it's not how it works, it actually is.



It's not a good question. Natural selection does not govern the deaths of individual people. If I get shot tonight walking down the street, I didn't die to natural selection. If, on the other hand, the entire human race is wiped out due to a nuclear war of our own doing, then humans will have become extinct due to natural selection.

What traits do we have to develop/pass down to our children in order for us/them to avoid dying from a nuke?

 

[Sakura]

What traits do we have to develop/pass down to our children in order for us/them to avoid dying from a nuke?

Better social behaviour?
If we were less hostile and willing to kill each other we probably wouldn't have dropped nukes on each other.

 

[CornBurrito]

Exactly. behavior that humans dally in of this heinous nature is not natural. Taking horns, and tusks, and skins for shit like pelts and rugs is not natural..

Why are these behaviors not natural? Under what definition are they not natural, unless you consider humans to exist outside of nature. Human behavior is a result of human genes. Human behaviors are natural. Natural doesn't mean good.

 

[Popnbake]

Actually, as far as I can tell, medicine really isn't the reason, it's more to do with art and and other bullshit. Kinda like ivory.



No no, blame the Chinese. This is something we can narrow down. Most of mankind don't care for Rhino horns, just Chinese elite.

Yes and the use of the horn in medicine was also another reason presented.

The people wealthy enough to use them in the VICE coverage are also well aware that there are no scientific results to support their supposed health benefits.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Exactly. behavior that humans dally in of this heinous nature is not natural. Taking horns, and tusks, and skins for shit like pelts and rugs is not natural.

C'mon, GAF. Get it together.

"Natural " in the sense of natural selection is not defined in terms of whatever system of ethics or social normalcy a particular species adheres to. Microscopic parasites, for example, do not adhere to any system of ethics that I'm aware of, yet they still take part in natural selection. Other species, such as spiders, cannibalize their mates, yet they also take part in natural selection.

Understanding this -- that natural selection is independent of ethics -- doesn't make you insensitive or a bad person.

 

[East Lake]

"Natural " in the sense of natural selection is not defined in terms of whatever ethics system of ethics or social normalcy a particular species adheres to. Microscopic parasites, for example, do not adhere to any system of ethics that I'm aware of, yet they still take part in natural selection.

Understanding this -- that natural selection is independent of ethics -- doesn't make you insensitive or a bad person.

I think the problem is your original post seems like a pointless observation.

"it's just the natural way of the world"

Who cares?

You can explain any behavior in the history of time that way as some "natural" event that happened because that's the way it was always going to happen. Any negative behavior is now natural and thus not to be questioned. Well you know it sure would be nice to have the wolf population back but you know natural selection. Or sure drugs are destroying people's livelihood but that's natural selection.

 

[cpp_is_king]

I think the problem is your original post seems like a pointless observation.

"it's just the natural way of the world"

Who cares?

You can explain any behavior in the history of time that way as some "natural" event that happened because that's the way it was always going to happen. Any negative behavior is now natural and thus not to be questioned. Well you know it sure would be nice to have the wolf population back but you know natural selection. Or sure drugs are destroying people's livelihood but that's natural selection.

We can certainly have that discussion, but i disagree that that's "the problem ". The debate over whether this is natural selection was happening before i even entered the thread.

 

[Dryk]

Humans are an animal. Thus our actions and the selective pressures we place on animals are still natural selection.

If you believe in god/theistic evolution then blame him not us.

Humans act too quickly and severely for evolution to cope. We're less a normal selective pressure and more a mass extinction event.

Think about that, rather than being a predator humanity has long since reached the level of volcanoes, ice ages and meteor strikes.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Humans act too quickly and severely for evolution to cope. We're less a normal selective pressure and more a mass extinction event.

Humans "acting too quickly" (whatever that means) is a trait gained through the standard evolutionary process. Do our quick actions defy the laws of nature somehow?

 

[Rest]

Start cloning them.

 

[temp]

Arbitrary definitions of the word "natural" that don't include people seem to come up pretty frequently on here.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Arbitrary definitions of the word "natural" that don't include people seem to come up pretty frequently on here.

Are you suggesting we need a different definition of natural selection for people and non people?

 

[Bodacious]

I would like to have seen a woolly rhino. Extinct at least 10000 years ago.

 

[Jaeger]

So humans killing a bunch of Rhinos for their horns is "natural". Gotcha.

 

[cpp_is_king]

So humans killing a bunch of Rhinos for their horns is "natural". Gotcha.

In the sense of "natural selection", of course. In the sense of what people consider acceptable behavior, of course not.

 

[Jaeger]

In the sense of "natural selection", of course. In the sense of what people consider acceptable behavior, of course not.

Natural Selection is the gradual process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment. It is a key mechanism of evolution.

Please tell me how the slaughter of a species of animals by human hands is natural selection, based on that definition. What is gradual and biological about us going out into the wilderness, and shooting animals with guns.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Please tell me how the slaughter of a species of animals by human hands is natural selection, based on that definition. What is gradual and biological about us going out into the wilderness, and shooting animals with guns.

The gradual part is that humans slowly developed the technology, strength, and will to kill these rhinos en masse. Also that the rhinos DIDNT develop the means to defend themselves. The biological part is that the rhinos died.

You keep using these extreme hyperbolic words clearly intended to stir up emotions, when natural selection is an evolutionary process which really has nothing to do with your or anyone else's feelings. It's strange that you're obstinately continuing down this flawed line of reasoning, so rather than go in circles endlessly, it might just be better to let you continue using your emotional, but non-scientific definition of "natural".

 

[East Lake]

We can certainly have that discussion, but i disagree that that's "the problem ". The debate over whether this is natural selection was happening before i even entered the thread.

Right but you said it's not something to lament because it's natural. Is global warming nothing to lament?

 

[Joker85]

The vast, vast, vast majority of species that have existed on earth are extinct. I never understand the obsession certain segments of Western society have with trying to somehow preserve the present status quo in nature for eternity.

If anything, that itself is unnatural. I understand subjective reasons like I simply prefer this animal's looks or behavior or whatever. That's fine, but that doesn't elevate it in itself to some moral crusader.

 

[East Lake]

The vast, vast, vast majority of species that have existed on earth are extinct. I never understand the obsession certain segments of Western society have with trying to somehow preserve the present status quo in nature for eternity.

If anything, that itself is unnatural. I understand subjective reasons like I simply prefer this animal's looks or behavior or whatever. That's fine, but that doesn't elevate it in itself to some moral crusader.

You can never understand why people don't want animal populations wiped out for dumb reasons?

How about it's the same reason there's animal abuse laws.

 

[Joker85]

Right but you said it's not something to lament because it's natural. Is global warming nothing to lament?

Nobody gives a shit about global warming or ice age or anything else except with regards to how it effects us, so that's a different argument.

If 100 years from now life goes on for humans as normal and all the doom predictions fizzle out, then yes, no one would lament it.

That same argument holds with regards to endangered species. Sure if a species going extinct can be shown to cause eco system changes that end up hurting humans somehow, that's one thing. But that's not the argument presented here. Instead just some wierd cosmic assumption that these species, in and of themselves, have a right to exist forever, just .... because like.... they are cute or something.

 

[Jaeger]

This thread is going places.

The gradual part is that humans slowly developed the technology, strength, and will to kill these rhinos en masse. Also that the rhinos DIDNT develop the means to defend themselves. The biological part is that the rhinos died.

No animal can can develop a defense for man's weapons. So all animals should die? Fuck plants to. We don't need them. More condos and mini-malls, please.

You keep using these extreme hyperbolic words clearly intended to stir up emotions, when natural selection is an evolutionary process which really has nothing to do with your or anyone else's feelings. It's strange that you're obstinately continuing down this flawed line of reasoning, so rather than go in circles endlessly, it might just be better to let you continue using your emotional, but non-scientific definition of "natural".

Unless guns start growing our my hands, us slaughtering defenseless animals (literally the whole animal kingdom is at our mercy) is not natural. We are killing them for sustenance. We aren't killing them for survival.

Please stop it.

 

[East Lake]

Nobody gives a shit about global warming or ice age or anything else except with regards to how it effects us, so that's a different argument.

If 100 years from now life goes on for humans as normal and all the doom predictions fizzle out, then yes, no one would lament it.

That same argument holds with regards to endangered species. Sure if a species going extinct can be shown to cause eco system changes that end up hurting humans somehow, that's one thing. But that's not the argument presented here. Instead just some wierd cosmic assumption that these species, in and of themselves, have a right to exist forever, just .... because like.... they are cute or something.

No the bolded is mostly a strawman I think you've constructed because you likely don't care about the welfare of any animal. I don't see anybody here lamenting the extinction of the woolly mammoth or some paleozic bottom feeding fish. It's mostly about stopping unneeded damage on wildlife populations. If the Rhino gets hunted into extinction by lions great, that's how it is.

Global warming is no different under cpp's definition of the word natural. My guess is that he arbitrarily applies this principle to things that personally impact him. So if it's a negative social issue he doesn't like then it doesn't matter if it's natural or not, but if he personally doesn't care about what happens to rhinos and thinks everybody who raises an objection is some lameo tree hugger, then yeah they need to get over it, it's natural selection bros!

 

[Dan]

*cries* What a tragedy. Fucking dumb humans gotta have their rhino powder.

 

[The Hermit]

I was reading about endangered species and there´s only 4(!) of these turtles:

Red River Giant Softshell Turtle

Spoiler

They are really ugly though

 

[Joker85]

No the bolded is mostly a strawman I think you've constructed because you likely don't care about the welfare of any animal. I don't see anybody here lamenting the extinction of the woolly mammoth or some paleozic bottom feeding fish. It's mostly about stopping unneeded damage on wildlife populations. If the Rhino gets hunted into extinction by lions great, that's how it is.

Global warming is no different under cpp's definition of the word natural. My guess is that he arbitrarily applies this principle to things that personally impact him. So if it's a negative social issue he doesn't like then it doesn't matter if it's natural or not, but if he personally doesn't care about what happens to rhinos and thinks everybody who raises an objection is some lameo tree hugger, then yeah they need to get over it, it's natural selection bros!

I care about the welfare of animals in regards to physical suffering or cruelty, but not their lives as a concept. I have no problem with a hunter shooting an animal in the head and killing it. I do have a problem if he decides to torture it with a knife first.

As to your second point, it's not whether it effects me personally, rather my species. The comfort, survival, expansion, and well being of humanity is what matters to me over any others. If some randoms species goes extinct so my own kind can have more food or better housing or sustain our growing numbers, oh well.

I also reject your accusation of strawman. The whole point is that, if those species existed today, suddenly the very fact of them existing in 2014 instead of 10,000 years ago would, to some people, instantly confer on them the right to exist in perpetuity, regardless of the inconvenience that causes our kind.

 

[cpp_is_king]

This thread is going places.



No animal can can develop a defense for man's weapons. So all animals should die? Fuck plants to. We don't need them. More condos and mini-malls, please.



Unless guns start growing our my hands, us slaughtering defenseless animals (literally the whole animal kingdom is at our mercy) is not natural. We are killing them for sustenance. We aren't killing them for survival.

Please stop it.

You're getting emotional. Natural selection doesn't have anything to do with your emotions.

 

[Jaeger]

You're getting emotional. Natural selection doesn't have anything to do with your emotions.

Great rebuttal. Brilliant, even. Why even quote my wall o' text if you weren't gonna actually respond to it?

You aren't doing this right, sir.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

The gradual part is that humans slowly developed the technology, strength, and will to kill these rhinos en masse. Also that the rhinos DIDNT develop the means to defend themselves. The biological part is that the rhinos died.

You keep using these extreme hyperbolic words clearly intended to stir up emotions, when natural selection is an evolutionary process which really has nothing to do with your or anyone else's feelings. It's strange that you're obstinately continuing down this flawed line of reasoning, so rather than go in circles endlessly, it might just be better to let you continue using your emotional, but non-scientific definition of "natural".

The vast, vast, vast majority of species that have existed on earth are extinct. I never understand the obsession certain segments of Western society have with trying to somehow preserve the present status quo in nature for eternity.

If anything, that itself is unnatural. I understand subjective reasons like I simply prefer this animal's looks or behavior or whatever. That's fine, but that doesn't elevate it in itself to some moral crusader.

most of those especies died due to events outside of their control. as humasn we are killing most of these neither for sustenance or defense. we're just killing 'em.

 

[Measley]

Isn't it true that older rhino horns are of higher quality than younger rhino horns?

In other words, if poachers just scavenged the bones of rhinos that died of old age, they could get a higher quality product, and keep their supply alive so it doesn't go extinct.

 

[Gambit 1138]

Depressing news

 

[cpp_is_king]

most of those especies died due to events outside of their control. as humasn we are killing most of these neither for sustenance or defense. we're just killing 'em.

You're absolutely right. That doesn't make it not natural selection.

Great rebuttal. Brilliant, even. Why even quote my wall o' text if you weren't gonna actually respond to it?

You aren't doing this right, sir.

My rebuttal is that I have no more rebuttals for you until you learn the correct meaning of "natural" in "natural selection". There are many words with multiple definitions.

"Theory" as in "The Theory of Gravity", for example, means something different than in "I have a theory about why this happened."

"Lead" as in "I will lead you to the store" means something different than in "I will follow your lead."

And "natural" in "natural selection" means something different than in "It is not natural for a person to want to kill these rhinos."

Until you understand that, there's nothing left to discuss.

 

[East Lake]

I care about the welfare of animals in regards to physical suffering or cruelty, but not their lives as a concept. I have no problem with a hunter shooting an animal in the head and killing it. I do have a problem if he decides to torture it with a knife first.

As to your second point, it's not whether it effects me personally, rather my species. The comfort, survival, expansion, and well being of humanity is what matters to me over any others. If some randoms species goes extinct so my own kind can have more food or better housing or sustain our growing numbers, oh well.

I also reject your accusation of strawman. The whole point is that, if those species existed today, suddenly the very fact of them existing in 2014 instead of 10,000 years ago would, to some people, instantly confer on them the right to exist in perpetuity, regardless of the inconvenience that causes our kind.

I still think it's a strawman. You're arguing against some PETA level insanity or something, where I think most people just want to see less rhino killing over pointless shit. I don't see why abuse would be a problem either. Abuse is also natural. If animal lives don't matter I don't see what the problem is.

Rhinos are abused though in poaching. The poachers only need the horn so often the horn is hacked off while it is still alive with the result looking sort of like a scalping. Google "rhino horn" to see some examples.

 

[Jaeger]

Until you understand that, there's nothing left to discuss.

But if your definition of the word is incorrect to begin with, and you are consistent in trying to apply it to plain ol' human genocide, where natural selection has nothing to do with it, there was nothing to say in the first place.

We aren't like anything else from the natural world. We have a choice. The slaughter of these creatures has nothing to do with our survival, and thus nothing to do with natural selection. We aren't changing into Rhino Killing Machines because nature demands it.

 

[Dynamite Ringo Matsuri]

Chinese medicine and its arcane bullshit needs to go die in a fire

 

[AJLma]

White Rhino will be remembered.

 

[danwarb]

More like godamn motherfucker superstitious ignorants. Without a them poachers would be out of business.

Yep. People are predictable. Change society to affect behaviour.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Superstition and greed ruins the world again.

 

[Famassu]

As to your second point, it's not whether it effects me personally, rather my species. The comfort, survival, expansion, and well being of humanity is what matters to me over any others. If some randoms species goes extinct so my own kind can have more food or better housing or sustain our growing numbers, oh well.

Relatively few animals need to die for any of that. If anything, everyone on Earth going completely vegan would be the biggest improvement for all of human race's survival & well-being (as well as everything else living on Earth as well). We don't need any animal products nowadays to sustain ourselves.

And these animals are not going extinct so that you can have more food or better housuing or sustain more of us, they are going extinct because of humanity's irresponsible behaviour that gives no fucks whatsoever about the nature around us. The Northern white rhinos still have enough habitable land so that they COULD co-exists with humans and COULD develop some traits through natural selection that helps them co-exist with us, but this mindless slaughtering is causing them to disappear before the species has time to cope.

I also reject your accusation of strawman. The whole point is that, if those species existed today, suddenly the very fact of them existing in 2014 instead of 10,000 years ago would, to some people, instantly confer on them the right to exist in perpetuity, regardless of the inconvenience that causes our kind.

The point is that these animals could very well still live in the current climate and still have more than enough space to co-exist with humans in at least somewhat decent numbers, and the reasons why most of them are going extinct is because of ignorant, irresponsible human behaviour or fulfilling some inane/greedy needs of our species that have nothing to do with our survival.

Someone save me a click on why the extinction of the white rhino will doom us all

If only it was only Northern white rhinos. But it's northern white rhinos and over 50% of all the species in the world that have now gone extinct since the 1960s.

Tons of species went extinct before humans even existed. Blame whatever diety you think is behind the evolutionary process if you hate extinction so much. And humans are part of nature too so this is still natural selection.

No, this is not natural selection. How horrible a grasp do you have to have of the concept if you think this is it. -_- Like, concervative evolution-denier level bad & misinformed. Extinction itself is not natural selection. Humans killing animals for fun is not natural selection. Hunting can cause natural selection in the species we hunt, but the act of killing a species to extinction is not natural selection itself. Even if we humans are a product of nature, not everything we do is natural. And even if we cause natural selection, the things causing that natural selection is not necessarily all that natural (which I would argue poaching is not)

No, it is how it works. It's literally the definition of natural selection. Whether or not you personally want animals to die for whatever personal or moral reasons you might have is irrelevant. Putting aside opinions and emotions, the fact that a species A became extinct because of something that species B did is natural selection.

Edit: And you can replace A with humans and B with Ebola if you want. It would still be true (if that were to actually happen)

Rhinos & elephans & other big animals going extinct is NOT natural selection. In any way.

Ebola killing all of mankind would not be natural selection in itself. If ebola only killed blonde people, for some reason, and that leads to gingers & brunettes to become the majority while blondes disappear from the world, that would be natural selection. If some other subset of human kind develops/has a resistance to ebola, that would be natural selection making ebola-resistant people the majority. But the process of a disease causing mass deaths is not natural selection. It can be nature's way of "controlling" overpopulation, but it's not natural selection. Extinction is not natural selection. Natural selection refers to the process of change in a species due to some outside pressure (which can be natural, i.e. the climate changing in long-term, or unnatural, i.e. human-caused mass slaughter of only certain type of individuals of the species). Humans can cause natural selection, but they can do so in unnatural ways that we could prevent completely.

The vast, vast, vast majority of species that have existed on earth are extinct. I never understand the obsession certain segments of Western society have with trying to somehow preserve the present status quo in nature for eternity.

If anything, that itself is unnatural. I understand subjective reasons like I simply prefer this animal's looks or behavior or whatever. That's fine, but that doesn't elevate it in itself to some moral crusader.

Horrible logic. Just because there have been mass extinctions in the past doesn't mean we should give no fucks about the mass extinction humans are causing right now. These things WILL catch up to us at some point. Nature has this way of being able to maintain functionality even when put under huge pressure and removing some pieces here & there, but nature always has a breaking point. Rhinos disappearing might not have a huge worldwide effect, but when it's been a 1000 other more or less important species before rhinos and now rhinos and who knows what species we'll fuck up next (likely elephants & lions), at some point the cumulative effects of many key species (and even more not-so-essential ones) disappearing completely will start to cause some massive problems that will worsen humanity's survival as well.

There are reasons for this "western obsession" for trying to preserve as many species as possible, even if you're too ignorant to understand them.

 

[Jaeger]

 

[cpp_is_king]

The point is that these animals could very well still live in the current climate and still have more than enough space to co-exist with humans in at least somewhat decent numbers, and the reasons why most of them are going extinct is because of ignorant, irresponsible human behaviour or fulfilling some inane/greedy needs of our species that have nothing to do with our survival.

"All of these animals could have survived in the current climate if only it weren't for the thing that killed them." is how this reads.

Ebola killing all of mankind would not be natural selection in itself. If ebola only killed blonde people, for some reason, and that leads to gingers & brunettes to become the majority while blondes disappear from the world, that would be natural selection. If some other subset of human kind develops/has a resistance to ebola, that would be natural selection making ebola-resistant people the majority. But the process of a disease causing mass deaths is not natural selection.

It most certainly is. Suppose mankind becomes extinct due to ebola. The habitats of and environments of all other species change drastically as a result. We no longer prey on all the things we prey on. We no longer consume natural resources. Even the climate changes due to an end to man-made global warming. Life for every other species on earth changes dramatically. This in turn leads to the species' evolving differently than they otherwise would have. This is natural selection. Natural selection does not exclude factors external to a species in determining how that species will evolve.

Read this page from the Discovery Channel's channel website. 10 Examples of Natural Selection. Look at number 10. I'll quote it here.

10. Peppered Moth
Many times a species is forced to make changes as a direct result of human progress. Such is the case with the peppered moth (Biston betularia). Up until the Industrial Revolution, these moths were typically whitish in color with black spots, although they were found in a variety of shades. As the Industrial Revolution reached its peak, the air in London became full of soot, and the once-white trees and buildings that moths used for camouflage became stained black. The birds began to eat more of the lighter-colored moths because they were more easily spotted than the darker ones. Over the course of a few months, dark moths started appearing in the area and lighter moths became scarce. Once the Industrial Revolution peak passed, lighter moths made a comeback.

The man-made changes brought about by the industrial revolution are no different than the changes that would be brought about by human extinction (well, the changes themselves are different obviously, but the fact that it would affect the genetics of species going forward remains the same).

 

[CornBurrito]

This thread is going places.



No animal can can develop a defense for man's weapons. So all animals should die? Fuck plants to. We don't need them. More condos and mini-malls, please.



Unless guns start growing our my hands, us slaughtering defenseless animals (literally the whole animal kingdom is at our mercy) is not natural. We are killing them for sustenance. We aren't killing them for survival.

Please stop it.

He never said "should". Calling it natural selection and saying humans are still a part of nature is NOT saying this should happen.

Also lol at someone bringing up Ebola as not natural selection. Ebola even in Africa has a 10-5% survival rate. If that is at all due to genetic factors then yes, it will cause the gene pool to change. Natural selection. I guess you are technically correct in that extinction is not natural selection itself. But extinction is the direct result of natural selection. These rhinos cannot adapt to the selective pressure placed upon them by human predators.

Oh and since this needs to be spelled out: I am not saying extinction is good. Or should happen. Or is desirable.