This is a roundabout way of bringing up the ethical question, "Are people more important than animals?" My answer is yes, of course. Over 100 million people died last century due to war and genocide (political reasons), and even malnutrition and epidemic disease (economic reasons). Until liberals start talking about these things, I can't really get exercised about some obscure species of snail darter. --Ed Poor Talk 10:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)
- In the constrained dilemma set up by BenjaminS, there's no question that the life of an individual child is more important than that of an animal, even if the animal is the last of its kind. However, that's not a justification to ignore the value of preserving species when their population is threatened by the actions of man instead of the course of nature. If we let bees die off because of something that otherwise benefits man, say as the side-effect of them being harmed by contact with crops treated for pest-control, then we suffer in the end when there's no pollination of our plants. We have an obligation to study nature and learn to live in balance with it, not to ride roughshod over it because we consider ourselves superior and somehow immune to the consequences of abusing it. --DinsdaleP 10:31, 11 December 2008 (EST)
- "If we let bees die off". If we? Typical of liberal thought, Dinsdale, is the notion that somehow man can "do in" anything without God allowing it. He created all, and nothing man can try to do will undo what He has created. God granted man dominion over all animals, and instructed us to subdue them. Surely you have to agree, unless it is The Lord's wish, nothing will perish that isn't supposed to. --₮K/Talk! 11:30, 11 December 2008 (EST)
- This is a biased, and slanted question. NO hypothetical situation like this would ever happen. I love how it manipulates the way people think! --Ṣ₮ёVeN 20:39, 12 December 2008 (EST)
To be fair, StevenM, it is a poll question, right? --₮K/Talk! 21:44, 12 December 2008 (EST)