Difference between revisions of "User talk:BenjaminS/Poll Question"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Where are your priorities?) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:12, 11 December 2008 (EST) | 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]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 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. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:31, 11 December 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 15:31, December 11, 2008
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)