Get Global Supremacy Now!

🧠💭❓Group💡Discussion❓💭🧠

• 🐱Pet🐶Breeder🐹 Nov 22, 2017

  Title says it all! Here, we ask each other questions and after one answers, others will state their opinion about that person's answer. Finally there can be in-depth generalized discussing in the General Discussion forum all in one place, instead of being scattered all over the place in this forum! Questions must be open-ended and may be about any subject and no one is allowed to ask another question before the previous one is answered. I'll start:

  If an animal/plant that is detrimental to humans (example: fleas, rats, poison ivy) became endangered, should we still protect them or hasten their extinction? Please provide the reason why.
• ᎢʘUCH👉ʘF😵DΞ∧͒TᎻ Nov 22, 2017

  Almost all animals, plants, fungi, & other life forms have a function in nature - food, bio-chemical processes like oxygen creation, providing nutrients for soil, keeping other species' populations in check through predation or disease, etc. Thus, most species' value is determined by far more than their effects on humans.
  As for whether or not to protect them, I think that should be mostly dependant on whether humans have caused the particular species' endangered state, directly or indirectly (we almost definitely have). If we have caused it, we should try to protect the species, whether or not that species is detrimental to us - we are humans, and we can adapt (through technology) far better than most complex organisms.👉😵
• [dday] Nov 22, 2017

  I think we should do our research and check if the extinction of that species would cause a knock-on effect that would be detrimental to humans. If it does, and the knock-on effect is worse than the species' own effect on humanity, then we should do everything in our power to prevent that species from falling to a level where we suffer too much for it. If the knock-on effect is comparatively sufferable, then we should allow nature to take it's course, since both the species surviving and not surviving have pros and cons for us. If there is no knock-on effect, however, we should probably do whatever it is that benefits humans most - if hastening the extinction serves this purpose, so be it.
• 👻Ominigul👻 Nov 22, 2017

  Mosquitoes for instance: If they are gone, what animal is going to spread malaria and other viruses with the same amount of annoyance?
• Dogman Nov 22, 2017

  👻Ominigul👻 wrote:

  Mosquitoes for instance: If they are gone, what animal is going to spread malaria and other viruses with the same amount of annoyance?

  Mosquitoes are an important food source to many insects and animals.
• [dday] Nov 22, 2017

  Dogman wrote:

  👻Ominigul👻 wrote:

  Mosquitoes for instance: If they are gone, what animal is going to spread malaria and other viruses with the same amount of annoyance?

  Mosquitoes are an important food source to many insects and animals.

  Exactly what I was talking about with the knock-on effect. If removing mosquitoes from the ecosystem would cause unacceptable damage to everything else, we shouldn't do it, but if the damage is survivable- if their predators are capable of supplementing their diet sufficiently with other species, then we may want to.
• Noah Nov 25, 2017

  👻Ominigul👻 wrote:

  Mosquitoes for instance: If they are gone, what animal is going to spread malaria and other viruses with the same amount of annoyance?

  We can’t build Jurassic Park without mosquitos. Next?