Bl69aze
Very Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2017
- Messages
- 1,870
- Reaction score
- 1,112
Homeless water dragons :(
- Thread starter Bl69aze
- Start date
Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:
- Status
typical of developers to just destroy everything in their path
That's what development is.
Sadly, whether you kill them while destroying their homes or chase them away from their home then destroy their home leaving them to die because they're homeless, the only difference is how long it takes them to die. It's a horrible thought but they're actually likely better off being burried alive. We all live in a building which is where wilderness used to be. We all travel on roads, buy stuff at shops, went to schools, use hospitals, eat food grown on farms, etc. More people means more buildings and infrastructure means means less wilderness means less wildlife. This is an inescapable reality of a rising population. The developers really have no choice and the only solution is a cessation (or reversal) of population growth, but apparently that makes you a racist bigot to advocate in Australia, because it means eliminating immigration.
Humans are the biggest pest on the planet
Water dragons seem to benefit from development in many cases, this seems like emotionally charged nonsense. The idea it is a threat to the survival of the species is absurd. Most people probably kill more lizards when they mow their lawn, are they going to protest against that to? People need a place to live, but they don't need a lawn.
Mass immigration destroys everything good about Australia (and other white/Western countries). Racists, actual Neo-Nazis, bigots etc. are generally much better people than those who support immigration. Everyone is racist to some degree, some people just like to virtue signal and perform mental gymnastics.
Mass immigration destroys everything good about Australia (and other white/Western countries). Racists, actual Neo-Nazis, bigots etc. are generally much better people than those who support immigration. Everyone is racist to some degree, some people just like to virtue signal and perform mental gymnastics.
This bleak and counterproductive attitude is sadly becoming increasingly common in western countries. Humans are not inherently bad, and like it or not, we are the dominant species on the planet, so it makes sense to be the best we can be and do what we can do improve our species. Presumably you haven't actually given up on your species because you're still bothering to stay alive, and I'm guessing you aren't working on killing people.
Australia has the relatively unique opportunity to maintain a stable population simply by reducing its immigration (the existing population doesn't even replace itself, although that will change as demographics which produce large numbers of children outpopulate the demographics which have few, something which will need addressing in the future), which I believe it should do. That would virtually halt habitat destruction, and as land use becomes more efficient land could actually be converted back to wilderness in some cases. While sadly I do think it is unlikely Australia will do the right thing, let alone the world as a whole, I don't think it makes sense to act bleak and promote this destructive 'humans are evil pests' attitude, which makes people think it's impossible for anything to be done. Even if you don't want to actively promote solutions, we can at least remain neutral.
I haven't given up, otherwise I wouldn't be here trying to promote better outcomes for our wildlife and our pets (yes I do think reptiles in peoples care are pets because we care for them as other people care for their furry friends).
BUT I do get disheartened when I see wanton destruction of habitat or senseless killing.
BUT I do get disheartened when I see wanton destruction of habitat or senseless killing.
To say that humans are the biggest pest on the planet as a blunt and absolute statement is to 'give up' in the sense that you are saying your own species is a bad thing. By definition, pests are something which we would be better off without, which means you are saying that the world would be better off if you and I were removed from it. This is a counterproductive way to address the issues, even if it is true (unless you actually plan to remove yourself and perhaps me too from the world, in which case warning me is probably counterproductive anyway).
Southernserpent
Active Member
I agree with a lot of what has been said habitat destruction is a terrible thing and the country should be doing as much as it can to stop it. Population control is one measure that needs to be taken and i fully support it. But in saying that I am on team human and I enjoy many things that destroy habitat and kill animals as I'm sure every human being does. Animals have been making other animals go extinct since life on earth began. We are for a lack of a better term a pest and as such we will most likely use up all our resource's and eventually cause our own extinction. Life will go on it will be different but it will be life and without past extinctions we wouldn't have some of the life forms we have today. This isnt an excuse to ruin the beautiful planet and ecosystem we have its just a way of looking at things
Another one who has 'given up' (expects extinction of her own species is most likely). To some extent I agree. We are a lot like yeast in a pile of sugar. We'll continue to eat up the resources until there are more of us than there are resources to support, and we'll have an all out calamity (I calculate the deadline for the **** hitting the fan to be around the early 2040s incidentally), but I am optimistic that it won't be quite severe enough to cause our extinction, I hope to survive it, and I expect we'll go on.
Southernserpent
Active Member
I havnt given up I actually believe that our technological advances could keep humans alive for a long time no one can predict the future and and besides a cataclysmic event I dont believe human extinction will happen in my life time. But it is inevitable all known living things have ceased to exist in the past no animal has been around since life started they come and they go. My point was that animals push other animals to extinction and we are just another animal doing that. Time seams to be infinite and earth as it is now hasn't been like this for very long at all. But life always continues.
Every extant animal has avoided extinction! Only the ones which have gone extinct have gone extinct.
No other animal has harnessed electricity or built flying machines etc etc. We haven't come anywhere near the limit of what we're capable of, our abilities are expanding exponentially (sic). Who's to say we can't escape extinction?
Southernserpent
Active Member
I think you miss understood and jumped the gun their i said every animal in the past has ceased to exist. Because obviously all extant animals have evolved from something I am simple just pointing out a different way of looking at things. I would still like to see animals in developing areas given as much of a chance to survive as we can. Such as these water dragons that if given a choice would choose a chance at survival over a death by suffocation or being crushed to death.
Every living thing has a common ancestor back to the original form of life. The original things which were are alive are, as individuals, dead, but their descendants still exist, so in a sense nothing has gone extinct, only some branches of that tree. Obviously life changes and evolves over time, so in a sense, extinction has only been a form of refinement and extinction has never really occurred. To say all life becomes extinct just makes no sense, however you look at it, unless you are living in a lifeless universe, which is paradoxical. We can say that all life changes, because the original form of life evolved into something else, but not that all life goes extinct, because life does indeed exist, and descends from its very origins, whatever those origins may be.
This is a tricky one. It's very tempting to have an unconsidered emotional reaction and want them to have a chance, but if (and yes, it's an if, not a guarantee) we know that they will ultimately die because their home has been destroyed and they won't find a new vacant home, then they'll suffer less from a quick death than a drawn out one. Certainly for the individuals which die when their homes are destroyed (the vast majority of them), a faster death is better than a long one, and sadly, most of them have a longer one. These unfortunate dragons got a better deal than most others with destroyed homes.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
