Not entirely, I try to stress the human element when I talk with people who disagree with me because they tend to relate to it more that way. Me being a very liberal environmentalist, I also believe in my view because I think that a bear, wolf, or deer would enjoy staring at the Olympic Mountains more than we ever could, and much more than a view of Seattle. (although, I do appreciate the occasional visit to the city)
I believe in animal rights, although I do draw the line at insects. (for instance I don't attend "save the yellow ribbed moskuito" conventions or anything) I don't see my view point as being all that extreme actually. The rest of the animals on the planet were here before us and there for are ahead of us in line. Some people may argue that animals aren't as smart as us. I don't think anybody really has the right to say that, we draw conclusions because perhaps they can't talk or walk on two legs. We as a species are so incredibly quick to judge, myself included. "If it's different, then it's dumb," seems to be our philosophy on just about everything. I hope this clarifies rather than confuses. Also, how do you feel about endangered species? Write back.
Thanks for the clarification, Sommers. Don't be afraid to say exactly what you think. Its more important to understand each other than to convert to a certain viewpoint.
As a liberal environmentalist, do you really base your case for preserving the planet on the belief than animals can enjoy scenery? Also why do you draw the line at insects? I agree, by the way, that rights should not be based on being smart or dumb, but I don't understand what difference it makes how far back our ancestors go. Can we clarify these points before talking about endangered species?
It's not only that animals can enjoy scenery as far as I'm concerned, but also that they should have the right to. As far as the insects go, I don't really draw the line anywhere. That was just filler, it's all about circumstances. It all depends on the time and place when it comes to preserving a species, the hard part is who gets to say whether something should live or die? I'm very left on the preservation thing, but maybe even I shouldn't be allowed to choose. I certainly am aware that I am not the be all and end all on ANY judgement. I seriously doubt that any one person is. **********
I'd like to redirect a little bit. We shouldn't be forced to choose between species, and we don't have to. If we control our population growth, everyone comes away much happier, right? The wilderness stays the way it is, and we stay the way we are. Our population doesn't have to grow in order for our society to improve, and it's probably easier for our society to improve with a smaller population. **********
About species: I understand that scientists have catalogued one and a half million and estimate 20 times that number currently exist. So as human beings we are one out of about thirty million species. What most amazed me was to read that of all the species that ever existed 99.9% are now extinct! You probably have done more studying on this, Sommers, and could tell me if those statements are correct. Also I have been trying to find out what species have become extinct in recent years (say since the 60's) when human population has doubled. Do you know?
I was only able to check for extinct species for a couple minutes before I was kicked off the computer, I'm going to Eugene until July 4 and will be able to discuss this more then. Sommers