Is it good to rescue animals...?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by tom66, Sep 8, 2011.

  1. tom66

    Thread Starter Senior Member

    May 9, 2009
    2,613
    214
    It sounds like an odd thing to ask on an electronics forum but after seeing several news reports on a mass rescue of some wild birds it got me thinking. They got into a bad situation by accident. (I'll try and find the report, I believe it was heavy winds.) But this is survival of the fittest. Nature is cruel and uncaring, and sadly these birds would have died, but that's how evolution works, and without it then there would be no imperative for animals to adapt themselves, which might actually be worse overall for the species.

    I'm not a biology student but it's just a bit of simple logic.
     
  2. VoodooMojo

    Active Member

    Nov 28, 2009
    503
    53
    we have dominion over the land and its animals.
    It is a measure of our compassion if we help or not

    If one helps for the benefit of the animal, so be it.
    If one helps for the benefit of those that cannot assist, so be it.
    If one helps for the benefit of his notoriety or standing, may he be rewarded accordingly.

    We have been flooded out from waters of Irene and now Lee.
    We managed to save numerous raccoon and rabbit from their demise from the raging stream that is now our yard. Many snakes I am sure are seeking shelter in the remains of the sheds and garage.

    We do what we can but we will not risk our lives to a point.
    We all are needed for specific reasons. We have families

    edit:
    anyway, artificial selection has always been an aspect of animals (man included) existence on earth.
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2011
  3. steveb

    Senior Member

    Jul 3, 2008
    2,433
    469
    Human beings are part of nature too. If an animal has the characteristics that make it interesting enough to humans to risk their lives to keep them out of trouble, then that is evolution at work too.
     
  4. wmodavis

    Well-Known Member

    Oct 23, 2010
    737
    150
    Maybe simple logic to some especially if you choose to believe the evolutionist view of things.

    Their are other views and appreciation of God's creation in which stewardship and compassion for what we have been granted dominion over might provide a different logical conclusion.
     
  5. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    I agree with all of the above. Helping animals is also helping ourselves. Evolution does not take catastrophe into account, it is normally a slow steady weaning of the weaker of the species. If something takes all of a species out this is not evolution, but extinction.
     
  6. tom66

    Thread Starter Senior Member

    May 9, 2009
    2,613
    214
    I don't wish to get into a debate over evolution and religion, but in the biology sciences, evolution is taken as a fact, just like gravity is a fact in physics.
     
  7. GetDeviceInfo

    Senior Member

    Jun 7, 2009
    1,571
    230
    I think that climate change has been on of the greatest modifiers over earth's history. Life's defence against anomolies is reproduction in numbers. The problem faced with man is that manipulation opens the door to opportunists, and those may not be compatible with our life style. This not only includes things like starlings and european house sparrows, but the fact that we assist survival of our own species in weakend forms, create opportunity for virelent forms of parasites. Add to that the complexity of using our front line vaccines as growth hormones in food systems, and we have an evolutionary breeding ground for supper bugs.

    But alas, one day the earth will awake and we'll be dumfounded as how quicklly things can change.
     
  8. atferrari

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 6, 2004
    2,648
    764
    Yes, we are part of it but there is long time that we humans are totally out of any ecosystem whilst we badly influence all of them.

    Had vaccines, vitamins, prosthesis and all medical advances not occurred, could you guess how many of us would be posting in this forum or in any other for the case?

    That would be natural selection, no what we have nowadays.

    BTW, tomorrow at 17.15 LT I have to visit a doctor for my first check up in 64 years. :eek: (And it was me who asked for...)
     
  9. steveb

    Senior Member

    Jul 3, 2008
    2,433
    469
    It's just a matter of perspective. We like to classify things we do as "not natural". A good example is what we call "Artificial Selection". The first human "domesticators" did not even use forethought to change wild animals into more useful domestic ones. So, long before deliberate breeding, we influenced other animals and formed a symbiotic existence with them. But, the lack of forethough then, and the use of forethought on our part nowadays does not mean that we are not animals operating in our environment, and hence forming an integral part of the full eco-system. Of couse one is free to choose the perspective that what we do is special (which it is), but it isn't so special that it needs to rise to the level of "un-natural".
     
  10. Adjuster

    Well-Known Member

    Dec 26, 2010
    2,147
    300
    There is a school of thought that says we should not help our fellow humans, but instead have a competitive race, with everyone for himself and D--- take the hindmost. Those who argue for this state of affairs usually begin by advancing some pretty reasonable-sounding ideas, with talk of encouraging self-reliance, and not providing the sort of assistance that can allow a culture of dependency to develop. Some then go on to say that it benefits humanity as a whole to let the less fit individuals die out, so that in time a tougher, fitter population may evolve.

    Unfortunately, taken to extremes this kind of thinking can lead on to unrelieved poverty and even famine on the mass scale. The ultimate development of this kind of thinking can be seen in regimes such as once existed in Germany, where those regarded as unfit were systematically liquidated in death camps.

    This is an argument that I have great difficulty with. A ruthless eugenic policy does seem to make sense in terms of the greatest good for the greatest number. There also seems little doubt that modern systems of public welfare and disease control do help less able people to survive and reproduce, which may be to everybody's detriment in the long term. All fine, good, and logical, but somehow I cannot reconcile this with the fact that we are people, rather than cattle to be bred for the best beef or milk yield. As soon as we regard human beings as having intrinsic value rather than just numbers, the argument seems to fall down.
     
  11. VoodooMojo

    Active Member

    Nov 28, 2009
    503
    53
    This reminded me of the Carl Sagan explanation of Artificial Selection from his Cosmos series.
    His reference to the Heike Crab as an example of Artificial Selection.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIeYPHCJ1B8


    I suppose it would be Natural Selection if a living organism is too ugly, too foul tasting, too fierce, too fast or other reason it wont be eaten by prey. That species would be able to procreate and populate.

    On the other hand, as Sagan feels, if preditors (humans included) knowingly and consciously choose to not eat or kill a species, that would be considered Artificial Selection?

    As the cows with bigger udders that produce more milk would be allowed to survive leaving that dominant trait to flourish while cows with smaller udders were eaten, therefore eliminating or lessening that trait.

    genetic engineering not considered
     
  12. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    Soylent Green anyone?
     
  13. ErnieM

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 24, 2011
    7,389
    1,605
    So some future generation would be worse off if you save a present generation, but if you let the present generation die then there is also no future generation. So same result either way.

    You seem to be making a distinction between what mankind does and what nature does. That's a distinction without a difference.

    BTW, c dem kittehs up thar? I savd them when dey wuz babiez othwewize dey wud has did an I wouldnt has it any othr wai.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2011
  14. maxpower097

    Well-Known Member

    Feb 20, 2009
    795
    388
    We need to find out if and what we had to do with it. The winds may have been man made by climate change. I fully agree with rescuing animals as long as their not invasive, like boar.
     
Loading...