I completely agree that both animals and humans are consumers, but animals do not over-consume.
For instance, a documented case: a small group of lions had just eaten their lunch around midday and a few photographers were staying far back, watching their day to day habits. A gazelle actually came by, very slowly, and the lions watched it. But since they had already eaten, they didn't find the need to kill something they would have no use for- they actually went over to it, and several pictures were taken of the lions simply sniffing the gazelle, who sniffed them back. They put unsheathed paws on its head and the gazelle played with them. Then the gazelle left and the lions napped.
I think, in life, a lot of humans are over-consumers. We take excessively. We do not need all the things we make and buy and build. But some animals do, in fact, need the simple things we take from them to survive. *shrug*
For instance, a documented case: a small group of lions had just eaten their lunch around midday and a few photographers were staying far back, watching their day to day habits. A gazelle actually came by, very slowly, and the lions watched it. But since they had already eaten, they didn't find the need to kill something they would have no use for- they actually went over to it, and several pictures were taken of the lions simply sniffing the gazelle, who sniffed them back. They put unsheathed paws on its head and the gazelle played with them. Then the gazelle left and the lions napped.
I think, in life, a lot of humans are over-consumers. We take excessively. We do not need all the things we make and buy and build. But some animals do, in fact, need the simple things we take from them to survive. *shrug*
I agree, but I am sorry to burst your bubble, the photos were just a part of the whole picture. The photographers were just lucky and swift in photographing that they took such a slight movement- after that the lions jumped on the gazelle and ate it.
I am just saying that not everything is a romantic movie in wildlife. Lions don't go and lick animals after they ate some other animals, and the gazelle wouldn't give up all its surviving instincts just because the lions already ate so that means they can all kiss and hug now.
And just imagine pets who can sometimes be really fat. Yes, their masters may give them a lot of food, but they know that they can have as much as food as they want, and they really don't think about how enough they have eaten- they can eat until they are seriously full. The difference between lions and domestic pets is that lions don't get their food, they need to earn it, and it can take a lot of energy for just one hunt, and they would rather eat and digest their food instead of running to hunt an another one, but they certainly wouldn't lick (especially since kissing/licking is more of a human nature) a potential prey.
I am just saying that not everything is a romantic movie in wildlife. Lions don't go and lick animals after they ate some other animals, and the gazelle wouldn't give up all its surviving instincts just because the lions already ate so that means they can all kiss and hug now.
And just imagine pets who can sometimes be really fat. Yes, their masters may give them a lot of food, but they know that they can have as much as food as they want, and they really don't think about how enough they have eaten- they can eat until they are seriously full. The difference between lions and domestic pets is that lions don't get their food, they need to earn it, and it can take a lot of energy for just one hunt, and they would rather eat and digest their food instead of running to hunt an another one, but they certainly wouldn't lick (especially since kissing/licking is more of a human nature) a potential prey.
they probably didnt ate it. they dont kill unless they are hungry. trust me. im not sure about that playing with gazelle part, but they wouldnt kill until they are hungry. really. animals arent like people.
Domestic pets are also lazy a lot of the time.
For instance I have three cats and two ferrets, our one cat lays around ALL day and is VERY fat. Our other cat is older and has a bit of fat dangling but shes not "obease" and then out other cat and two ferrets are VERY energetic and run a lot, and therefore are very thin.
Domesticated cats live a pampered life, they lol around all day and have no need to SPRINT after their prey, and therefore have no means of burning calories.
For instance I have three cats and two ferrets, our one cat lays around ALL day and is VERY fat. Our other cat is older and has a bit of fat dangling but shes not "obease" and then out other cat and two ferrets are VERY energetic and run a lot, and therefore are very thin.
Domesticated cats live a pampered life, they lol around all day and have no need to SPRINT after their prey, and therefore have no means of burning calories.
I suppose in some cases, you are right. But lions certainly do lick their children and cubs, as most big cats do. I understand what you mean, but the articles I read did say that the gazelle and the lions actually sat around together and then the gazelle went on its way. It baffled me too, but the animal kingdom always does that to me. Perhaps it was off, and I completely agree that lions are not usually friendly to gazelle, zebra, or any other animals that could be made into a meal. But I've read on other stories where a lioness will take in another animal as its child; including a baby gazelle. I don't always understand why an animal does what it does, but compassion can be found in the strangest places.
We are indeed over - consumers, and it is sad that we cannot change this - it's in our nature to take from the weak, but with human intelligence we take more. Animals just don't possess our supreme intelligence (well, we are the primes on this planet due to our intelligence) so they don't over-consume.
It is true that humans possess a supreme intelligence, but I don't think we always use it to our advantage. I also don't think we NEED to over-consume. I think it's at times unnecessary and actually rather silly to do as such. For instance, a man with the money to do so owning 5 cars. Or someone owning both a house in one climate and area and asking for another 'summer' home to be built in a more tropical area. Of course animals can be stupid, slow, and they are not as advanced. That is a give-in. But I also think we as a species take far more than what we need.
You are absolutely correct my friend, we do not need to over consume, but our instincts tell us that we must. It's really sad, but it is a fact - we will not stop ravaging our planet.
we have more capability and more potential use for just about everything than any animal could ever conceive. if all creatures were sentient and capable of intricate logic like humans, all creatures would simply take everything they sense a potential untapped value in.
if those lions were smart enough, they would have killed the second gazelle and used its hide for something like clothing or what have you. animals simply only ever think to eat, however.
so many people accuse humanity of some sort of "sin" because it has a natural urge to expand it's repertoire of potential. people literally get mad at people because people are sentient.
not a lot of sense to be had in that.
if those lions were smart enough, they would have killed the second gazelle and used its hide for something like clothing or what have you. animals simply only ever think to eat, however.
so many people accuse humanity of some sort of "sin" because it has a natural urge to expand it's repertoire of potential. people literally get mad at people because people are sentient.
not a lot of sense to be had in that.
i dont agree with that part about what would lions do if they were smart. they ARE smart and they dont need clothing since they live in hot environment and they have fur... they dotn think just of food, but where to lie down, care of their youngsters, etc.
Of course, we are the highest creatures of intelligence on our planet (that we know of), and a lot of the things we've done and created with technology is amazing and even hard to fathom sometimes.
But while humanity's done a quite impressive amount of things to expand its race, keep it alive, and give it technological resources, I feel like we as a species do sometimes over-use. This could be used in terms of over-spending, over-eating, taking too much land, etc. I also think humans can often become insentient towards animals, simply because we have the "higher species" thing that everyone seems to think means we can do whatever we wish.
But while humanity's done a quite impressive amount of things to expand its race, keep it alive, and give it technological resources, I feel like we as a species do sometimes over-use. This could be used in terms of over-spending, over-eating, taking too much land, etc. I also think humans can often become insentient towards animals, simply because we have the "higher species" thing that everyone seems to think means we can do whatever we wish.
that was essentially what ive been saying. my primary point is that the cause of over-consumption is not the presence of humanity itself, but the culture derived only in the modern era. other than that, yes, i agree.
animal treatment is a fairly unrelated topic, but yes, some people do tend to forget the value of life preservation or simply dont understand it. then again, ethical conduct within the natural world is all but unjustifiable.
animal treatment is a fairly unrelated topic, but yes, some people do tend to forget the value of life preservation or simply dont understand it. then again, ethical conduct within the natural world is all but unjustifiable.
I have been bored and decided to read this argument to further my complete understanding of the argument of global warming.
However one thing you said, "my primary point is that the cause of over-consumption is not the presence of humanity itself, but the culture derived only in the modern era" to me it seems that you are suggesting that yes, we infact have been, as a species, over-consuming in the last hundred years. But at the same time you fail to acknowledge that the time periods that both: our inconsiderate over-consumption, and global warming, have in common. We MAY NOT have sufficient evidence to suggest that we are the only thing causing global warming, but at the same time we DO have enough evidence to say that we most likely are the primary cause of such devastating effects to our environment, and that we are atleast having some influence. And we also have some of the (current) greatest minds in the human race suggesting that the consequences may trigger our end.
Is it not a more thought through to be, "on the safe side," and atleast attempt to save our Earth then to deny the evidence and leave it to chance to decide our fate as a race? We are infact the animals on earth with the greatest capacity to think and learn (that we know of), so would it not be an embarrassment to our race if we are infact wrong and are not prepared for the horrid consequences of global warming.
We should atleast prepare. Be on the safe side. we should take action. If it happens to be one of earths cycles, then it would not harm us, and we can pass it off as a mistake. However if it is the effects of Global warming and we are not prepared, we are only quickening our inevitable end. Why leave it to fate to decide our destiny?
Just my opinion.
However one thing you said, "my primary point is that the cause of over-consumption is not the presence of humanity itself, but the culture derived only in the modern era" to me it seems that you are suggesting that yes, we infact have been, as a species, over-consuming in the last hundred years. But at the same time you fail to acknowledge that the time periods that both: our inconsiderate over-consumption, and global warming, have in common. We MAY NOT have sufficient evidence to suggest that we are the only thing causing global warming, but at the same time we DO have enough evidence to say that we most likely are the primary cause of such devastating effects to our environment, and that we are atleast having some influence. And we also have some of the (current) greatest minds in the human race suggesting that the consequences may trigger our end.
Is it not a more thought through to be, "on the safe side," and atleast attempt to save our Earth then to deny the evidence and leave it to chance to decide our fate as a race? We are infact the animals on earth with the greatest capacity to think and learn (that we know of), so would it not be an embarrassment to our race if we are infact wrong and are not prepared for the horrid consequences of global warming.
We should atleast prepare. Be on the safe side. we should take action. If it happens to be one of earths cycles, then it would not harm us, and we can pass it off as a mistake. However if it is the effects of Global warming and we are not prepared, we are only quickening our inevitable end. Why leave it to fate to decide our destiny?
Just my opinion.
hmmm i suppose i missed that. to clarify, what i mean by stating the modern era and it's metaphysical reasoning put unhealthy emphasis on apathy. that is to say, too many people have both the means to over-consume (via modern technology), and the psychological state of mind required to take an action--that is, modern culture.
one thing that should be thrown into question is the matching time periods of global warming and the age in which individuals have the potential to overconsume. (keep in mind that all there is to acknowledge is that people CAN overconsume, not that as an entire populace they do.)
look at modern technology. advances in chemical sciences as well as in physics and general improvement of our understanding of the physical world has allowed us to moniter trends in the world upon a global scale.
this means that until recently, humanity has had no means to identify exactly WHAT the climate has been doing for thousands of years. we have not had this technology long enough to be in the slightest bit certain about the natural climate trends of the earth-- thats the issue here.
as far as being on the safe side--i can see no reason NOT to be so long as it's in modest pace. but some would have it that we thrust ourselves so far into the safe side that it would cause detrimental effects to the economy and additionally society!
look at the carbon credit system--it has greatly hindered the american's hand in the global race for economically stable infrastructure, all because all large production industries on this side of the hemisphere have to spoon feed massive amounts of cash into the pockets of politicians that had enough foresite to jump on the bandwagon early on.
my only quarrel with whether or not people even BELIEVE in global warming is only a matter of whether or not they actually cause damage to others around them! as far as individual preference--i couldnt care less what the populace believes.
this explains my statement more thoroughly, i hope?
one thing that should be thrown into question is the matching time periods of global warming and the age in which individuals have the potential to overconsume. (keep in mind that all there is to acknowledge is that people CAN overconsume, not that as an entire populace they do.)
look at modern technology. advances in chemical sciences as well as in physics and general improvement of our understanding of the physical world has allowed us to moniter trends in the world upon a global scale.
this means that until recently, humanity has had no means to identify exactly WHAT the climate has been doing for thousands of years. we have not had this technology long enough to be in the slightest bit certain about the natural climate trends of the earth-- thats the issue here.
as far as being on the safe side--i can see no reason NOT to be so long as it's in modest pace. but some would have it that we thrust ourselves so far into the safe side that it would cause detrimental effects to the economy and additionally society!
look at the carbon credit system--it has greatly hindered the american's hand in the global race for economically stable infrastructure, all because all large production industries on this side of the hemisphere have to spoon feed massive amounts of cash into the pockets of politicians that had enough foresite to jump on the bandwagon early on.
my only quarrel with whether or not people even BELIEVE in global warming is only a matter of whether or not they actually cause damage to others around them! as far as individual preference--i couldnt care less what the populace believes.
this explains my statement more thoroughly, i hope?
Yes, thankyou. That has furthered my understanding of your views. To be honest I'm not entirely sure if i agree with Global Warming myself. as we have not had the technology to gain the information on whether patterns, how can we be so sure that this is or isn't a normal cycle for Earth to go through?
However there is enough evidence to suggest that global warming could be a large issue, and further more it gives people a reason to care about the environment. Even if Global warming isn't something we have, or can have an impact on, it'd still help Earth if people believed that we can prevent it. That way they can take better care of the environment, even if it is for a false cause.
And again I agree, we shouldn't take as large steps as some are suggesting, however maybe if they over-emphasise people will be more observant and might actually care. It'd definitely help people respect the environment.
I am, in a way, proud of Australia's government for introducing the carbon tax. not only will that help the environment, but it will also encourage people to find more sustainable resources and halt the use of fossil fuels. And further-more stop the primes of dirty energy resources from charging too much money for the energy they produce.
Just my opinion.
However there is enough evidence to suggest that global warming could be a large issue, and further more it gives people a reason to care about the environment. Even if Global warming isn't something we have, or can have an impact on, it'd still help Earth if people believed that we can prevent it. That way they can take better care of the environment, even if it is for a false cause.
And again I agree, we shouldn't take as large steps as some are suggesting, however maybe if they over-emphasise people will be more observant and might actually care. It'd definitely help people respect the environment.
I am, in a way, proud of Australia's government for introducing the carbon tax. not only will that help the environment, but it will also encourage people to find more sustainable resources and halt the use of fossil fuels. And further-more stop the primes of dirty energy resources from charging too much money for the energy they produce.
Just my opinion.
yes, true enough.
i know of many anti-global warming advocates who avoid recycling and things of that nature simply because of the driving force behind it. but really, there is ample reason to create a steady cycle of reusable material. whats more, preservation of animal life helps the planet in any number of ways--be it the preservation of the food chain, or the furthering of scientific understanding. so yes, the global warming movement does have some assets.
society HAS to be careful though. bringing everyone into a frenzy state at shadows on the wall about a potential danger could be more dangerous than global warming itself, if it establishes validity.
and yes, thats true. expanding the repertoire of energy sources is indeed a good thing. although keep in mind that even that can damage the economy--perhaps it wont always be the way it is right now--but alternate energy is both expensive and currently less efficient than fossil fuel. although, i can imagine there are more efficient ways to check and balance energy prices.
at any rate, opinion acknowledged. lol
i know of many anti-global warming advocates who avoid recycling and things of that nature simply because of the driving force behind it. but really, there is ample reason to create a steady cycle of reusable material. whats more, preservation of animal life helps the planet in any number of ways--be it the preservation of the food chain, or the furthering of scientific understanding. so yes, the global warming movement does have some assets.
society HAS to be careful though. bringing everyone into a frenzy state at shadows on the wall about a potential danger could be more dangerous than global warming itself, if it establishes validity.
and yes, thats true. expanding the repertoire of energy sources is indeed a good thing. although keep in mind that even that can damage the economy--perhaps it wont always be the way it is right now--but alternate energy is both expensive and currently less efficient than fossil fuel. although, i can imagine there are more efficient ways to check and balance energy prices.
at any rate, opinion acknowledged. lol
View all replies
OMG thank you! I was getting tired of this "animals don't over consume humans are bad" bullshit XD
lol
Sure, its all fine and dandy to sense the potential in something, but you've represented 'over-consumption' in a very watered-down way.
Humans waste nearly as much as they use and don't think anything of it. How could you justify the lions killing the gazelle because 'they think they might use it later,' when in reality, they leave it to rot and eventually throw it away because it goes bad before they get hungry again?
It is not the sentience of human beings people get angry at, its the ignorance that some display when they dont realize just how much they will waste when they buy those extra meals they'll never eat each week, or build homes over an animals habitat that won't all be lived in.
Where is the potential in that?
Humans waste nearly as much as they use and don't think anything of it. How could you justify the lions killing the gazelle because 'they think they might use it later,' when in reality, they leave it to rot and eventually throw it away because it goes bad before they get hungry again?
It is not the sentience of human beings people get angry at, its the ignorance that some display when they dont realize just how much they will waste when they buy those extra meals they'll never eat each week, or build homes over an animals habitat that won't all be lived in.
Where is the potential in that?
thats an entirely different argument involving the demographic structure of our population and cultures.
granted the animals think things through, they would not be causing a gamble in killing the second gazelle should they plan out the necessary facilities to preserve its potential!
keep in mind this is a very stretched topic, wherein these lions are both intelligent enough, and dexterous enough to perform menial tasks.
a pair of clothes are by no means the total potential use for the second gazelle. they could plan ahead and improve their quality of survival by storing and preserving food like a rainy day fund. (wouldnt it be rediculous if humans ate everything they harvest? then when a hurricane or the like came around and we lost the facilities to harvest, or the lions and their ability to hunt, then we would all starve.) whats more! they could fashion a waterskin, bone weapons, any number of potential uses!
BUT, all of this potential CAN be wasted. Do not confuse my argument with saying that people are fiscal in their use of goods. it is indeed true that many people unnecessarily waste things. this has nothing to do with humanity as a governing body, however, but with upbringing in the modern age. people of old establishments were much more cautious in their use of materials because it had a much larger impact on their lives. people now, however, do not have nearly the workload. we have automated factories and brilliantly efficient means of creating any number of things. however, this has the drawback wherein people forget exactly how dangerous life can be without these luxuries.
there is indeed improvement possible for us. humans have not yet even began to reach their potential. =] this is why i am open minded to supportings things like recycling and reuse. it serves the better purpose of devoting rarer and less readily recreated resources elsewhere.
so, yes, humans waste too much. if the lions did indeed have such a simple mindset as "gee, maybe we can use this", and then killed the gazelle without thinking through any actual uses, it would not be an intelligent action.
so the real dilemma is not whether humans should take from the environment or not--it is how we can do so effectively!
granted the animals think things through, they would not be causing a gamble in killing the second gazelle should they plan out the necessary facilities to preserve its potential!
keep in mind this is a very stretched topic, wherein these lions are both intelligent enough, and dexterous enough to perform menial tasks.
a pair of clothes are by no means the total potential use for the second gazelle. they could plan ahead and improve their quality of survival by storing and preserving food like a rainy day fund. (wouldnt it be rediculous if humans ate everything they harvest? then when a hurricane or the like came around and we lost the facilities to harvest, or the lions and their ability to hunt, then we would all starve.) whats more! they could fashion a waterskin, bone weapons, any number of potential uses!
BUT, all of this potential CAN be wasted. Do not confuse my argument with saying that people are fiscal in their use of goods. it is indeed true that many people unnecessarily waste things. this has nothing to do with humanity as a governing body, however, but with upbringing in the modern age. people of old establishments were much more cautious in their use of materials because it had a much larger impact on their lives. people now, however, do not have nearly the workload. we have automated factories and brilliantly efficient means of creating any number of things. however, this has the drawback wherein people forget exactly how dangerous life can be without these luxuries.
there is indeed improvement possible for us. humans have not yet even began to reach their potential. =] this is why i am open minded to supportings things like recycling and reuse. it serves the better purpose of devoting rarer and less readily recreated resources elsewhere.
so, yes, humans waste too much. if the lions did indeed have such a simple mindset as "gee, maybe we can use this", and then killed the gazelle without thinking through any actual uses, it would not be an intelligent action.
so the real dilemma is not whether humans should take from the environment or not--it is how we can do so effectively!
Why do you think we buy and build so much more than we actually need to? Sorry, I'm just curious. Maybe it's something in our nature?
(I know this is quite late but I had to reply when I saw it) I believe we buy/build so much more then we actually need because we like to have that feeling of owning that territory/item. 
I see a lot of people blame our unecicey actions on "our nature" but no we are not "programed" to over use, and to destroy much of what we touch : /
Not really attacking you or anything, just saying that its silly. It's like people blame it on "our nature" and then just accept our "ways" and continue doing what they do.
It's the nature of society today to do these things because its widely accepted because the side effects go unoticed or people don't care, but no. Humans as a species, it is not "our nature" to do this.
Sorry if I repeated myself a lot O.o
Not really attacking you or anything, just saying that its silly. It's like people blame it on "our nature" and then just accept our "ways" and continue doing what they do.
It's the nature of society today to do these things because its widely accepted because the side effects go unoticed or people don't care, but no. Humans as a species, it is not "our nature" to do this.
Sorry if I repeated myself a lot O.o
I have no idea. The fact that we're such advanced creatures might have something to do with it. And yet, not. But you know, I think it's odd. It's like "oh man, we can make this office building ten times bigger and it's not even that much more money to do so... let's do it!" or "You can get 6 cinnabons instead of 4 for an added dollar!"
People just love surplus. I have no idea why. I think it's a problem. We want bigger, better, faster, now. It's insane.
People just love surplus. I have no idea why. I think it's a problem. We want bigger, better, faster, now. It's insane.