I was watching Animal Planet the other night, and something was mentioned that made me think. In Florida, when a large alligator is caught, it is put down, because there is overpopulation of that animal there. Something about that irked me, and it made me think about how we deal with overpopulation.
So heres the topic of discussion. Do you think it is appropriate the way that we deal with overpopulation in animals, versus how we do with people. My only example for people is that in China, they are only allowed to have one child, without a large fee. This goes along with 'an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure', in that we prevent the continuous overpopulation by regulating reproduction in humans, but in animals we just kill the excess.
There is much more to discuss here, but I will throw it to the community before I continue.
Remember, we treat humans like their life is a valuable thing (mostly,) but animals like their lives are expendable. It's very wrong, but there are plenty of examples. I did two lab dissections this year. There are, however, plenty who do care about animals, just not enough. I'm sorry if this post seems ignorant as I did not really research it. I will though.
Human overpopulation won't happen as badly as many predict. The thing is that when nations industrialize, it is very expensive to raise a child there. In the US, the average child takes a quarter million to raise. In poorer nations, children are actually profitable. Once they hit 6 or seven years old, they start working and bringing in money to the family.
But as more and more nations industrialize, families are going to have less and less children. For instance, every Western nation has a decreasing population (except the US because of immigration). The death rate is higher than the birth rate. In Germany, they offered $30,000 to any woman who had a baby in 2007. In Russia, any woman who had a baby on June 12th (Russia Day), they would receive a lot of money. Hungary and Bulgaria have also offered money to get people to reproduce.
Though the population is raising at rates never seen before, most experts in the area say the trend will stop at around 9 billion, and the human population will top at 12 billion. Once we hit that point, the population will plummet severely and under-population will become a major issue.
we put it down because of there are to many, it is a threat to humans. What if you were to look into your backyard and see and alligator chilling there. What if you had a child in the yard or something like that. We have to protect the humans by keeping animal population under control because even Liberals have to admit that humans are more important than Liberals.
In Germany, they offered $30,000 to any woman who had a baby in 2007. In Russia, any woman who had a baby on June 12th (Russia Day), they would receive a lot of money. Hungary and Bulgaria have also offered money to get people to reproduce.
Really? I would love to see something on that... I had never heard of that before... I should move to Germany *grins*.
What if you were to look into your backyard and see and alligator chilling there. What if you had a child in the yard or something like that.
I would relocate it, put it in a zoo, etc. Whose fault is it that the alligators are moving into 'human' territory? It was their land in the first place.
even Liberals have to admit that humans are more important than Liberals.
(Taking into consideration the typo) I would not necessarily agree with this... this borderlines on a totally different topic, are humans more intrinsically important than animals? I would lean towards no, and I would also say that technically, humans *are* animals.
Well, it is difficult. I am not in favor of animal abuse or reproductive laws... so this is a tough one. The way animals are mainly treated in general is horrible. Just look at the Chinese fur trade. They skin live cats and dogs. Animal cruelty is gross and absurd! It must be abolished immediately!
@DM
I do realize that many cultures and society's enforce reproductive laws. Many reap great benefits. Let's say the US enforces a new national law that each c married couple. (Man and Women) are there by only allowed to have one child. This would be hard and crazy for some, but to others like me it would seem fair. I am adopted. I was abandoned as a child and drug through many government foster care systems. If families were limited to the number of children they could have, maybe more would turn and choose to adopt those children who may never get to know what it's like to have a loving caring family. Then again, it would limit many families and make then soon die out. If say i was the only child of my parents, and i happen to die, then that family is gone for good. So in order to continue family history, one must either be really healthy and lucky, or just have the family cease to exist. Wait a sec... if more and more families died off... then that means last names of historical ancestry and family lineage would be gone in a matter of one death! Thats just absurd! Now would you want your name to be wiped from the face of the earth in just one death? I wouldn't. As it is, i am the last of my family. All other siblings and parents have passed. Sort of a trippy concept.
although i'm a chinese but not a CHINA CHINESE well,the fur trade their is very cruel and horrible and the way they kill animals there for food is very horrible too.they dun use guns to kill the animal but take it by the legs and throw it to the ground then skin it upside down
i oso dun not agree their diet of eating wild life,the sale of many animals are available,from cats dogs to birds.
@DM: I can't express how sure I am that I share your sentiments here.
Unfortunately I also can't express any coherent arguments within a single post, and I've already gone on at length on every forum I ever happen upon about this so-called intrinsic value of humans. So I'll just cue in a reprise...
VOLUNTARY HUMAN EXTINCTION MOVEMENT, WOOOOO!*
*disclaimer: strop does not actually condone the agenda of VHE movements. The views expressed by these movements are not necessarily shared by strop. strop is merely being facetious while intimating a serious point.
Well, this is a gripping subject! Over- and underpopulation are only of concern because we humans have made it so. Thus it falls to us to rectify the situation. The only real differences between us and other species is in the scale to which our choices can affect those around us, and that we realize it is so.
kartik, a long post is a good thing unlike the spam you just contributed to saying nothing more than that post is long. So, please, do not do that.
I don't have much to say to this. I see your point here DragonMistress but morality differs. My assumption is that your idea is that we are peers with the animals in a sense as you hinted you think humans should deal with overpopulation animals are dealt with. I find it cruel and unjustified, except the simple truth that the more power you have, the more control you have over things around you. I'm sure if Alligators became an intelligent race they wouldn't spare us. Basically I am saying it's too bad they die but they need to for the human race to thrive. On a smaller note, the human population is based on the responsibility to those who have oral sex and do not use condoms. This is a problem in being one, the spread of disease and two, overpopulation. Many young adults are too loose and free playing around to remember safety. It might come to the point the government starts killing babies if it gets getting too overpopulated. But that's much later, perhaps a few decades after my lifetime so it's none of my concern.
It was said that "animals are little people in furry coats." Well, in the case of animals versus humans, that doesn't seem to be the case. The gator in florida was probably killed because of fear. Fear of an attack, fear of the size of its 'junk', whatever. Some states, including my home state Alabama, will condone a killing of a large number of animals in an area for it, now get this, survival!?
Now I know that sounds wierd, but imagine this. Take a 5,000 acre plot of land. Throw 500 humans and 250 deer. Now the humans will take up a protion of that land and clear cut for homes. Not like deforestation but a plot. Now the deer will just graze and breed. Now lets say there is 4 doe for every 1 buck. That can produce 2 per doe per a 2 year period. That can raise there numbers to about 410 give or take in a year if all the doe mate and birth.
It has happened before in Al in the past. The deer pop raises above a safe level and vegetation in some areas start being destroyed. In turn, other breeds start to suffer. Now don't get me wrong. I prefer the company of animals to the company of humans most of the time. Especially my 2 dogs, Annabelle and Atticus. But, in that situation it is acceptable, in my opinion for killing off some animals.
Furthermore, the same has been done with the human population. Not genocide or anything unless you count Burma, which is horrible. But China is actually overpopulated. They have had restrictions on how many kids you can have for years now. They have the largest exportation of adoption babies in the entire world. Not to mention that they 'refer' you has sons, not daughters. Which helps fuel the adoption export.
All in all, maybe it would benefit us(USA) even to stop the overpopulation sham, and just move further inward to the midwest. There's acres upon acres of land that hasn't seen a soul since the gold rush for crying out loud.
@DragonMistress: Here's a link [url=http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=48421]
I think the trick to population control in humans is twofold: Birth Control and Economics. Many religions still deny birth control, which I just find abhorrent. Allowing this, and perhaps charities supplying cheap/free birth control (although seriously, condoms are a dollar a pop, the sex is worth it) would cut down on births drastically. Also, many governments give out subsidies/allowances for children on taxes. Stop this so children become more expensive, and people will hopefully think twice about having them.
As for humans vs. animals: At some point we have to decide what a life is worth. I think most of us would agree that given the hypothetical of choosing a person or an animal, we'd have the person live (well, unless the person was some pedophile/rapist/serial killer, but I digress). We also have to decide at what point killing or restricting animals for human convenience is worth it. Killing a family of field mice so we can harvest grain? I'm fine with it. Demolishing acres of wetland for yet another golf club? Not so much. The hard part is deciding where to draw the line.
Well I have thought it over and: Animals kill other animals for personal gain. Humans are animals. Humans kill other animals for personal gain. However, humans are too efficient and have the potential to kill for a small reason. Animals protect territory. We are animals. We are more like animals than we think. It's almost a paradox. We kill animals because we are animals. We need to kill animals. It is morally wrong to take another fellow animal's life. Another species morals can be different, though.
Question: Is it OK to kill things that don't have a conciousness? (Plants, flatworms and below?)
About human overpopulation: I like the idea of having to pay the government more and more money every time you have a child. The first is free, second is 500, third is 5000, fourth is 10000, and so on. You should be paid to adopt children.
@chillad_nodi: What you describe was a plot point is one of Arthur C Clarke's novels. I thought it was an interesting way to make sure only people that could support them had children, but I'd be horrified if governments tried to regulate my reproduction.
