Is animal rescue worth it?

[Medusa]

Re: Is animal rescue worth it?

Something that goes against nature on a constant basis cannot be 'natural'.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Is animal rescue worth it?

These species aren't going extinct because of natural predators. They are going extinct because we've degraded their environment when we haven't ruined it completely. The handful of nests that get guarded or moved don't impact the local predators in a meaningul way--they don't for there to feed on the baby turtles because they aren't a dependable food source, the baby turtles are more like someone air dropping random Turkey Day fixings to an unwitting family in Jamacia. And the predators of those babies (gulls and ghost crabs on shore), gulls and some other birds and several larger fish at sea, still exist further up or down the shore, ecologically speaking its not working how you are discribing it.

With one sort_of exception, which is the arribata in Costa Rica...but even then, humans are still the biggest threat. People eat turtle eggs.

Sea turtles aren't endangered because only a few from each nest survive---the simple fact that only a few from each nest survive is WHY they lay a nest of 50-200+ (depending on the species). Their strategy works from an evolutionary perspective for their environment under normal conditiond...but we've spent the past 200+ years altering those conditions at a rate evolution can't keep pace too. Fishery practices, coastal development, pollition (particularly plastic pollution), climate change (increasing coastal errosion), and even direct harvesting of the turtles and eggs (tortoiseshell was a thing for a reason--its trade was only banned in 1973).

Animals going extinct becaus of human greed isn't acceptable.

This, plus everything else you and Rae'ya have said in this thread.

Some of the ignorance in this thread about endangered species and human environmental impact is seriously disturbing.

[Nicola]

Re: Is animal rescue worth it?

Rescuing animals to release back into the "wild" is often a wasted cause, as the longer an animal is treated by humans, the more used to new surroundings it will become, therefore when released into the "wild" chances of that animal not surviving are increased. But a life is still a life and if an animal can be saved it deserves a chance at life. If the animals were rescued, any that take a long time to heal could possibly be introduced into a human community, making it's chances of survival possibly higher and therefore completely worth the money spent in rescuing them.

- - - Updated - - -

Something that goes against nature on a constant basis cannot be 'natural'.

Yes it goes against nature in a way. But then although the majority of humans seem to have fogotten it... it is ofcourse a human nature to care for creatures outside of their own species. The majority of human beings naturally feel a caring need to help living things, we help plants to grow, sadly its the "cuter" animals that seem to get the most help, but the feeling to save comes naturally. So although humans tend to class themselves as being on another level to other animals, we are still a part of nature, so whatever we do on a regular basis is surely natural in a way is it not?

[Medusa]

Re: Is animal rescue worth it?

Rescuing animals to release back into the "wild" is often a wasted cause, as the longer an animal is treated by humans, the more used to new surroundings it will become, therefore when released into the "wild" chances of that animal not surviving are increased. But a life is still a life and if an animal can be saved it deserves a chance at life. If the animals were rescued, any that take a long time to heal could possibly be introduced into a human community, making it's chances of survival possibly higher and therefore completely worth the money spent in rescuing them.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes it goes against nature in a way. But then although the majority of humans seem to have fogotten it... it is ofcourse a human nature to care for creatures outside of their own species. The majority of human beings naturally feel a caring need to help living things, we help plants to grow, sadly its the "cuter" animals that seem to get the most help, but the feeling to save comes naturally. So although humans tend to class themselves as being on another level to other animals, we are still a part of nature, so whatever we do on a regular basis is surely natural in a way is it not?

I was referring to the post above mine. Specifically this:

Nothing that humans do will have any long term effect on the Earth. It will be fine without us and those species we kill off in the process of killing ourselves. It is a "natural" process.

Yeah, we are killing the world.But meh, it will be fine laterz. YOLO.

You know? I'm just an abuser. I beat my wife. But meh, she's going to be dead anyways!
punch punch punch.

[Nicola]

Re: Is animal rescue worth it?

I was referring to the post above mine. Specifically this:

Yeah, we are killing the world.But meh, it will be fine laterz. YOLO.

You know? I'm just an abuser. I beat my wife. But meh, she's going to be dead anyways!
punch punch punch.

Oh gosh, that is a bad way to put it. but still sadly being a partly human way of seeing things is still in some form natural :/ the people of this world have sadly mostly lost their caring ways

[DragonsFriend]

Re: Is animal rescue worth it?

After the humans are gone the earth will continue.
That is what I was pointing to when I said

Nothing that humans do will have any long term effect on the Earth. It will be fine without us and those species we kill off in the process of killing ourselves.

We don't have the power to kill the Earth. It has already survived a planetary collision, Early and late bombardment from space rocks the size of mount Everest and larger. Earth will die in approximately 5 billion years when it is swallowed by our bloated sun. We can do anything of importance to injure the earth or nature.

[ThePaganMafia]

Re: Is animal rescue worth it?

In the natural order of things humans most definitely seem.to be the anomaly. To play off the current extinction event as natural and having little long term effect is ignorance and human folly at its greatest. It's an apathetic stupidity that boggles the mind.

[Briton]

Re: Is animal rescue worth it?

How do you know what we do won't have a long term effect unless you live until the death of the universe? Who knows what impact the human destruction will have, or how many species we have unnaturally selected to go extinct?

When it comes to what is natural, I would define it as something that occurs without conscious effort. Sexual reproduction naturally creates another living thing, artificial insemination does not, even if the process, post Artificial Insemination, is natural, a tool made from a twig used by a chimp is not natural, even if the twig itself is natural, a 3d printed kidney is not, even if the cells themselves are.

So, whilst a wild fire may destroy a habitat, it is natural and is probably going to result in fresh forests (many conifers ONLY germinate in the presence of smoke or fire) but the human destruction of a habitat is not natural.

Even if we do not make a long term impact (unprovable) we will have made a short term impact. I agree with Medusa's sentiment, the comment was rather dismissive. If you didn't mean to dismiss destruction of nature by some humans as a real peoblem that should have something done about it, please clarify!

[DragonsFriend]

Re: Is animal rescue worth it?

Even if we do not make a long term impact (unprovable) we will have made a short term impact. I agree with Medusa's sentiment, the comment was rather dismissive. If you didn't mean to dismiss destruction of nature by some humans as a real peoblem that should have something done about it, please clarify!

When someone talks to me about humans destroying the world I look at the 5 billion year history of the Earth in comparison. In that view if man changes his environment enough to destroy the support of his own life then humans will go extinct. The Earth will continue, nature will continue and evolution will continue. If, at some point, there is another "thinking" animal that dominates the Earth they are likely to find humans as an "interesting" step in planetary evolution. Beyond that humans will have left nothing of value in the universe.
If on the other hand we learn to live in more natural ways that are not harmful to our environment it is possible that any "intelligent" animal that might develop would simply be held in a lower developed stage until mankind either left or died out. Then, and only then could the new "thinking" animal develop to its full potential. In the past it has been the cosmos that killed off the dominant species on Earth and it is likely to happen again. when that comet or asteroid destroys 99% of the life on earth it is unlikely that mankind will survive. Once again mankind will leave no trace.

Does that clarify my thoughts better?

[Medusa]

Re: Is animal rescue worth it?

It clarifies it. Lemme dumb it down for me.

Earth don't curr. Let's be assholes now anyways to our fellow alive earth inhabitants.