Who you sacrifice an endagered species to save an industry?
That is where we are headed. For example, did enviromentalists kill the nuclear industry? No. Plants still operate. The timber industry? Maybe only redwood trees but they saved the spotted owl. What about farming? Maybe some higher prices but still OK. What about metals, gold etc. Still going strong?
When will people wake up and stand up for a species? We can’t make a species but we can rebuild industries.
15 Responses
Dylan
20 Aug 2011
scooterpoop
20 Aug 2011
Yes.
There are 7 million species in the world, and none of them are sacred except homo-sapiens-sapiens.
Liberal concepts of protecting species are counter-intellectual. Protecting species doesn’t actually accomplish anything, and the policy is stupid until you start punishing Mother Nature for all the species she drives out of existence.
El Tecolote
20 Aug 2011
You bet your @ss I would.
I love spotted owls; they taste like chicken. Or… Save a tree — wipe your @ss with a spotted owl. Just two clever slogans I’ve seen on tee shirts.
Mr. Funkymunk
20 Aug 2011
I was going to answer this question by claiming your question is idiotic, but you really did get me on the last sentence.
No, i would not.
Hob
20 Aug 2011
I assume it’s "would you" and not "who you". It’d be more helpful if you’d say which animal and which industry we’ve got in this hypothetical choice.
John D "You
20 Aug 2011
"none of them are sacred except homo-sapiens-sapiens".
"Sacred" is a little bit over the top. And I think we have a moral responsibility to do all we can to protect, within reason, the animals on this planet who aren’t as powerful as we are.
***
"Protecting species doesn’t actually accomplish anything, and the policy is stupid until you start punishing Mother Nature for all the species she drives out of existence".
Protecting species does accomplish something; it often keeps them from becoming extinct. And you seem to be saying that there’s a moral equivalency between someone being struck by lightning, and being killed by someone.
Zaza
20 Aug 2011
lol
Philip H
20 Aug 2011
YES!
Take enough food (corn) to feed one person for a year and turn that food into enough ethanol to fill the gas tank of Obama’s Limo one time.
Then choose which person you wish to starve to death while you make that ethanol and tax all Americans to subsidize the process.
Smart Democrat Thinking. Handle the population Boom by deception!
fdk
20 Aug 2011
I really don’t miss Saber tooth tigers or dinosaurs
regerugged
20 Aug 2011
Wrong again. Read your question. It contains an error in grammar. The spotted oil is not saved. It is being killed off by an invading species of barn owl, which is bigger.
I would not save any bunch of useless animals if it interfered with progress.
Citolduso
20 Aug 2011
The caribou that the environmentalist were so fearful about when the Alaskan pipeline was being constructed, are flourishing around the pipeline because it’s warm. The spotted owl that they worried about, just relocate. Animals adapt, isn’t that what all these evolutionists tell you? I will never put any animal over the life of my family, plain and simple. This does not, in anyway, mean that I am not against animal cruelty or that sort of thing, but self preservation is a fact of human life.
I will doge an animal in the road but if it means risking my life or my passengers life or even damage to my car, then I’m sorry that animal is road kill. Same with industry. If it is something we need then I am sorry but the animal will have to adjust.
Moody Red
20 Aug 2011
If your logic were sound we should still be out saving dinosaurs. There is a time for extinction of some species. People should come before darter fish!
I am in awe that people would save a fish, while farmers and their families starve in their need to water crops.
Tell me again: Who should survive?
MR
kathy_is_a_nurse
20 Aug 2011
Do you believe in evolution? If so, why are you trying to save any species that has not demonstrated an ability to survive? And in fact, over and over again we see evidence that species can adapt to new environmental conditions.
The other point is that many environmentalists have redefined what constitutes being an endangered species. They keep pushing the numbers down. When the endangered species first came out there was only a few hundred species on it. Today, there are over 1500 species on it.
Also environmentalists have been known to USE a species by getting it declared endangered… not because they really are… but because they conveniently live in an area the environmentalists want to keep from being developed.
In other words, your beloved environmental program is being run by people with a not-so-hidden agenda that goes way beyond protecting endangered animals.
wichitaor1
20 Aug 2011
Stop using any industry yourself and see if you save an endangered species. That means quit using your computer, any electricity, and any manufactured product.
If you are unwilling to quit, do not demand others to do so.
Ruben Vera
20 Aug 2011
You support Obama… what does that say about your intelligence?
No I wouldn’t.
Everyone knows how to make another human, but the miracle and beauty of nature can be lost forever.