Re: Angus can't answer
- From: "John M." <john_howard_morgan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 01:17:49 -0800 (PST)
On Mar 5, 10:51 pm, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 06:36:56 -0800 (PST), "John M."
<john_howard_mor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 5, 12:46 pm, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
If there was a death penalty for poaching there would be very little
poaching.
Apparently in some middle eastern countries there is very little
thieving because of the consequences.
But not punishable by execution, which is what you propose for taking
"commons" ie. wildlife. Only if the mad mullahs decree this or that
species is their property would it be considered thieving.
Wildlife should be no-one's property.
What you and I consider "should be" is immaterial. This is known as
real politik.
They are parallel populations to our own.
In which case should we not consider all species (which includes human
beings) as populations rather than individuals, and behave
appropriately ie. preventing growth of any organisms population should
it threaten to swamp other species and likely leading to greater than
sustainable (historical) extinction rates. Please don't start to
discuss any methods to be used to achieve this ideal before dealing
with the concept itself ie. is keeping biodiversity a sensible notion?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Angus can't answer
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Angus can't answer
- References:
- Re: Angus can't answer
- From: John M.
- Re: Angus can't answer
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Angus can't answer
- From: John M.
- Re: Angus can't answer
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Angus can't answer
- Prev by Date: Re: Angus can't answer
- Next by Date: Re: Angus can't answer
- Previous by thread: Re: Angus can't answer
- Next by thread: Re: Angus can't answer
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
