Orangutans

Sumatran orangutans are critically endangered. Habitat loss and poaching are pushing them towards imminent extinction. Every minute, every day an area equal to six football fields of Indonesian forest disappears!

If you'd like to contact SOS (SUMATRAN ORANGUTAN SOCIETY) you can look them up on either of these web sites:

info@orangutans-sos.org (UK)
redapes@gmail.com (US)
orangutans@yahoo.com (Indonesian)
sweden@orangutans-sos.org (Sweden)
orangutans_australia@hotmail.com (Australia)
orangutanz@gmail.com (New Zealand)

 

hopefully there is a petition people can sign to have this stopped and start protectiing the orangutang

 

too right

 

I love orangutans, they are one of my favorite.
Is the disappearance of the Indonesian forest eqaul to six footballs, every day or every minute?
It is bad enough everyday, but I cant even imagine it being every minute, it's so sad.

 

And why is this? People need a place to live, and human populations are expanding around the world. People are worth lots more than thieving monkeys, so I doubt that it is so bad as some enviro-wackos make it sound.

 

And why is this? People need a place to live, and human populations are expanding around the world. People are worth lots more than thieving monkeys, so I doubt that it is so bad as some enviro-wackos make it sound.

 

why are humans worth more than "thieving" monkeys?

 

Humans have plenty of areas where they can live in the realm of the rich and famous.

Who exactly are these monkeys thieving from...Haibuton and Carlyle? Why is their existence less worthy than selling the new light bulbs? Or protecting polar bears?

 

If anyone is stealing anything it is us and our greed. We have managed to destroy most things Nature gives us and keep putting our environment in danger and other species. I think we are completely responsible for messing our Earth's balance.

 

Keep the faith, walk the walk, talk the talk. We aren't environment wackos, in fact we are the truth on this planet.

 

I never thought we are environment wackos.
I keep the faith

 

Why wouldn't it be self-evident? People should know these things?

• Because we are created in God's image.
• Because Jesus died for our sins, not for the mere animals.
• Because God put eternity in our hearts, such that we think about the future and our desire to live, far more than any other creature possibly could.
• Humans are the most intelligent and gifted of creatures.
• Humans are the masterpiece of God's creation.
• Because God gave us the animals, for food, or perhaps sometimes, pets, or to do work for us at least until we developed machines that could do the work better.
• Uh, because it is humans who make the "laws" and cultures and impose the just and unjust taxes.
• Because animals don't have the concepts of right and wrong, ownership of property, goodwill to man, or at least not very well.
• Because animals can't have "human rights," lest we treat people, no better than animals.
• Because humans tend to take care of humans, while animals can take care of themselves, or nature or God can. There's no practical way that humans can serve all the wild animals, or even much relate to or contact them. Humans have so many needs, to see to those, is all we can reasonably do. To squandor limited resources on animals, is to be cruel to man, well unless those animals do something for us, as in the example of a zoo where children come to see the animals.

Need I go on? Do I really need to explain this? Whatever happened to "common sense?" If more people would read their Bibles, they would more understand such concepts, because they would know such profound things as: where they came from, for what purpose, where are they going, etc.

 

Well maybe people with plenty of money, in some countries, have plenty of places they can live. But what about poor people without much money to buy a plot of land to put up their homes on? What about backward regions reluctant to properly develop the land, to avoid unnaturally jacking up the prices by "manufacturing" scarcity where no scarcity need exist?

I advocate that humans expand their range and territory, so that they may go on having their precious darling children, or "all the children God gives," keep multiplying their numbers, without growing "overcrowded" needlessly. Where to put all the addition billions of people to come? Simple. In between all the people already living. The planet isn't getting any bigger. There's no need for people to be all smushed together needlessly, well unless that's the way they like it. There could come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people. Cities can become bigger, more numerous, and grow closer together. Urbanize the planet to whatever extent needed, as God's commandment to people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, logically implies that each successive generation should naturally grow larger and more populous, than the previous. Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land, so the idea way back in Genesis, of Abraham and Lot's tribes deliberately spreading apart to make all the more room for their numbers to keep on growing, still naturally applies.

Yeah, maybe there can be found lots of places for additional people to live, without spreading out so much, infilling underutilized places in cities, more highrises, filling in obvious gaps, but what's needed is a sensible combination. Not everybody can easily afford or be accepted, to emigrate to other countries with still lots of "open" land just supposedly "begging" for more people to occupy and settle it.

So that means into the future, maybe there might not be quite so much room, for obscenely huge wildlife refuges, designed primarily to deny people their proper room to live. Or at least some space-wasting golf courses for the elite filthy rich, might have to go, to make way for more human housing. I'm not talking any "painful" sacrifices here, merely that some space-hog bully, doesn't have to hog every seat on a pretty much empty bus. Surely he can't be sitting in every seat? We can't all wait for the next bus. With so many burgeoning billions of people in the world, it can all work out fairly well, if supposedly intelligent people can learn to share. For example, perhaps a few filthy rich billionaires, might have to accept that their palacial mansions, will have a great view, slightly obstructed by other people's homes. Gee, should I laugh or cry at such a tragic "inconvenience," that most normal people accept already as perfectly normal?

My "thieving monkey" line, comes from watching some nature show, in which some monkey were behaving badly, behaving like invading pests, running across people's roofs, looking for food to steal. It may have been related to people, themselves behaving stupidly, and feeding the wildlife, which encourages wildlife to become meddling pests that won't go away, having lost their natural fear of man. Were people to sensibly get out their guns, and hunt the wildlife, the proper balance would probably be pretty much restored.

Since the LED household lights go in my home, it makes sense that I should pay for them. The monkeys don't go in my home, so why should I pay? (Or much care, as measured in the form of "doing something.") It's not just about what is supposedly most important, but who is responsible to pay for what. Generally, in a free society, people should expect to pay for what they use, not be forced into "slavery" being compelled to work for somebody else's benefit against their will, "slavery" being basically the idea of our "modern" socialist taxation system, which drives up the "cost of living" by making people subsidize things that their neighbors, not themselves want.

What good are monkeys anyway? Do they taste good? Do they make good pets? What work do they do? Perhaps another thing I don't really much like about monkeys, is how the evolutionists like to lie and make them out to be, like our human "cousins" or something. Just another reason to like dogs more, since dogs seem to just "know" that humans are God's special gift to the world, perhaps a reason why cats, at least according to the jokes and stories floating around the internet, just despise the naive/gullible dogs.

Polar bears? Huh? What relevance do polar bears have to do with anything? I don't think they even live anywhere around here, so what do they matter? Oh BTW, I hear polar bear populations are growing, which kind of shoots to pieces this wacko idea that humans just destroy all the "environment" we can touch.

 

But such "requests" are INVALID and are of discrimination against Christians.

Since you supposedly know what I am to say, why don't you just post what you think I should say, in some delusion Quote or something? If you only want but one side of the debate, why even bother visiting the internet forums?

Gee, no idea of "free speech?"

And why is but the one true religion, not admissable? Why not ban the "environmentalism" from the discussion, since it is full of animal bias, false thinking, superstition and the like?

And BTW, who hijacked my screen ID such that I can't log in properly? I protest that and demand it be reinstated!

 

Pronatalist is not capable of forward -thinking thought ie:the dire and sad results of what he advocates and he quotes rush limbaugh often.It's the same ridiculous bullshit every time he posts and is republican-christian-based nonsense.I have personally attacked him a few times in here,because I truly believe he is quite insane.To argue with him is like talking to a radio that is on and he is one of the most ignorant people I've ever had the displeasure of reading.Any time anything remotely connected to the concerns most of us have about earthly matters,he will show up and show his ass.

 

So is now somebody going to suggest that Rush Limbaugh also shouldn't be admissable, even though millions of people listen to Rush, and what does he make?, like $2 million a year?

Dire and sad results? Now where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, the Chicken Little nonsense of the enviro-wackos, saying the either man should be poor, or that we should be less numerous, or perhaps both, to cleverly destroy the human race or try to make us come up short of what we were designed to be.

Why does bad news sell so well, even when false?

There was an old song, something about "Dirty Laundry" about how people obsess and crave bad news, and for bad things to happen to other people, or to at least hear of them.

And in the news media, there's that saying "If if bleeds, it leads." Sick! No wonder watching the news sometimes, can almost be a waste of time.

 

If an animal has no concept of property then it can not steal.
Only Humans steal. a Beast just helps itself to what is provided by the environment.

My neighbors are outraged that the groundhog living beneath our deck is snatching vegtables from thier garden and want us to call an exterminator!

The Groundhog is doing nothing wrong

 

No animals including humans have inherant rights.Only those that have the most guns-bombs may bestow rights.Those of us for whom the world would be a dismal place without the wild places and the wild creatures that inhabit them, can only forstall the inevitable--or so it seems.It's all about the money,boys.(big Dan said)