Orangutans

I have read it from cover to cover, and I don't recall any verse saying to count every animal. That's not even possible, a reason why I suspect that anybody who says that there are X number of X species left, is lying. Oh really? So the person originally claiming that, is omnipresent, and is quite sure that no animal moved or was hiding, while this exhaustive census was taken?

We can't even count all the people, and people are lots easier to count, than wild animals.

Actually, it goes the other way. There's so many species, that there's no way they could have counted so many, so they are making up numbers. We have so many species supposedly going extinct, awaiting discovery, which suggests that they never existed to begin with, or they must be trying to count the long-ago dead, sort of like how DemocRATS like to continually recount ballot election results (i.e. enviro-extremist Al Gore), being sore losers that their sorry unqualified candidate, lost again.

I do recall reading my KJV, that Adam & Eve were to name the animals, just another suggestive example that man was to have dominion over them and nature. And that the animals perhaps exist, mainly to benefit man.

Unless we want to get into the vegetarian-guilt nonsensical debate, then surely it should presumed that man > animal. If not, then what are all you people doing, still eating meat? And if you buy vegetables, well you're still "guilty" in that case too, because what of all the animals killed accidently by farm machinery and pesticides? Shouldn't you be growing all your own food, like as in the poverty-stricken nations? And don't drive a car, lest you hit a rabbit or a squirrel. Can you see how what people believe, can adversely affect their standard of living, at least if they are consistant, and not convenient/inconsistant hypocrites?

"I (heart) animals. They are delicious." -- bumper sticker
"Earth first. We can mine the other planets later." -- bumper sticker

I don't at all suggest using animals for entertainment fighting, or for target practice, but rather I am questioning the traditional, time-honored, skewing or distortion of priorities. With the huge and growing size of the human race, surely that would be all the more reason, to favor the many needs of man. I also don't think people should rush out too far to venture to explore outer space, because we are so needy and the life support too expensive. Rather, robots are expendable, and more useful than sending animals. At least we know that robots don't get "homesick" and have no "desire" for a costly return trip.

 

Yes it is doing wrong, if stealing from man. If "stealing" from other animals, then maybe some brutal "might makes right" or "law of the jungle" may seem to somewhat apply, but that's just for "wild" animals, not capable of the "moral" levels that humans must assimulate, to be functionally a part of a prosperous society. Just like how humans generally don't do much of anything for wild animals, neither are we obligated to impose "law" upon the "wild" animals for their sakes. But we do impose "rules"/training upon our pets, as they exist more in "our" society.

If the animal under your deck is your pet, then you are indeed responsible. If it is not your pet, then why can't they call the exterminator? BTW, which is cheaper, a fence to keep animals out, or the exterminator? And who is responsible? Anyway ...

When I was a child, I recall some squirrel stealing tomatoes out of my Dad's garden. We trapped the squirrel, and I put a bucket over top of it. I must have decided to peek in upon it, and that squirrel had gnawed its leg off apparently, because it took off. Maybe I should have left it alone? I don't know what became of the squirrel, but I don't think we had any stolen tomatoes after that.

And aren't we all indirectly complicit in poisoning various "pests" to prevent them from stealing our food, if we buy food from the farms at the stores? After all, farmers aren't raising a feast for a huge flock of thieving crows or whatever, who won't pay anything for the food. We grow our own food, so we should get to eat it too.

Anyway, it's far better to have your neighbor as your friend, than a groundhog as your friend. Not much a mere animal can do for you.

 

You need to go back and read The Declaration of Independence, and what it says about people having "inalienable" rights, endowed upon them by their "Creator." Now how long do you think our rights will last, once people are deluded into thinking that their rights, are mere temporary "grants" from their government? Probably not so long at all. What the government "gives," it can also take away.

No, that's one of the areas that humans differ from animals. We have rights, while animals don't. People can "own" animals. People may not morally "own" people. We don't really "own" our own children, although God does entrust them to us to raise. But neither are children the supposed wards of the state, loaned to their parent "guardians" either, which I hear is a disturbing legal/societal trend, that a growing Big Brother government thinks it can raise our children almost better than we can.

And it seems awfully inconsistant to me, that people get punished by the law for various animal "abuses," but not for abortion. If humans aren't treated at least as well as the animals, in most every conceivable case, then that suggests that the people behind this know they are doing wrong, and are deliberately out to harm people.

I am very much pro-development, because I am pro-population, and more people + more poverty is not the ideal combination. More people + more people producing wealth to have more of everything for everybody, is lots better. Who wants to get rid of all the "wild" places? Why would I want to "own" or develop everywhere? Then the Big Brother government would probably expect me to pay taxes on all that land, or mow it or something. Neither of which I want to do. But let people be free, and hike, or fish, or camp, or hunt, variously use their land, not put it to waste being devoid of people, when people are part of nature too. What I am saying, that if human populations can manage to enlarge, so that all those people may go on having their precious darling babies, then we may need some more cities, and a bit less "wild" or undeveloped places. But that's fine, because what of the greater good for the many? I can share the hiking trails with all the more people, as I go to meet people anyway, and carpool with a group on the way, not to "get away from it all." Or there can be more hiking trails added, for more people.

Maybe it's all about the money, with greedy, giant, unaccountable corporations, but that's more a problem with the greed and self-serving-corporate-skewed corporate law distortions of modern times. There are many good reasons for development, that aren't all about the money. Like that maybe people might like to move out of their parent's homes, as they marry and their own children start coming along, lest it get rather crowded with multiple pregnant women living in the same home. More breeding human families = more housing construction, at least somewhere, to keep housing affordable.