no idea what the thread is about, but I did some whale watching in Byron last year. awesome creatures.
Did they look delicious?
I think that Vinnie's question is a valid one.
It is not about size, it is about numbers and sustainability.
If the whale population was healthy and the threat of extinction was not an issue, do you think people's opinions about whaling would change markedly? Or do people have some kind of natural aversion to seeing whales killed?
I think that possibly the greater the size and intelligence of an animal the more people subconsciously relate to those animals (as they in a sense appear to be more human).
The only comment that gets even close I reckon. Well done, G.
I think that Vinnie's question is a valid one.
It is not about size, it is about numbers and sustainability.
If the whale population was healthy and the threat of extinction was not an issue, do you think people's opinions about whaling would change markedly? Or do people have some kind of natural aversion to seeing whales killed?
I think that possibly the greater the size and intelligence of an animal the more people subconsciously relate to those animals (as they in a sense appear to be more human).
The only comment that gets even close I reckon. Well done, G.
So we relate to Saltwater Crocs?
They're pretty big.
How about Giant Squid?
They don't come much bigger than that.
I think that Vinnie's question is a valid one.
It is not about size, it is about numbers and sustainability.
If the whale population was healthy and the threat of extinction was not an issue, do you think people's opinions about whaling would change markedly? Or do people have some kind of natural aversion to seeing whales killed?
I think that possibly the greater the size and intelligence of an animal the more people subconsciously relate to those animals (as they in a sense appear to be more human).
The only comment that gets even close I reckon. Well done, G.
So we relate to Saltwater Crocs?
They're pretty big.
How about Giant Squid?
They don't come much bigger than that.
It is a reasonable point made by G but I am not sure it is that simple. You will notice that the larger animals do not have many numbers of offspring and their numbers world-wide remain at critical levels. Humans have encroached severely in all habitats that sustain these large animals and we are killing them off. Smaller animals like sardines tend to bread in the millions and remain at sustainable levels, plus we are able to farm them and control numbers. If we could do that with larger animals then I suspect people, in general, would not be as concerned as they display now.
I don't think It's to do with numbers (not entirely at least). G makes a good point when he says Whales would still be held in higher esteem even if they were plentiful. And I will add to that if sardines WERE NOT! This has something to do with the wiring of the human brain that is where we should be coming from on this topic.
Here is another example (also used before, years ago).
You are driving up a hill and as you reach the crest of the hill, there on the road in front of you on the left are three rats. On the right are three puppies (not much bigger than the rats). You can't stop and you must swerve left or right. It is inevitable that you will take out one group. You don't have time to think. You just have time to instinctively swerve. Which group do you instinctively run over? OK now BB being true to form some idiots will say the puppies for all sorts of ridiculous reasons. But I'm appealing to the intelligent people here who know that obviously the rats will go under your wheels. That's the instinctive truth of the situation. No time to think we are wired to take out the rats. I'm asking why.
PS mods. I have now calmed down somewhat. I really don't appreciate you changing the names of my threads unnecessarily. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the original names I had for my last two threads. You are going way too far with your powers. I'll probably be censured even for saying that. It's called individuality and freedom of expression. Please don't power trip at my expense. Was that polite enough?
PS mods. I have now calmed down somewhat. I really don't appreciate you changing the names of my threads unnecessarily. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the original names I had for my last two threads. You are going way too far with your powers. I'll probably be censured even for saying that. It's called individuality and freedom of expression. Please don't power trip at my expense. Was that polite enough?
To be fair though, BB is not a democratically elected setup, they own therefore they can do what they like.
I think that Vinnie's question is a valid one.
It is not about size, it is about numbers and sustainability.
If the whale population was healthy and the threat of extinction was not an issue, do you think people's opinions about whaling would change markedly? Or do people have some kind of natural aversion to seeing whales killed?
I think that possibly the greater the size and intelligence of an animal the more people subconsciously relate to those animals (as they in a sense appear to be more human).
The only comment that gets even close I reckon. Well done, G.
So we relate to Saltwater Crocs?
They're pretty big.
How about Giant Squid?
They don't come much bigger than that.
It is a reasonable point made by G but I am not sure it is that simple. You will notice that the larger animals do not have many numbers of offspring and their numbers world-wide remain at critical levels. Humans have encroached severely in all habitats that sustain these large animals and we are killing them off. Smaller animals like sardines tend to bread in the millions and remain at sustainable levels, plus we are able to farm them and control numbers. If we could do that with larger animals then I suspect people, in general, would not be as concerned as they display now.
How many offspring do mammals usually have compared to fish or reptiles etc? ;)
I think that Vinnie's question is a valid one.
It is not about size, it is about numbers and sustainability.
If the whale population was healthy and the threat of extinction was not an issue, do you think people's opinions about whaling would change markedly? Or do people have some kind of natural aversion to seeing whales killed?
I think that possibly the greater the size and intelligence of an animal the more people subconsciously relate to those animals (as they in a sense appear to be more human).
The only comment that gets even close I reckon. Well done, G.
So we relate to Saltwater Crocs?
They're pretty big.
How about Giant Squid?
They don't come much bigger than that.
It is a reasonable point made by G but I am not sure it is that simple. You will notice that the larger animals do not have many numbers of offspring and their numbers world-wide remain at critical levels. Humans have encroached severely in all habitats that sustain these large animals and we are killing them off. Smaller animals like sardines tend to bread in the millions and remain at sustainable levels, plus we are able to farm them and control numbers. If we could do that with larger animals then I suspect people, in general, would not be as concerned as they display now.
How many offspring do mammals usually have compared to fish or reptiles etc? ;)
Too many if you ask some, we humans are like an infectious disease.
To follow my example. Replace the two groups with species of your own choosing. I want to make the point that we are instinctively, without even the need for conscious consideration predisposed to favour certain species over others.
Examples of other groups on the road:
Moths - Birds
Snakes - Kittens
Kittens - Children (that's a ridiculous one I know but still necessary to get the mind working).
And to bring the thread back to where it started, this I suggest is at least getting closer to the reason why a giant tin of whales would cause moral outrage whilst millions of tins of sardines are consumed without a second thought.
PS mods. I have now calmed down somewhat. I really don't appreciate you changing the names of my threads unnecessarily. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the original names I had for my last two threads. You are going way too far with your powers. I'll probably be censured even for saying that. It's called individuality and freedom of expression. Please don't power trip at my expense. Was that polite enough?
To be fair though, BB is not a democratically elected setup, they own therefore they can do what they like.
That's for sure.
To follow my example. Replace the two groups with species of your own choosing. I want to make the point that we are instinctively, without even the need for conscious consideration predisposed to favour certain species over others.
Examples of other groups on the road:
Moths - Birds
Snakes - Kittens
Kittens - Children (that's a ridiculous one I know but still necessary to get the mind working).
LOL.
Non-mammal, non-mammal, non-mammal, mammal.
I think that Vinnie's question is a valid one.
It is not about size, it is about numbers and sustainability.
If the whale population was healthy and the threat of extinction was not an issue, do you think people's opinions about whaling would change markedly? Or do people have some kind of natural aversion to seeing whales killed?
I think that possibly the greater the size and intelligence of an animal the more people subconsciously relate to those animals (as they in a sense appear to be more human).
The only comment that gets even close I reckon. Well done, G.
So we relate to Saltwater Crocs?
They're pretty big.
How about Giant Squid?
They don't come much bigger than that.
It is a reasonable point made by G but I am not sure it is that simple. You will notice that the larger animals do not have many numbers of offspring and their numbers world-wide remain at critical levels. Humans have encroached severely in all habitats that sustain these large animals and we are killing them off. Smaller animals like sardines tend to bread in the millions and remain at sustainable levels, plus we are able to farm them and control numbers. If we could do that with larger animals then I suspect people, in general, would not be as concerned as they display now.
How many offspring do mammals usually have compared to fish or reptiles etc? ;)
Too many if you ask some, we humans are like an infectious disease.
That's not our breeding, it's our domination of all potential predators and/or intelligence.
Our breeding is very, very usually between one and four per adult female, which is bugger-all compared to others.
To follow my example. Replace the two groups with species of your own choosing. I want to make the point that we are instinctively, without even the need for conscious consideration predisposed to favour certain species over others.
Examples of other groups on the road:
Moths - Birds
Snakes - Kittens
Kittens - Children (that's a ridiculous one I know but still necessary to get the mind working).
LOL.
Non-mammal, non-mammal, non-mammal, mammal.
OK you've moved off size and numbers. I'm listening. Instead of LOL ing why not extrapolate intelligently on your theory? I'm interested.
Oh btw I'm not completely convinced size is not involved in all this also. I don't want to give the wrong impression.
An example from years ago. Giraffes. Let your imagination run wild for a moment. Imagine giraffes looked exactly the same as they do now except they are 1 millimetre high! And millions of them lived in your lawns! Would you mow it?
To follow my example. Replace the two groups with species of your own choosing. I want to make the point that we are instinctively, without even the need for conscious consideration predisposed to favour certain species over others.
Examples of other groups on the road:
Moths - Birds
Snakes - Kittens
Kittens - Children (that's a ridiculous one I know but still necessary to get the mind working).
LOL.
Non-mammal, non-mammal, non-mammal, mammal.
OK you've moved off size and numbers. I'm listening. Instead of LOL ing why not extrapolate intelligently on your theory? I'm interested.
What, in more detail than you've said 'big things'?
Sure.
We have an affinity with species we are more directly related to.
Mammals.
Cats and dogs get an extra special pass because we've bonded with them, and they with us, for millennia.
Other than that, though...
Apes, monkeys. The smallest money could hold onto your finger, so it's not about size.
Even the mammals we eat we want killed humanely.
I reckon you could flay an octopus alive and no-one would even say yuck.
Fish, arachnids, reptiles, whatever the hell jellyfisheses are, birds...we don't so much care.
In the specific case of whales, I think size helps. I think we see them and think 'what a majestic creature, we should try to keep these alive if we can,' but I still think it follows the mammal rule and even if it doesn't, then it's the exception.
The mammmal rule follows all the way down.
The size rule absolutely doesn't.
You'll find exceptions, I guess.
Rats, although some keep them as pets.
Bats, probably.
But overwhelmingly mammals over size.
Has anyone come up with a humane way of killing whales yet? The slaughter of whales would have to be the most brutal and drawn out process of any animal slaughter by a long way.
And further, we extra specially care about baby mammals.
That throws a spanner in your size works.
It's also kind of odd, in one way, from an evolutionary stand-point. Because at the very least we should not care about baby mammals, (and I'm not talking about just puppies and kittens here but goats, sheep, whatever) but really we should delight in their death.
One less mouth that's not ours.
Our species is number one!
But no, we're not like that with our cousins.
We are with bugs.
To follow my example. Replace the two groups with species of your own choosing. I want to make the point that we are instinctively, without even the need for conscious consideration predisposed to favour certain species over others.
Examples of other groups on the road:
Moths - Birds
Snakes - Kittens
Kittens - Children (that's a ridiculous one I know but still necessary to get the mind working).
LOL.
Non-mammal, non-mammal, non-mammal, mammal.
OK you've moved off size and numbers. I'm listening. Instead of LOL ing why not extrapolate intelligently on your theory? I'm interested.
What, in more detail than you've said 'big things'?
Sure.
We have an affinity with species we are more directly related to.
Mammals.
Cats and dogs get an extra special pass because we've bonded with them, and they with us, for millennia.
Other than that, though...
Apes, monkeys. The smallest money could hold onto your finger, so it's not about size.
Even the mammals we eat we want killed humanely.
I reckon you could flay an octopus alive and no-one would even say yuck.
Fish, arachnids, reptiles, whatever the hell jellyfisheses are, birds...we don't so much care.
In the specific case of whales, I think size helps. I think we see them and think 'what a majestic creature, we should try to keep these alive if we can,' but I still think it follows the mammal rule and even if it doesn't, then it's the exception.
The mammmal rule follows all the way down.
The size rule absolutely doesn't.
You'll find exceptions, I guess.
Rats, although some keep them as pets.
Bats, probably.
But overwhelmingly mammals over size.
Why?
To follow my example. Replace the two groups with species of your own choosing. I want to make the point that we are instinctively, without even the need for conscious consideration predisposed to favour certain species over others.
Examples of other groups on the road:
Moths - Birds
Snakes - Kittens
Kittens - Children (that's a ridiculous one I know but still necessary to get the mind working).
LOL.
Non-mammal, non-mammal, non-mammal, mammal.
OK you've moved off size and numbers. I'm listening. Instead of LOL ing why not extrapolate intelligently on your theory? I'm interested.
What, in more detail than you've said 'big things'?
Sure.
We have an affinity with species we are more directly related to.
Mammals.
Cats and dogs get an extra special pass because we've bonded with them, and they with us, for millennia.
Other than that, though...
Apes, monkeys. The smallest money could hold onto your finger, so it's not about size.
Even the mammals we eat we want killed humanely.
I reckon you could flay an octopus alive and no-one would even say yuck.
Fish, arachnids, reptiles, whatever the hell jellyfisheses are, birds...we don't so much care.
In the specific case of whales, I think size helps. I think we see them and think 'what a majestic creature, we should try to keep these alive if we can,' but I still think it follows the mammal rule and even if it doesn't, then it's the exception.
The mammmal rule follows all the way down.
The size rule absolutely doesn't.
You'll find exceptions, I guess.
Rats, although some keep them as pets.
Bats, probably.
But overwhelmingly mammals over size.
Why?
I think you'll find 'why' is kind of my whole point.
For the same reason we would, if it came to it, save our own child at the expense of some random dude.