Should predation in the natural world be stopped?

Page 2 of 2 [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,437
Location: australia

30 Aug 2009, 3:47 am

obviously if there were no predators, then their prey would multiply to plague proportions and eat all the vegetation on earth and in the seas.
disease may hinder their population explosion, but those diseases will be survived by some who pass their resistance on. disease will not halt disastrous population explosion.
"competition" would be another thing that may curtail some species population expansion, but they would adapt to feed on the things their victorious competition can not eat.

they would eventually adapt to feed on the most un-nutritious plants, and since they can eat things that others can not, they will not have any competition. they would fill the lands and the seas and there would be choking plagues of everything.

the only thing that keeps populations in check is the predators. if there is more prey, then the population of predators will rise accordingly and they will eat up the prey and then they will die off too as their prey does.
it is mandatory for life for this system to be in place.

that is what i think anyway.



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

30 Aug 2009, 1:28 pm

Really it's just a very bad idea. Even our smallest efforts to change the course of nature can have a horrific backfiring effect. Have we really not yet come to the understanding that the natural cycles on our planet are tremendously delicate and it is best if we try to tread lightly. I did some work with chaos theory back in college and have come to respect all of the natural cycles on earth and how they are all interrelated. If you ask me, we've already got ourselves into quite a pickle.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

30 Aug 2009, 1:48 pm

Sand wrote:
A predator is a living creature that lives off other living creatures. eliminating predators would eliminate all animal life as animals are predators on plants. And a good many plants are predators on other living things. All funguses would have to be eliminated as well as many micro-organisms. The concept is amazingly ignorant.


Orwell wrote:
What Sand said. Herbivores are predators just as much as carnivores are.

The counter-argument you two are giving doesn't seem to work, as the OP states: "Basically, this philosopher thinks that we should eliminate all suffering, even in the natural world"

Plants do not have nervous systems, therefore plants do not suffer. Thus, eating plants is not a problem.



b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,437
Location: australia

30 Aug 2009, 2:03 pm

the only way to be a non predatory vegetarian is to eat fruits and go to the toilet in the fields far from the plant that bore the fruit,

plants give "fruits" to animals to eat, and then the animals defecate the seeds far and wide so the plants can proliferate, and it is very symbiotic.

if there are truly no predators, then all parasites and diseases would not exist.
by "disease" i mean a pathogen that uses your energy to multiply.

if there are no diseases then pandemonium is inevitable.



pakled
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,827

30 Aug 2009, 2:09 pm

I think it's anthropomorphication run amuck...;)

Do you know how many millions of predatory species there are? And how many millions of ecosubsystems depend on predation?

Someone needs to spend less time memorizing all the verses 'Kum by Yah', and more time studying basic biology....;)



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 93
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,876
Location: Finland

30 Aug 2009, 2:28 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Sand wrote:
A predator is a living creature that lives off other living creatures. eliminating predators would eliminate all animal life as animals are predators on plants. And a good many plants are predators on other living things. All funguses would have to be eliminated as well as many micro-organisms. The concept is amazingly ignorant.


Orwell wrote:
What Sand said. Herbivores are predators just as much as carnivores are.

The counter-argument you two are giving doesn't seem to work, as the OP states: "Basically, this philosopher thinks that we should eliminate all suffering, even in the natural world"

Plants do not have nervous systems, therefore plants do not suffer. Thus, eating plants is not a problem.


What the hell do you know about how plants feel? A nervous system is not he only way living things react to stimuli.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 93
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,876
Location: Finland

30 Aug 2009, 2:30 pm

pakled wrote:
I think it's anthropomorphication run amuck...;)

Do you know how many millions of predatory species there are? And how many millions of ecosubsystems depend on predation?

Someone needs to spend less time memorizing all the verses 'Kum by Yah', and more time studying basic biology....;)


Were doing our best to kill off all the marine life which is hugely predatory but it's a big job.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

30 Aug 2009, 3:38 pm

Sand wrote:
What the hell do you know about how plants feel? A nervous system is not he only way living things react to stimuli.

A nervous system is essentially necessary for the feeling that people have called pain or any other feeling associated with suffering. So, living things without nervous systems can be assumed to feel no pain and not to suffer at all. Creatures with nervous systems though, and ones that have reactions in a manner similar to our own reactions to hurtful stimulus could easily be considered to suffer though.



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,119
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

30 Aug 2009, 3:55 pm

If this guy/gal's considered a philospher (I haven't read the fine article at all, by the way), he or she's certainly not a biologist!



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,156
Location: New Orleans, LA

30 Aug 2009, 4:02 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Sand wrote:
What the hell do you know about how plants feel? A nervous system is not he only way living things react to stimuli.

A nervous system is essentially necessary for the feeling that people have called pain or any other feeling associated with suffering. So, living things without nervous systems can be assumed to feel no pain and not to suffer at all. Creatures with nervous systems though, and ones that have reactions in a manner similar to our own reactions to hurtful stimulus could easily be considered to suffer though.


But that's assuming that there's only one way to feel pain/indications of damage/danger.

The damage is more significant than merely just the sensation of pain.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson