Opponents of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) say that it costs the U.S. thousands of jobs and billions of dollars every year. Would you be in support of the ESA even if those figures were true?
"Dey tuk r jerbs!!! Ya, dey tuk r jerbs!!!"
How dare other things stand in the way of my money. Lets just murder them all.
That's the way it's presented to get unlimited support but the ESA needs accountability just like the rest of us.
Humans come first
There is no amount of money or jobs worth killing off animal species. Absolutely none. And I'm a Republican.
Not right now. But when the economy is better and we can afford to help them out, sure.
Thanks, wedaslaves; I put that on my list of stuff to watch.
It is deemed an acceptable risk until we can prove that it is not an acceptable risk. Money versus health?
Susanr look at vanishing of the bees film. They have compelling evidence that the systemic pesticides that infuse plants from the inside appears to be the culprit. We have genetically engineered crops with poison and this long term full cycle poison that we end up eating ourselves. Acceptable risk
Bees are an example. If the die-off of honeybees turns out to have human causes (I don't think that's clear yet), and if it continues to their extinction, it will have MASSIVE effects on humans that could have been avoided. Many of our food crops (not to mention flowers) are pollinated by bees.
Also, some of the things we do in the name of progress & business cause ecological changes that have a very bad effect on the environment, and can have huge consequences for humans. So even if you don't care about animal or evolution, you might care about your own pocketbook or survival.
So why can I shoot you and claim survival of the fittest?
If all flies went away wed have a major problem, at least for a very long while. Not sure about the others.
Andrewser: I'd take an endangered snake over Donald Trump any day.
If animals are endangered due to natural selection, we should NOT intervene. However, if a species is endangered because of human activity, we do need to do what we can to preserve the species in question
Republicans are yelling 'But it is true! I've read it all over the Internet! It's killing jobs and hindering job creators!'
No, today it's survival of what doesn't get in humans' way. Survival of the fittest is something that plays out over generations.
It's called natural selection. Survival of the fittest. If they don't fit they don't survive.
(Aimed at original comment, not pink...)
...just like the other desolate floating masses.
That is ok if you are talking about natural processes. However, we are talking about simple decisions that we are in control of. Do we build responsibly?
Speak for yourself. I was made in God's image.
I think it could certainly use some reform. Aside from ticks, chiggers, mosquitos and flies, I don't know of too many other species that we want to go extinct. But the ESA is unnecessarily cumbersome to a certain degree.
I don't think we should go around needlessly killing animals but at the same time we are just animals too. And we won't be around forever. We are but a blip on the timeline of earth. It's not our job to police the species of the planet. The earth will be around and recover long after humans are gone
I guess I chose the wrong user name to comment on this question.
I think that the Earth is changing and will continue to change forever. If a species can not adapt to the new climate then that species will die and there is not much we can do about it. Antarctica was once a semi-tropical paradise located on the equator.
probably the most enlightening map ever.
I* missed that*. I really need to stop typing so fast lol.
Haha thanks randy missed that :-P
The dumbasses forget to mention this act includes very important umbrella species, the benefits of tourism, pollution sinks, and the fact that killing off species so some rich guy could get richer is not good.
Is be willing to be it creates more jobs than it kills.
Most the money goes to saving salmon from extinction. That's a lot of jobs and not just fishing but shipping and retail and of course the money doesn't just evaporate they are paying company's and people to do work......
With some luck mabye them or their sons will be able to return to that industry some day. Environmentalism isn't always just some fuzzy emotional want (though for many it is) a lot of this conservation stuff is logical and very beneficial for humans.
Andre many many more jobs will be lost as things like salmon go extinct from overfishing. It's unfortunate some will lose there job now, my hope is they can find a job in another industry (hopefully we will see some real investment over the next few years) while we bring numbers back up, and
Why don't we just go the distance and kill everything on earth but humans and sell all the land and materials - then we'd have tons of money! Mmm money. #ProudAmerican.
we are a species too. let mother nature run her course
So @ThePhlegm is playing for the cockroaches?
I have a soft spot for endangered species, always have.
Through their technology and planning capacity, people are different from the rest and can break the laws of natural selection - for example we don't let sickly babies die. Modern man doesn't adapt - he changes nature to fit him. This should be done responsibly.
Inge, let them vent. I can see the funny side of survival of the fittest. However, I don't want to experience it at crunch time.
Your logic doesn't make sense. Evolution doesn't mean turn a blind eye to the destruction humans are capable of causing and calling it survival of the fittest. We are killing the ecosystem plain and simple. That isn't natural.
What if there were no wolves to reintroduce. That would take a while... Each animal is a package of purpose and training. Once gone, it is not easy to replace. Say goodby to each masterpiece as we wipe them out one by one by one.
Based on actual numbers it looks that way.
@steelcity, I missed the part of the Bible where it said "eat EVERYTHING"
And where was "Thou shalt pave the earth and foul the skies and water"?
Believing that survival of the fittest happened doesn't mean that you are happy about it. Also, it's under natural circumstances, which what we do clearly is not. The ecosystem is just about perfect when humans don't mess it up.
Yes, and most of that number occurred during previous mass extinctions caused by asteroid collisions. Are you comparing humanity to that, or are you just ignorant of the facts and spouting Conservative crap soundbites?