Serious #2

1 view
Skip to first unread message

wjmailey

unread,
Nov 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/21/97
to

Second try at something serious, but loaded with possibilities for humor
and condemnation, LOL

I can recall three instances where outrageous activists have brought the
walls tumbling down on us. (almost like Joshua but he had help)(LOL)

1. Spotted owls in the NW forests
2. Kemp Ridley turtles in the Gulf of Mexico
3. Snail darter fish associated with some TVA or some dam?

All three of these issues caused calamatous repercussions because they
were on the verge of extinction. So what! I feel that all compassion
and caring should be for sentient things. Darwin was right when he
offered the philosophy of "Survival of the Fittest". If all species
were to survive, we would have to move to some other planet and so far I
do not know where there are any or how to get there, for that matter.
LOL

HAND
Wull in SE Texas

Kelly

unread,
Nov 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/21/97
to

I agree with you wjmailey! The problem today is that man has become so
'fit' that he has put upside down the whole theory! One of these days
he'll be creating some monster (You remember 'Frankenstein'?)that will
eventually get the upper hand! We are intervening and manipulating so
much that Darwin's survival of the fittest does not have much sense
today. And on top of it, we exterminate nature! Well, what a lovely
place we leave behind us!
kelly

wjmailey wrote:
>
> Second try at something serious, but loaded with possibilities for humor
> and condemnation, LOL
>

> snipped for space

wjmailey

unread,
Nov 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/21/97
to Edna Glenn

Edna Glenn wrote:
>
> x-no-archive:yes

>
> wjmailey wrote:
> > Second try at something serious, but loaded with possibilities for humor
> > and condemnation, LOL
>
> Well, Wull, I'll bite (not rabid!) on this one. Read on.
> <snipped for space>

>
> > All three of these issues caused calamatous repercussions because they
> > were on the verge of extinction. So what! I feel that all compassion
> > and caring should be for sentient things. Darwin was right when he
> > offered the philosophy of "Survival of the Fittest". If all species
> > were to survive, we would have to move to some other planet and so far I
> > do not know where there are any or how to get there, for that matter.
>
> Don't get me started, now heh heh, but we humans have long-term memories,
> we are (relatively) intelligent creatures...as we crank out our own kind
> at 70 million per annum, are we really interested in promoting our own
> inorganic lifestyles that are not conducive to life at all (concrete
> jungles; freeway gridlock; one-way use of limited resources with no regard
> for other life on the planet, let alone other humans)? Survival of the
> fittest, Wull?? We surely are not that. And give the environmentalists a
> break; without them you'd be rinsing your pasta in nuclear waste (probably
> are anyway, now I think about it.)
>
> Whew! Thanks for letting me vent. I still like you Wull, really!
> And I respect your opinion (well, sort of, heh, heh), etc., etc. Friends?
> :-) :-) :-) :-) --Edna
Now Edna,
You know I will still love you in the morning, but respect, that is
another matter. LOL

Nowhere in my post did I make any reference to environmentalists.
Of course they are necessary and deserve our interest and cooperation
but not to ridiculous levels.

I was referring to fanatics who will go to any length to promote their
causes, like bombing or shooting or killing, just like any other
terrorists.
The tiny little fish were never even seen by humans, they live at the
bottom of some bottomless pit.
I have never seen an owl that was worth a toot. (ahem, I've only seen
one or two owls at all)
Now the turtles are in my area. They are threatening to halt the shrimp
industry because of the turtles. They contribute absolutely nothing to
serve mankind. The turtles that have survived as the fittest,live
longer that humans and still contribute nothing to mankind, Yeh, I know,
some people eat them, but they are crazy. <G>

Natural selection is the way of planet Earth, lets not upset nature.
Please

Have a nice day
Wull

all...@earthlink.net

unread,
Nov 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/21/97
to

And even more damage has been done by overpopulation and people who use
fertility drugs to birth a litter of kids.
Allain (an activist in both animal rights and environmental issues)

Michael Hudson

unread,
Nov 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/21/97
to

wjmailey wrote:
>
> Second try at something serious, but loaded with possibilities for humor
> and condemnation, LOL
>
> I can recall three instances where outrageous activists have brought the
> walls tumbling down on us. (almost like Joshua but he had help)(LOL)
>
> 1. Spotted owls in the NW forests
> 2. Kemp Ridley turtles in the Gulf of Mexico
> 3. Snail darter fish associated with some TVA or some dam?
>
> All three of these issues caused calamatous repercussions because they
> were on the verge of extinction. So what! I feel that all compassion
> and caring should be for sentient things. Darwin was right when he
> offered the philosophy of "Survival of the Fittest". If all species
> were to survive, we would have to move to some other planet and so far I
> do not know where there are any or how to get there, for that matter.

Bill, there are many very conflicting opinions regarding the issues you
mentioned, and all probably have some merit. I have heard it said that
something like three fourths of the species which have ever lived on earth
have gone extinct. The fact that animals do go extinct may be outweighed by
the fact that we are driving more of them to extiction at a rate that is way
above what would be considered natural. This may also be a guage of the
general health of our environment.

The conflict over these issues is extremely complicated and very emotional.
There seems to be no middle ground for the different sides to meet at. I
believe it will continue to cause many disagreements in the future and will
probably never be completely concluded.

Mike
--
If you can't be good, be good at it!

Happy Happy Joy Joy

unread,
Nov 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/21/97
to

More damage has been done in the name of "saving the <fill in the blank>
than letting nature take its own course.

wjmailey wrote:
>
> Second try at something serious, but loaded with possibilities for humor
> and condemnation, LOL
>
> I can recall three instances where outrageous activists have brought the
> walls tumbling down on us. (almost like Joshua but he had help)(LOL)
>
> 1. Spotted owls in the NW forests
> 2. Kemp Ridley turtles in the Gulf of Mexico
> 3. Snail darter fish associated with some TVA or some dam?
>
> All three of these issues caused calamatous repercussions because they
> were on the verge of extinction. So what! I feel that all compassion
> and caring should be for sentient things. Darwin was right when he
> offered the philosophy of "Survival of the Fittest". If all species
> were to survive, we would have to move to some other planet and so far I
> do not know where there are any or how to get there, for that matter.

Les Stewart

unread,
Nov 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/22/97
to


all...@earthlink.net wrote in article <347662...@earthlink.net>...


> And even more damage has been done by overpopulation and people who use
> fertility drugs to birth a litter of kids.
> Allain (an activist in both animal rights and environmental issues)
>

STOP ANIMAL TESTING -- They get all nervous and give the wrong answers.

Les

Pat Nolan

unread,
Nov 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/22/97
to

Allain,
I have heard a great deal about animal rights and I just wonder what you
consider animal rights? I own dogs and always have, I treat them humanely
and I think that anyone who brutalizes an animal for no reason is beyond
contempt. I am also a man who has had two by pass surgeries and because
there was medical research using animals, I am alive to day. Are you saying
that a monkey or a rat are more important than human lives?

As an activist for the environment, what do you do? What would you propose
we do, from your point of view, to better the environment? As for
overpopulation, most takes place in 3rd world countries where there is
little information about birth control, poor medical facilities, and the
chance that most children won't live past their 3 birthday, so families
have to make sure they have plenty so that there is enough help to support
the family.

I don't doubt you sincerity, but have you ever thought of being an activist
for people, if we could get people the help they need, perhaps it would go
a long way toward solving some of these other problems we have.

A personal question, if you don't mind, well two personal questions. #1
what do you do as an "activist"? #2 Did you make any charitable donations,
besides your two activist program, to any charities that help people?

Pat Just wondering?

all...@earthlink.net

unread,
Nov 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/22/97
to

Pat.
You've asked some very legitimate and somewhat difficult questions to
answer, but I will do my best. My idea of animal rights is this. I
believe every living thing has the right to be treated respectfully and
deserves their place here on earth. I am not saying that human lives are
less important than animal lives. Where did you read that in my message?
But I will go so far as to say that both should be treated fairly.
Medical research is a toughy for me. I at this time cannot take a stand,
but I lean towards acceptably humane reasearch. Research for cosmetics
and raising animals for vanity items are things I take a strong stand
against. Cruelty for our convenience and leisure is unacceptable. I will
physically oppose that atrocity.

I am also against hunting. I understand the need for thinning population
for the animals benefit, but the idea that a person could get pleasure
out of slaughter turns my stomach.

As far as what you as an individual can do to better the environment is
something you have to decide. Because of the people working to save this
and save that, we are seeing drastic improvements in all areas.
Awareness is the key to most problems. Today, as a minor example, most
people would not think of throwing trash on the side of the road. But
not nearly enough so there is alot of work to be done.

As far as my working for people, I heard about PAWS_LA from Betty White
and Estelle Getty. PAW_LA stands for Pets Are Wonderful Support-Los
Angeles. PWA's or Persons With AIDS have enough problems without having
to worry about their beloved pets. Sometimes they haven't the strength
to walk or even feed their pets.We make sure that the pets are cared
for, groomed, fed, brought to the vet and we cover all costs. When the
person enters the hospital, sometimes for the last time, they are
comforted with the fact that the pets will be loved and if need be, a
home will be found for them. We help both the person and the animal.
It's the best of both worlds. And with thousands afflicted, the need for
money and volunteers is constant.

I think I do my part and I think I do it fairly. And what I do as an
activist is pretty reactionary. It depends on the issue, my emotion
behind, my strength either emotionally or financially and the results
desired.

Allain

Pat Nolan

unread,
Nov 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/22/97
to

Thank you for taking the time to answer what were some difficult and
personal questions.

all...@earthlink.net wrote:

> Pat.
> You've asked some very legitimate and somewhat difficult questions to
> answer, but I will do my best. My idea of animal rights is this. I
> believe every living thing has the right to be treated respectfully and
> deserves their place here on earth. I am not saying that human lives are
> less important than animal lives. Where did you read that in my message?

Didn't see it in your message, just wondered if that was a basis of your
interest in animal rights. Hard to understand completely unless you ask so
questions to clarify things.

> But I will go so far as to say that both should be treated fairly.
> Medical research is a toughy for me. I at this time cannot take a stand,
> but I lean towards acceptably humane reasearch. Research for cosmetics
> and raising animals for vanity items are things I take a strong stand
> against. Cruelty for our convenience and leisure is unacceptable. I will
> physically oppose that atrocity.

I think that most of us find that kind of cruelty unacceptable. If you have
a pet, I think you are more aware of things that occur to other animals and
it makes you care more, so I don't think that makes you an activist. Not a
bad one anyway, I would help you there.

>
>
> I am also against hunting. I understand the need for thinning population
> for the animals benefit, but the idea that a person could get pleasure
> out of slaughter turns my stomach.

As a ex hunter I know both the thrill and the pain of making a kill. I no
longer hunt for a number of reasons, but my brothers do and I consume a
large portion of their kills. I grew up in a time and place where you did
certain things; (1) If you when hunting, you killed only for meat and you
ate what you killed; (2) There will be times in your life when you are
required to do something that may not be something you are fond of, but the
facts of your life demand that you perform. You do what you have to, to take
care of your family; (3) Bloodlines count in men and animals.Now you are
probably asking your self what this has to do with our conversation. When I
was 12 my dad made me kill a goat, which we ate and some of them we sold,
but for the longest time it bothered me that I had killed that animal. When
I was 14 he took me to deer camp and I learned to hunt and also I enjoyed
the camping, so I remember the hunting as fun and was able to continue for
many more years. My dad bred dogs at various times in his life, he was very
particular about the animals he raised. Most of the time we only kept the
breed we were raising, to avoid having cross bred pups, which were
destroyed. I took care of several litters that were not pure bred, my dad
believe it was more humane kill the pups rather than let them go and be
abused by people. I know that sounds crazy, but you have to understand that
dog fights were a big thing where I grew up and if you have ever been to
one, well you know. We bred and raised several different breeds of dogs and
we also bred game birds, quail, pheasants, and India blue chukkas. We sold
them for stocking farms, for breeding purposes and also dressed for meat. My
brothers and I were the ones who did the killing and dressing, as many as
1000 quail in one day.
The whole point in this diatribe is to point out that some times what seems
like immense cruelty is not just that, it is a part of nature. Man is by
nature a hunter, his eyes are on the front of his skull for pursuit, a deer
has eyes on the sides of it's head, so as to be able to spot a predator and
flee. I don't hunt, but I know why people do and the great majority are as
concerned about the animals they hunt as anyone.


>
>
> As far as what you as an individual can do to better the environment is
> something you have to decide. Because of the people working to save this
> and save that, we are seeing drastic improvements in all areas.

I see things being done in the name of the environment but under the facade
the truth is not quite as easy to swallow. I happen to be one of those
people who believe that this world is in no danger from man. Man is in
danger from man. The earth will survive and repair itself if we kill
ourselves off, which we are trying to do. There is place for everything but
some times priorities get screwed up and we, as humans, forget what is
important. When you are starving, then slash and burn farming is okay, or at
least you do worry about the trees. It's easy to sit in our chairs in
America and tell a peasant in Brazil that they are responsible for the loss
of the rain forest, we know where our supper is coming from. My point is
that if we solve the base problems of people we solve most of the other
problems of this world. But it requires that people get really involved,
either personally or financially, both if possible. Let me run a couple of
things out here and then I'll get off my box and let you respond.
1. $10 will buy 50# of beans and rice, providing a meal of complete protein
for 1200 children.

2. $25 will buy enough food to keep a poor family of six alive for one year.

3. $50 will provide emergency medical treatment for critically ill children.

4. $150 will furnish three foot-pedaled sewing machines for skills training
workshop.

5. $500 will provide the necessary school supplies and teachers to educate
an entire classroom of third world children for 1 year.

6. $1000 will build a complete wooden house for a family living in a tin and
cardboard shack.

> Awareness is the key to most problems. Today, as a minor example, most
> people would not think of throwing trash on the side of the road. But
> not nearly enough so there is alot of work to be done.
>
> As far as my working for people, I heard about PAWS_LA from Betty White
> and Estelle Getty. PAW_LA stands for Pets Are Wonderful Support-Los
> Angeles. PWA's or Persons With AIDS have enough problems without having
> to worry about their beloved pets. Sometimes they haven't the strength
> to walk or even feed their pets.We make sure that the pets are cared
> for, groomed, fed, brought to the vet and we cover all costs. When the
> person enters the hospital, sometimes for the last time, they are
> comforted with the fact that the pets will be loved and if need be, a
> home will be found for them. We help both the person and the animal.
> It's the best of both worlds. And with thousands afflicted, the need for
> money and volunteers is constant.

I think that is great. These are important things to people and it is great
that you are involved, but and this is a big but, you need not stop there.
There are probably more hungry children in LA than hungry pets. I understand
your need to help the helpless. Animals are indeed hurt everyday for no
reason, several thousand are killed every day...30,000 children under the
age of 16 die every day from a variety of reasons, most could be saved. How
many Mozarts die, or Michaelanglos.

>
>
> I think I do my part and I think I do it fairly. And what I do as an
> activist is pretty reactionary. It depends on the issue, my emotion
> behind, my strength either emotionally or financially and the results
> desired.

I don't doubt you are fair, as you see it. Most will tell you the same thing
and really mean it. That is the terrible thing about it, to most it's not
their problem, they have other responsibilities. I belong to a local men's
club, their idea of Christmas charity, to buy a real tree and plant it
outside so everyone can enjoy it for Christmas. The tree will run between
$150 and $200. I voted against it, and was told we had to do something for
ourselves too, we couldn't just give to charity all the time.

Pat

>
>
> Allain


all...@earthlink.net

unread,
Nov 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/22/97
to

Pat,
There are too many wars to fight. No one has the time, energy or finance
to fight them all. Our priorities differ. You have chosen yours and I
have chosen mine and if we both continue on for what we believe, then
the world will be that much better. This could go on and on with endless
posts of discussion, but I believe that we agree that everyone should do
something, anything, to end the pain and suffering of both humans and
animals.
You work with the kids and I'll stick with the animals.
Allain

Pilar

unread,
Nov 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/23/97
to

On 22 Nov 1997 17:40:23 GMT, "Les Stewart" <less...@pernet.net>
wrote:

>> And even more damage has been done by overpopulation and people who use
>> fertility drugs to birth a litter of kids.
>> Allain (an activist in both animal rights and environmental issues)
>>
>

>STOP ANIMAL TESTING -- They get all nervous and give the wrong answers.
>
>Les

LOL Les!
The other day I asked my dog what that was on the tree. He answered
'bark, bark.' When I asked what the texture was like, he answered
'rough, rough'. Pretty smart dog! Think he'd pass the test? LOL

<Oh, Pilar, get serious, will ya!!!>


Pilar
--
The sooner I fall behind, the more
time I have to catch up.Anonymous

Robin Brown

unread,
Nov 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/23/97
to

In message <34759C...@datarecall.net>
wjmailey <wjma...@datarecall.net> writes:

> I can recall three instances where outrageous activists have brought the
> walls tumbling down on us.

I intend putting my own viewpoint forward in this subject area in all
seriousness since it is itself a serious issue.

I don't quite understand why an environmentalist and nature lover
should be given the term "outrageous" activist? Do you have no
feeling for the birds, animals, reptiles and other living creatures
populating this planet of ours? By "us" I assume you are referring to
Americans? And to suggest that the "walls came tumbling down" can be
taken several ways. I believe the walls of ignorance and resistance
to change should always be torn down wherever possible. All life is
evolving and undergoing change second by second.

> 1. Spotted owls in the NW forests
> 2. Kemp Ridley turtles in the Gulf of Mexico
> 3. Snail darter fish associated with some TVA or some dam?

> All three of these issues caused calamatous repercussions because they
> were on the verge of extinction. So what!

From a humanitarian viewpoint as custodians and carers for all life
on this beautiful planet, we humans have a responsibility to all
life, to preserve and nurture it wherever possible. Nature has a way
of balancing itself naturally. But when humans take life without
needing to, an imbalance results and serious repercussions in nature
start occuring to try to redress the balance. Global warming is a
good example.

> I feel that all compassion and caring should be for sentient things.

I wonder if you truly understand what you are saying. The word "sentient"
comes from the word to feel with the senses. All life does that in
some form or another. It has been discovered that plants and flowers
experience pain when cut or picked. (See Findhorn Foundation
literature). I am sure that when one fish is eaten by another fish it
goes through the agonies of being eaten alive. All life has
self-preservation built into it but in order to survive there is a
built in program of attrition which ensures the survival of at least
an ordered number of that species.

> Darwin was right when he offered the philosophy of "Survival of the
> Fittest".

Charles Darwin was a scientist and naturalist not a philosopher. To
my knowledge he never offered a viewpoint of "Survival of the
fittest". Please offere references to support your statement.
Darwin's early observations aboard The Beagle raised the question for
Darwin of possible links between extinct but similar species. In 1836
on his return to England he began recording his ideas about the
changeability of species on how organisms evolved in his "Notebooks
on the Transmutation of Species." This was brought into sharp focus
when Darwin read "An Essay on the Principle of Population" (1798) by
the British economist Thomas Robert Malthus, who explained how human
populations remain in balance and argued that any increase in the
availability of food for basic human survival could not match the
rate of population growth. The latter, therefore, had to be checked
by natural limitations, such as famine and disease, or by social
actions, such as war. Darwin immediately applied Malthus's argument
to animals and plants, and by 1838 had arrived at a sketch of a
theory of evolution through natural selection. His complete theory
"On the Origin of Species" was published in 1859. In essence it says
that the young born of any species compete intensly for survival.
Those young that survive to produce the next generation tend to
embody favourable natural variations - the process of natural
selection - and these variations are passed on by heredity.
Therefore, each generation will improve adaptively over the
preceeding generations, and this gradual and continuous process is
the source of the evolution of species. This provided
additional support to the concept that the earth itself is not static
but evolving.

> If all species were to survive,

See above! They are by natural selection. See Darwin.

> we would have to move to some other planet and so far I do not know
where > there are any or how to get there, for that matter.

I'm quite sure that the governments of the world have already thought
that one out and have plans well in hand. Sadly I feel we will be at
the back of the queue behind the politicians, military, scientists
and media. And it will not be in two by two in an orderly manner.

It has always amused me that the people who are trained to defend the
population of this planet are alll safely esconced underground in
radiation proof bunkers, whereas the populace that who are the
vulnerable ones are left exposed on the surface to be wiped out.
Anyone surviving would therefore not be a civilian anyway.

Robin


wjmailey

unread,
Nov 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/23/97
to Robin Brown

Robin Brown wrote:
>
> In message <34759C...@datarecall.net>
> wjmailey <wjma...@datarecall.net> writes:
>
>
Mr. Brown,

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your essay as an answer to my post. I
really like it when a post leads to a "serious" discussion. As you say
I was confused about the Darwinian and Malthusian theories.
Remember I am a senior citizen and you are supposed to make excuses for
us. LOL
I also like it when people take parts of posts and make that part or
parts the subjects of their answers to posts.
But I like it even more if the answer really concerns what I am putting
forth as a query.

I wouldn't expect any foreigner to understand how the three seemingly
insignificant issues that I made reference to could have affected
millions and millions of people adversely. If you lived in the USA and
were exposed to the issues it would be better understood.

Those issues affected lumber, construction, transportation, paper,
energy, labor, food and maybe more, adversely, in gargantuan
proportions.

I was hoping for some answers from members who had been affected by
those issues.

Although my post has led to some very well written personal thoughts on
environmentism I was looking for something else. Oh well, you have to
take what you get and be satisfied. LOL

all...@earthlink.net

unread,
Nov 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/23/97
to

LOL That's funny! I'm going to use that.

Pat Nolan

unread,
Nov 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/24/97
to

Sounds reasonable.

Pat

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages