fireworks_god said:

So, what do you think? Would you buy a tiger skin if you had the chance, knowing that it was supporting the sustainability and future of tiger populations, or would you be protesting governments who dared to support the survival of a species in such a manner?

---

I would buy a tiger skin regardless.
But yes, as long as something constructive turns out of it, then it is only for the best.
Also, I think that protesting against something like that doesn't really make sense, even using the excuse that we don't have the "right" to decide for other beings. The idea of needing a right in order to do something sounds just too irrational to me. Of course we don't know what the tigers would choose if they could express their desires (and IF they would reach a consensus ), but couldn't the same thing be said about parents raising their kids?
Who knows, maybe if we'll keep them around long enough, they will have the chance to evolve into beings that can actually communicate with us.

Quote:

Would you decry the idea that the most effective means of accomplishing this could very well be to translate it to the bottom-line of cold, hard cash?

---

I wouldn't see what's so bad about this either. It's only a prof that some people really do have the ability of mixing two or more interests into one constructive action.

Oweyervishice said:

Tiger fur? What's the point?

---

Oweyervishice said:

New life will always fill the gaps caused by extinctions

---

Not really.
Anyways, there are weak chances that nature will replicate something as rare as a tiger, and if one's intention is to preserve the tiger, then I'm sure you must see the conflict in all that.

Quote:

and it seems like many people who want to preserve as many species as possible are only doing so so that their children can continue to goggle at them in the future, not out of any real compassion for the animals.

---

Would simply wanting for your kids to enjoy the beauty and force of a tiger be an un-worthy reason to preserve them? Not to me, especially when I consider how a kid would react, the questions it would raise it his mind, the creativity, the potential passion or compassion for these animals.
It makes sense to me to try to keep this experience of being alive as filled with diversities as possible, and not just shrugging off to an extinction, even if the only reason why we would keep them alive would be for our children.

Quote:

I do think we should keep our footprint small, though.

---

Well I may be a bit of a hypocrite here, since the reason I think we should keep our footprint small is for our own safety.   The slower the world around us changes, the easier we will be able to adapt.

Quote:

MushroomTrip said:Would simply wanting for your kids to enjoy the beauty and force of a tiger be an un-worthy reason to preserve them? Not to me, especially when I consider how a kid would react, the questions it would raise it his mind, the creativity, the potential passion or compassion for these animals.

---

True, without tigers there is no possibility for compassion for tigers.

Oweyervishice said:

Well I may be a bit of a hypocrite here, since the reason I think we should keep our footprint small is for our own safety.   The slower the world around us changes, the easier we will be able to adapt.

---

MushroomTrip said:

Oweyervishice said:

Well I may be a bit of a hypocrite here, since the reason I think we should keep our footprint small is for our own safety.   The slower the world around us changes, the easier we will be able to adapt.

---

But the world is changing anyways, regardless of our footprint.
Besides, one's ability to adapt is purely psychological and it doesn't make much sense to me to pamper ourselves just to create an easy experience while we're alive. I personally prefer a intricate and diverse life, full of challenges of all sorts, as I've discovered it to be the healthiest recipe for me, and also what stimulates me to evolve, change, and grow out of whatever irrational thought I sometimes wrap around myself.

---

MushroomTrip said:

Oweyervishice said:

New life will always fill the gaps caused by extinctions

---

Not really.

---

flip3084 said:

But this planet has never had such a large scale upheavel to it's balance, as we have produced. We may not be as instantly destructive as a comet,or a massive series of eruptions, but our detriment is there. I am not anti hunting by any means. People need to eat, but to hunt for pleasure, well, this only displays in a great way the defect in so called humanity..

---