plonkerism said:

....and reached the conclusion that if you start commercialising the idea of saving species, then only the species that ensure the most profit will survive.

---

Quote:

Evolution was not based on profits, but survival

---

As evolution is based upon the principle of adaptation to survive, it only makes sense how profit is simply a manifestation of this. Profit is an abstract concept that has developed as our civilizations have advanced through the specialization of tasks, due to the means providing for specialization of tasks - agriculture, and profit is simply representing the idea of a person's efforts in hunting or gathering yielding a gain that allows them to survive further.

If you did not profit, in some form or another, would you continue to survive?

Quote:

hence saving some species for economic means will just fuck the environments butt even more.

---

We're not talking about saving some species for economic means, but rather employing economic means to save species. That's the fundamental difference, and it has been demonstrated to work quite fine (ever hit a deer in a car before? ).

Quote:

s evolution is based upon the principle of adaptation to survive, it only makes sense how profit is simply a manifestation of this. Profit is an abstract concept that has developed as our civilizations have advanced through the specialization of tasks, due to the means providing for specialization of tasks - agriculture, and profit is simply representing the idea of a person's efforts in hunting or gathering yielding a gain that allows them to survive further.

---

plonkerism said:

Wouldnt only some species be suitable to use for profit? Like tigers for their skin and meat etc. I see mostly mammals and fish being the ones targeted by this as they have the most money to be made from their meat, oils, fur, all that type of shit. There is not a lot of profit in ants, or beetles, cockroaches etc, so these types of things would fail. I see the benefit in using the scheme to save some things but it would not preserve everything needed to have a sustainable enviroment.

---

That's just it though - preserving these animals by creating incentive that is needed to actually preserve them would subsequently preserve their ecosystem as well, which would automatically include the myriad of things that would not be directly profited from. Once again, I was speaking of effective regulation by centralized governments to preserve natural habitat, and not simply stuffing tigers in a farm. It wouldn't actually be necessary to sell beetle shells in order to protect them as well.

Quote:

My suggestion is that, if the planets wildlife is all supported by delicate ecosystems, then wouldnt supporting only some of the species within the ecosystems mean that the ecosystem will inevitably fail?

---

plonkerism said:

Its like saying i profit from drinking water or eating food.

---

Quote:

But an economic gain is handled differently to a resource gain. A resource being the yeilds from the hunt/crop that can actually have a physical impact on somebodies situation. Whereas you can stare at money and it wont feed or shelter you, until you exchange it back to a resource form.

---

Quote:

Evolution was not based on profits, but survival

---

deCypher said:

What impact on the biosphere would result from the extinction of tigers?

---

fireworks_god said:

I'll have to get into that another time.

---

Why ask questions regarding something that was already answered?

fireworks_god said:

You never asked "the question why I didn't answer". You asked two questions in conjunction with each other to imply that my reason for not answering further on that point was either/or.

---

fireworks_god said:

I made an error in my last post in saying that it was already answered, because I had the impression that the way I worded the statement had implied that time constraints were the reason why.

---

fireworks_god said:

Its as simple as that, though.

---

adjust said:

I'll have to take your word on that, since you didn't answer why you didn't answer.

---

fireworks_god said:

plonkerism said:

Its like saying i profit from drinking water or eating food.

---

Exactly.

---

Right. But isnt profit defined as gaining rewards from your effort that is greater than what you put in? By eating and drinking arent i just surviving, as if i dont i will die?

Unless surviving is profiting which would just make my head explode.

For this idea though, i dont think it would work out. If you did it with tigers you would have to, as you say, 'regulate' the numbers of prey they have and in turn food for whatever the prey eat.. It would be extremely costly.. but it would create many more jobs in the environmental 'regulation' industry. Maybe more focus on this industry would generally create more awareness and the environment could benefit. Damn ive contradicted myself.. Oh well

I just dont have enough trust in government to regulate that sort of thing effectively. It wouldnt generate enough cash the become profitable - in a completely monetary sense. We would profit by having lots of cool animals but thats not what the government is interested in