{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/21/2018 9:19:27 PM
19
Should we humans use our strength (intelligence) to help nature?
In the video you see an example of humans helping an animal in need.
I ask myself this sometimes.
When I see an animal in trouble I try to help it. In pain I carry a hedgehog off the street, I take a weakened raven home with me, or I try figuring out why a female duck stands on the street at night and won't stop quacking. It didn't even try to flee from me, it bit me and insisted on staying on the street.
But should I do this?
Some people say we should not intervene in nature. But we humans with our intelligence are part of nature. Nature made us.
What is your stance on this?
-
Should be careful, that duck could be rabid
-
I always hit every animal on the road
-
1 OdpowiedźI believe it's only right to help animals if the situation allows for it. If it's something that can be freed and is not damaged in a way that would leave it vulnerable once released, then sure, do it. Also, if it is obviously not going to be able to move or care for itself, and is going to die anyhow, I believe it only right to help it die quickly and as painlessly as possible.
-
Edytowany przez użytkownika TheArtist: 8/24/2018 1:01:28 PM[i]One day a couple of merchants in India pass an ascetic (Hindu wandering monk) who seems to be doing something rather strange. Concerned they walk up to him, and find that he is standing over a pool of water. In the water is a scorpion that appears to be drowning. The ascetic appeared to have been behaving oddly because he was trying to fish the scorpion out of the pool of water. One of the merchants said to the ascetic, "You know the scorpion doesn't realize that you're trying to help it. Its just going to try to sting you.!! Its just its nature. " The ascetic replied, "Yes, I do." The other merchant, confused at this, asked, "So why are you still trying to help it, if you know it will only try to sting you?" The ascetic replied,[/i] [b]"Because it is MY nature."[/b] The compassion of which you speak and are asking about is one of our defining traits as human beings. Especially our ability to show compassion in an altruistic manner, even when "rationally" speaking it may not make a whole lot of sense. If you are Christian, It is how we are created in God's Image. If you are a Buddhist, like I am, It is Avalokiteshvara. The Bodhisattva of Compassion. The Embodiment of the Enlightened Heart. "She Who Hears The Cries of the World". Westerners may be more familiar with her Chinese cultural manifestation: Kuan Yin. Or the face she wears in the West: Mary. The Madonna.
-
Edytowany przez użytkownika Fixit: 8/24/2018 3:08:03 AMSurvival of the fittest really. I'd still help though just cause I don't like to see suffering.
-
11 OdpowiedziEdytowany przez użytkownika Uncanny_Vale: 8/21/2018 9:37:54 PMThe human race is responsible for more animal extinctions than any other animal in Earth’s history (mostly due to habitat destruction and overpopulation). In fact scientists refer to this period now as the “Holocene extinction” which is the 6th mass extinction event in earth’s history - and this time it’s not asteroids or volcanoes - it’s us: https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/10/earths-sixth-mass-extinction-event-already-underway-scientists-warn So people who try to argue that we shouldn’t intervene in nature to save animals - it’s way to late for that. I see no harm in helping animals out when we can - chances are we are responsible for killing off most of their species anyway.
-
Just shoot it
-
[quote]humans should not intervene with nature[/quote] Me: too late
-
5 OdpowiedziEvolution is still a thing. Animals need to adapt to our “environment”. I feel like we should help struggling species, but animals need to adapt to our large presence
-
4 OdpowiedziSomeone made a post on this video a little while back
-
Yeah, why not? We cause enough harm as it is, seems right to give back when we can. One of the saddest things I ever saw was a Fox that'd been hit by a car - its mate was pushing it with its nose as if to say "wake up". Foxes mate for life.
-
We are nature. We help ourselves
-
Ofcourse we should help an animal in senseless distress. The only time I would say it's best to let nature be cruel is when it's an an I always eating another animal.
-
A duck in the middle of the street is not nature. Most domesticated animals are so far removed from nature that they would die without humans to care for them. Breeds have been created over hundreds of generations with horrible health issues, genetic flaws, and a myriad of problems merely because it makes the animal mor aesthetically pleasing as a pet. A wild or undomesticated animal within the confines of an area that has been shaped, created, or re-made to suit the needs of mankind is an animal that is not in nature, and there is nothing natural about it. So when animals have problems dealing with these areas as a habitat, become injured, or otherwise end up in distress, yes. Absolutely. Mankind should help alleviate that because it is mankind that has caused them to be in the position they are in.
-
Absolutely.
-
... nah, nature sucks, robots are so much better... [spoiler]not included in the DLC[/spoiler]
-
Yes because otherwise nature will eventually will even things out.
-
we can go to the moon, why not keep nature in check so that we have enough time on Earth to get out of our system and discover new life and foreign lands.
-
I must protect the wild
