Comment deleted by Site Moderator

the shop or the cleaner?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

if it was still the last cleaner, i'd have been willing to try....

but not with this one.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Do you need cash for a coffee, no change rummaging around in a drawer?

Do you need cash for a coffee, no change rummaging around in a drawer?
--------------------------------------
no, i need a jar of coffee, and time to go to the shop to get one

Addict.

was just reading this story in the independent :-

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/polar-bears-are-450000-years-older-than-we-thought-7661674.html

and noticed this passage :-


The scientists estimate that the last common ancestor of polar bears and brown bears lived between 338,000 and 934,000 years ago. The most likely date, however, was about 600,000 years ago, when coincidentally there was a marked global cooling resulting in one of the most pronounced ice ages, said Frank Hailer of the Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre in Frankfurt.

"It was the first dramatic cooling period of the ice ages. Our data on the polar bear lineage may be coincidental but it fits in with the time period when the climate was very cold," he said.

So what they are effectively saying is that way back when, it was much colder and so polar bears evolved, whereas now it's not so cold so they might die out...

now - why is that our decision to make? why try to force these creatures to live on in a world that no longer suits them?

For billions of years, creatures have evolved, and then when conditions no longer suit them have died out or evolved some more. Why do we seem to think that now, because we are here, everything has to stay the same?

True ZZ, but it would a shame to lose say Tigers from this earth, I have any amount of dvd's on them, the most beautiful creature to ever grace.

Now coffee and brekkie.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

True ZZ, but it would a shame to lose say Tigers from this earth, I have any amount of dvd's on them, the most beautiful creature to ever grace
-------------------------------------------------
I too love tigers - but if their environment changed so drastically that it no longer suited them and they started to die out naturally, then that is how it should be. We are not gods, we don't get to decide what lives and what dies out.

Imagine if we'd been around since time immemorial - there wouldn't be many types of creatures around, because we'd have refused to let dinosaurs die out.

go bang your head against a wall Rap

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

metaphorically or physically?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Man has had the most effect on the planet in recent times.It is up to us to put right that wrong.Saving species would be the most noblest of actions.
----------------------------------------------------------
when it comes to the polar regions, that is still very much open to debate. A lot of people talk about man-made global warming like it is a known fact. it isn't.

Temperature fluctuations, spikes and troughs have been going on for billions of years. In planetary terms, we are still exitting an ice age, so of course the planet is in general warming up. However, compared to 400 years ago, the planet is actually cooler now than it was then, because we are in a trough, and coming out of it means that the pace of warming is slightly higher than the average...

Warming is a natural process, which we have a small amount of influence on. Even if we weren't here, the planet would still be warming up.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I am more thinking of deforestation and disappearing habitats really.
----------------------------------------
obviously we are effecting that, which i way i made a point when talking of tigers of them dying out naturally - but on the original point about polar bears, which are losing their habitat through warming, not through our direct actions, it's not our decision to make, it's nature's.

Knowing our intefering ways, we'll probably try to stop them interbreeding with browns to maintain the bloodline or something equally stupid. Nature is best left to itself, our meddling doesn't preserve nature, it goes against it.

now - why is that our decision to make? why try to force these creatures to live on in a world that no longer suits them?
======================

i dont think anyone has taken this decision. so far as im aware, mankind - as an individual or as a group - has not made a decision to kill polar bears off. at most, i'd say it's a bi product of a combination of other indirectly related decisions.

just playing devil's advocate by the way, is there an argument to say that 'our' right comes about as we are top of the foodchain ? would the polar bear do any different to us if it was top of the foodchain ?

before you go ballistic by the way, i am generally an advocate of animal welfare.

i saw brown bears fishing in british columbia.

i thought one had caught a seagull

one of them looked me straiht in the eye from about 6 metres away. think i nearly got the charge

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

ihad misunderstood your conclusion zz when writing my post.

i'll have another look at this one.

So what they are effectively saying is that way back when, it was much colder and so polar bears evolved, whereas now it's not so cold so they might die out...
now - why is that our decision to make? why try to force these creatures to live on in a world that no longer suits them
==========================
So which bit of the article says that it is our decision to make ? havent you introduced this yourself ? from the section of the article which you have transcribed, it would appear that the article is a factual account of polar bears, not an argument in favour of direct polar bear intervention. If this is not the case, what is the nature of the intervention which the article advocates ? if t is not the case, what has made you bring the matter up ?



I too love tigers - but if their environment changed so drastically that it no longer suited them and they started to die out naturally, then that is how it should be. We are not gods, we don't get to decide what lives and what dies out.
=================================
To tigers we are gods. Whilst i agree there is an argument to say that gloal warming is not down to man’s actions, other effects on the enivronment – such as deforestation – are much more clear cut. It is simply not true to say that envrionments are concstantly changing. Maybe over 100,000s of thousands of years, but not over the course of centuries. To animals who lose their millenia old habitiats due to deforestation – or who may lose that habitat due to possible deforestation – gods is exactly what we are.





Knowing our intefering ways, we'll probably try to stop them interbreeding with browns to maintain the bloodline or something equally stupid. Nature is best left to itself, our meddling doesn't preserve nature, it goes against it.
================================
Id say there’s likely to be some truth in this, in certain situations at least, but coming back to my first point in this post, i don’t know why it has been raised.