[Stonespear]

This article explains some of the Ivory trade in Africa, and who the main buyers are (not africans).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3314069.stm
_________________
<('-'<) <('-')> (^'-')>

[Amnesia10]

[dinkleberry]

We should put those lasers on elephant's heads.

[Amnesia10]

[stuglue]

[pcernie]

[longerthan5]

[Amnesia10]

[saythatagain]

Great to see the topic has attracted some intelligent comment.

Not sure if the humour much better but I , probably the most tasteless human to tap the keys on CPC repeat my point.

There is one problem on this planet. Only one.

Not man, but the number of men. And women too.

Any body who tries to argue otherwise is, in my opinion, at best not perceptive enough to join in the argument and at worst [not that they would care] lying.

The problem is not going to be solved by good men. There are many such men and they are found in every place, not just the west.

It is much more likely that bad men will solve the problem better because better is quicker.

There is no more time. Its too late and all those friends of the earth people worrying about Ivory trade is , my dear gentle [or not] fellow readers, noble of them but by having reproduced they are ,in my opinion, the worst of hypocrites.

For every child on this earth has to eat and to supply that food, more space for man less for elephants and Dung beetles.

Therefore the quickest way to cause a huge and catastrophic loss of human life[and being indesrciminate]would be probably a Nuclear War and the only people who are possibly Zealot enough to actualy press the button are a religious Extremist country.

Unless there is a massive reduction in human numbers there is no chance of our Planet ever doing anything but move towards animal extinction.

I love life, except for dull people, and WISH that this were not the case.

But ,as with Vista, life isnt that simple.

Now come on everybody jump on me again.
At least there will be one less mouth to feed so I guess you have my approval.

[Stonespear]

^Look up Gaia theory, it might give you some solace perhaps.

Now consider this:

If we all agree that overpopulation and the destruction of the environment is something we can do nothing about, we will do nothing about it and so we will never know if there was something we could do.

If we try to do something about it, in spite of overwhelming evidence (according to you), there is still the possibility that it can be controlled. Therefore, the rational thing to do is to try and control it, which is not at all hypocritical.

Our hope lies in more understanding of the world, resource management and technology to solve our problems.
_________________
<('-'<) <('-')> (^'-')>

[saythatagain]

Thank God [I dont] that there are more people like you than me Stonespear.

I am becoming a very cynical person the more people I meet , not at all enthused by the scramble for luxury goods I see around me from every Adult and Child.

And me too. I am the worst because I should know better but I just dont think we are far enough evolved from Lemmings to act in numbers enough to save our Planet.

To be honest, Stonespear, I have not the slightest desire for the human race to survive because I coudnt bear thinking of a world for any generation where there are no animals or wild life at all, or only that which is micromanaged by man.

I cannot see any answer or solution except one imposed on us and unavoidable.And one which I have no choice in it as well cos I would be in the first Bus up Mt Everest when the button pressed, or Meteor fell.

[Stonespear]

I do understand your pessimism, however I just think restrained optimism will take us further, and for me the human race (for all its faults) is the only way we will find out more about the reality we live in. That being said I am very concerned about how we can preserve the natural world, and I do not know the solution to that one either. Less consumption would be a start, and at the very worst it cannot hurt.

Again you can look up Gaia theory, which is about how the natural environment will be restored (albeit changed perhaps) after peaked population increases. It claims that humans are in fact unable to destroy the planet completely. It is speculative, so I am undecided, although it makes sense if you apply enormous time-spans and the fact that life can spring up in very hostile environments. 'Straw Dogs' gives a good account of it. In my eyes the theory is not a justification for natural destruction though, which some greedy humans will use it for.
_________________
<('-'<) <('-')> (^'-')>

[pcernie]

[pcernie]

[Stonespear]

It is awesome, eh? Pew pew pew
_________________
<('-'<) <('-')> (^'-')>