1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Clearing wildlife areas to build houses for people

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Roel, Sep 13, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Roel

    Roel Well-Known Member

    I think we should have an country like australia, and try to get every type of animal there so they can be wild, like their instincts tell them. So noone has to kill an tiger because he/she kills an biker that rides trhough their territorium (happend irl)

    animals also have souls etc, not only humans.

    what is your opinion on having all wildlife animals on 1 continent or something ?
  2. DarkSpace

    DarkSpace Well-Known Member Coder

    if you may or may not know already
    some countries take pride in animals they have, so moving them all out to another side of planet will kindof make a country forgotten

    for example
    China and Pandas.
    Australia and Kangaroos
    and so on

    many people go on holidays because of the wild life to those contries, to see the rare animals and enjoy them self.

    so i dont think its a good idea to just take all animals and put them on one continent. leave them where they are and provide more protection and give more animal rights to keep those few animals we have now
  3. Roel

    Roel Well-Known Member

    true, but it wont be long untill zoos have pandas and kangeroos too.

    also, i meant it as protection for the animals, because they are wild. thats their instinct. But when living amongst humans they get killed when they attack a human that is in their state of mind being aggressive towards them (mostly territorium issues) or just if the animal sees it as a prey
  4. kefin

    kefin Well-Known Member

    Great idea. Although it should be a long continent (vertically) like America so we can put all species on there, then Eurasia would be the land of the people and Africa is our waste dump.

    Ideally, the animals should have their own planet.
  5. BeKo

    BeKo Member

    I think your idea is impossible to implement.
    Some animals need for example a forest to live.
    Others might need ice or whatever.
    If animals get lost in other territories, they probably would have no chance to survive.
    Thats only 1 aspect.

    I think our only opportunity is to provide more protection for them like w8dark already mentioned
  6. Cuckoo

    Cuckoo Fuckeh Yuuu Donor

    well my reply is more a respond tot he title, i think building houses is shit fuck those houses making houses for drug addicts who lost every think cause they fucked their lives up with the drugs, FUCK THEM let them live on the streets, i mean killing hunderst of animals just for some stupid drug addict that thinks he isnt treaded well! comon i think we have anough houses and i think we should just leave nature alone the homeless will get houses elsewhere anyways w8 i agree that those countrys are proud of their animals but they are also killing them so i dont think i would be wrong getting some animals to a place where no1 ever goes
  7. kefin

    kefin Well-Known Member

    It's not impossible, rather hard.
    Forests are on all continents.
    Ice is on the continent of America (So is/are tropical places, moist places, dry etc...)
    Animals adapt, most of them have no home + they can make a new nest.
  8. BeKo

    BeKo Member

    Did u ever saw a icebear in a forest?
    Maybe in "Lost" ...
    Additionally, the animals would have more enemys. Mainly those who cant defend themselves, dont you agree?
  9. kefin

    kefin Well-Known Member

    Ever seen ice Road truckers? That's near the north pole north of Canada, which is a part of America.
    Animals would have more enemies? No, they haven't naturally evolved with each other to make these new creatures their enemy at once.

    Of course som will die out and some will flourish but that's a natural thing we have to accept. It's all about struggle.
  10. Roel

    Roel Well-Known Member

    Well if were doing this to protect the animals, its not acceptional that some will just die, lol.

    But my point was, that animals mostly have to adapt to humans, and even though some like it (domestic animals like cats, dogs, some birds), most animals rather live in the wild, hunt other animals and be theirself.. We kinda took that from them
  11. highlights

    highlights Well-Known Member

    there is no proff that humans have souls and it is pretty unlogical with souls (your mind is stored in your brain and where/what is the souls)
    so why would animals have souls?

    putting all animals in 1 contry would mess up the eco system (and many animals will die out if they are not in the right envoriment)
    even moving 1 animal type may cause alot of trouble to the animals which already lives there

    just image how it is going for a moose to survive in australia?
  12. lego

    lego Well-Known Member

    Clearing wildlife areas contribute to the battle against homelessness. It destroys the homes of many many animals though.

    As cynical as it sounds, as the pros & cons go right now, a just decision would probably have as much basis for itself as a coin flip would. This has been a back-and-forth for ages now; "should humans or animals be put first?"

    My personal belief? Do it if you have to, don't do it if you don't. It may sound obvious but humans like to burn shit they don't need to.
  13. Nazgul1444

    Nazgul1444 Dedicated Supporter Dedicated Donor

    Noone knows what soul is. It's still thinking of us, no proof so far.

    True, a few times people were doing this, examples:
    1. The lakes in afrika where european people have released some kind of fish, that fish killed all other fishes in the lake, cuase it was to strong + not know ( so other animals had no protection.

    2. In america they released also a fish, killed everything to.

    3. They released a octopus, is killing everything to.

    It's bad to change animals homechelter, everything will get fucked up. Dont even think otherwise, cause it's silly. Animals will kill each other, the strongest one survive.
  14. blazefall

    blazefall Member

    The suppression of the ecosystem is inevitable and i think they should continue clearing wildlife areas to some degree.
  15. lolbewbz

    lolbewbz Member

    No , manny animals will need different needs , so putting all the animals on 1 content wont work.
  16. seansu

    seansu Banned Banned

    why should the animals need to been moved, if there are to much animals on 1 piece of land some will die cuss their is not enough food.

    but humans want to life only think about em selfs, ow there is not enough food here? we just ship it from countrys who have no food to eat but the rich men will only become richer. this looks like it has nothing to do whit this discusion but why should we need more living space. whe should just stop breeding the fuck out of our wifes. use a fucking condom and 1 child a family just like china. wont need taht much more houses. and let the older people care about em selfs, animals only take care for some one if it is profitable for their existance. old people are only making it harder for us.
  17. xminor

    xminor New Member

    In my opinion theres anough people on the world anyway =] Stop destroying Wildlife =]!.
  18. Suarez

    Suarez CCPLZ FIFA 12 Champion Donor Retired

    Every animal on the planet has evolved over millions of years so that they are capable of living in the environments that they inhabit.

    If you moved all the animals to one continent, a huge percentage of them would become extinct.

    A small example:

    I live in England, I believe the largest native carnivore we have is the badger, it has no natural predators and goes about its business quite nicely. Now imagine putting this animal in the same area as any carnivore bigger than it(wolves, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, cheetahs, snakes, lizards, crocodiles, alligators). Every single last badger would be eaten, because lets face it, why would any of these predators waste time and energy chasing their usual prey when they have an animal there that has no idea it is about to be eaten. This will in turn mean that the natural prey of these predators will thrive because they are not being eaten as much, which will mean over population of, for example the gazelle(one of the big cats of Africas favourite foods), now because of their large numbers, they will need more of whatever food they eat, until their population becomes too much for the amount of food available to them, which will end up in their eventual decline in numbers and possible extinction.

    In a scenario like this, the only animal I could imagine thriving are the scavengers like vultures and hyenas etc... because they will eat all the corpses that will be piling up because of starvation among the majority of species.

    So, your idea is maybe not stupid, but certainly one of the least thought out ideas I have ever heard of.

    Take a look at what can happen when what seems like a small change in an ecosystem can totally fuck everything up:

    Rabbits in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Eugene Schieffelin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Eastern gray squirrel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  19. Scum 72638

    Scum 72638 Go with the flow. Banned

    Let's look at this argument in simple terms:
    Humans are animals as are wildlife; How do you think we would all get on in a small room?
    I think not too well; wildlife would be the same.
    They cause us no harm, we do constantly cause them harm though, so if anything they should put us all on a small island.
  20. S3NSA

    S3NSA back in black Administrator

    That would be impossible considering a significant amount of animals have evolved in accordance to their habitat.
    We're not just talking about woods, rainforests or deserts, we're talking about specific woods, specific areas of rainforests and specific parts of the desert.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page