Is Technology Bad For Animals?

[Incorp 2,084]

So recently this thought occurred to me: is technology, buildings, and stuff ruining animals?  I mean, like we are taking space from their habitat, and if a specific animal annoys us, we set out to exterminate them. Once, I lived in a place where there are a lot cats. Everywhere you'll find a cat, so I think the government started feeding them some stuff to stop them from reproducing. And like, isn't that messing with nature? I know there are places set aside to animals, but still, I dunno if it's good. Looking at a bird on a car got me thinking. Maybe getting too advanced isn't good for nature?

So post your thoughts about it

[Venerable 2,970]

On 5/18/2022 at 7:14 PM, Incorp said:

And like, isn't that messing with nature?

I feel that some amount of intervention by a more advanced species is necessary to maintain the natural balance... That's how nature works — this is best illustrated by any general food chain. The population of each species is kept in check by another species — remove one species, and everything becomes chaos.

In our case, there's no one to keep our own actions in check except ourselves, which is why we have problems...

So controlling the growth of another (lower) species is fine, according to me, but even that is futile if humans can't control themselves. We also need to keep ethics in mind while deciding the fate of some other species, and that complicates matters.

On 5/18/2022 at 7:14 PM, Incorp said:

Maybe getting too advanced isn't good for nature?

Yep! This is why "sustainable development" is the need of the hour! It is human to explore, to invent, to strive for more — but at what cost?

[alkyng 3,080]

I think obviously yes. Our existing especially with the technology is very threatening for animals, this is why vegan exist.  But be honest, do we wish to abort most of technology we have just for animals?  Most of us don't think a bit about animals and all of the kindness is just for a house cat.

In case of companies who take large areas and kill many species, what will make them care about animals? Company is searching for its profit, it have investors and no one want the company to waste any penny for a non-profitable thing.  The same thing is applied for governments, why will they force companies or people for a better treatment with animals?  All of what you see is about interests firstly.

For me, no I don't want the technology go just because animals, if it doesn't touch me directly. I love science and be up to date with technology, don't want them to stop proceeding.

[LambSauce 1,889]

Humans are animals.

[Incorp 2,084]

8 hours ago, LambSauce said:

Humans are animals.

Depends on how you look at it. We humans are above animals in terms of intelligence, free will, spirit, etc. 
humans are in charge of taking care of animals if you look at it from a biblical perspective.

[LambSauce 1,889]

3 hours ago, Incorp said:

Depends on how you look at it. We humans are above animals in terms of intelligence, free will, spirit, etc. 
humans are in charge of taking care of animals if you look at it from a biblical perspective.

In biology, an animal is defined as a multicellular eukaryote with an internal digestive tract. Humans fit that description.

With regards to the Bible, I would defer to something like this.

[Incorp 2,084]

5 hours ago, LambSauce said:

In biology, an animal is defined as a multicellular eukaryote with an internal digestive tract. Humans fit that description.

True. But we are obviously higher than them. We can kill them all if we wanted to. The world is our oyster right? And anyways humans don’t count as harmed by tech xD

[LambSauce 1,889]

2 hours ago, Incorp said:

True. But we are obviously higher than them. We can kill them all if we wanted to. The world is our oyster right? And anyways humans don’t count as harmed by tech xD

Well yeah, humans have much more evolved brains than other animals, even other apes. That’s what helped us grow as a species and populate most of the planet.

And I would say humans can be harmed by tech too, just as other animals are. It’s how we use that tech that is the question. Generally speaking though, I’d say that taking an animal out of its natural environment would be the most harmful, which sort of already happens in a way because of humans and their tech (e.g. by chopping down forests and placing roads instead). But that is also applicable to humans - after all, we can’t survive on the moon or in the ocean without some sort of tech to help us.

Edited May 28, 2022 by LambSauce
Grammar

[Incorp 2,084]

40 minutes ago, LambSauce said:

Well yeah, humans have much more evolved brains than other animals, even other apes.

Tbh I don’t really believe in evolution xD 

 

41 minutes ago, LambSauce said:

taking an animal out of its natural environment would be the most harmful, which sort of already happens in a way because of humans and their tech (e.g. by chopping down forests and placing roads instead).

+1

 

41 minutes ago, LambSauce said:

But that is also applicable to humans - after all, we can’t survive on the moon or in the ocean without some sort of tech to help us.

Hm true. 
but then humans are meant to live on land. I heard scientists are trying to live on Mars or something. Like, they haven’t got enough space to pollute? Why move to Mars bruh, so unnecessary.

if they think earth is done for why not use their smarts to try to fix things

[LambSauce 1,889]

27 minutes ago, Incorp said:

I heard scientists are trying to live on Mars or something. Like, they haven’t got enough space to pollute? Why move to Mars bruh, so unnecessary.

Overpopulation on Earth could be a viable reason for that. But I don't see it happening any time soon.

31 minutes ago, Incorp said:

Tbh I don’t really believe in evolution

The theory of evolution by natural selection is so far the best explanation of the facts. In fact we see evolution occurring today, for example, some species of bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. Moreover, remember all those new Covid-19 variants that kept popping up? That's evolution at work.

It's really a foundational principle of modern biology, supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and accepted by the vast majority of scientists (even religious ones).

[Incorp 2,084]

On 5/29/2022 at 3:35 AM, LambSauce said:

Overpopulation on Earth could be a viable reason for that. But I don't see it happening any time soon.

The theory of evolution by natural selection is so far the best explanation of the facts. In fact we see evolution occurring today, for example, some species of bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. Moreover, remember all those new Covid-19 variants that kept popping up? That's evolution at work.

It's really a foundational principle of modern biology, supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and accepted by the vast majority of scientists (even religious ones).

Acceptance doesnt mwan it is true. Though evolution aupports natural selection, natural selection does not support evolution. Through natural selection, no new kind is created. 

And besides, if our brains were evolved, who knows whether our thought processes are correct? What if through chsnce, our reasoning abilities werent perfect. Who would know? What if we are all maniacs, but we dont think so as there are so many of us, we thino it is normal? If we are a product of evolution, there is no knowing whether we are sane or not. 

Also, how do you explain souls into evolution? 

On 5/29/2022 at 3:35 AM, LambSauce said:

Moreover, remember all those new Covid-19 variants that kept popping up? That's evolution at work

No, it isnt. They are variants; not a new kind of virus. 

With natural selection, animals just dont suddenly become a new species. 

I mean, a dinosour is the ancestor of a chicken? What?!! D you really beliece that? There is no way through natural selection that dinosours, which are REPTILES, can turn into a chicken, which is a BIRD. it just doesnt work that way. Though natural selection does happen, it does not change the kind of animal. 

[Dopamine 2,161]

55 minutes ago, Incorp said:

There is no way through natural selection that dinosours, which are REPTILES, can turn into a chicken, which is a BIRD

I think here is a bit of an issue that you are conflating terms that just cannot be compared easily. Chicken is a species, while dinosaurs are an extremely diverse group of animals belonging to the clade of Dinosauria.

Now of course if you take a sauropod like Brachiosaurus, you wont find many commonalities to modern birds, and it makes sense, because in fact sauropods were a dead end branch that do not have modern day counterpart.

Conversely, let´s take a look at therapods, from which the actual avian dinosaurs arose (as a branch).

This is a very simplified clade Paraaves (eumaniraptora) that belongs to therapods, including avian dinosaurs and the closest other therapod clade - Deynonychosauria . As you can see, the changes here are extremely gradual.

For example, where would you put this guy?

Spoiler

It´s the archaeopteryx, do you think It´s a ´´dinosaur´´ or a ´´bird´´?

The matter of the fact is we put names of species to the specimens along the Phylogenetic tree, but those are quite arbitrary, mainly helping us to visualizes the changes along the line. There never is going to be an actual parent - offspring couple where the respective animals are of separate species.

Sorry for my long ramble here, I´m just a geek .

[Incorp 2,084]

11 hours ago, frederik123456 said:

where would you put this guy?

  Hide contents

It´s the archaeopteryx, do you think It´s a ´´dinosaur´´ or a ´´bird´´?

It can be both: an extinct bird or an extinct dinosaur. I searched the name on google, the pictures showed it have feathers, but there is no real proof of that. 
also, as a Christian I do not believe in evolution, because scientists claimed that the dinosaurs existed millions of years ago. Then, they go on and said some are carnivores and others are herbivores. However, it is estimated that the earth began in 4000 B.C. According to the Bible anyways. ( don’t hold it as the truth, I might be wrong. But I’m pretty sure that at 4000 B.C. Adam and Eve lived.) So, before 400 B.C., no animals would have killed for food. They all feeded on plants. It was not until after Adam and Eve left the garden of eden, that animals began to eat each other afaik. So it is impossible for dinosaurs to be carnivores before 4000 BC.

[Dopamine 2,161]

7 minutes ago, Incorp said:

but there is no real proof of that

Well there is, just check out the picture in the spoiler of my post, in the fossil there are clear marks after feathers.

Either way, I am not going to challenge your beliefs, just wanted to offer a more detailed view behind the ´´chicken from dinosaurs´´ hypothesis, as something that might seem ridiculous at first glance may become quite plausible after you dig a bit deeper into the matter.

[Incorp 2,084]

9 minutes ago, frederik123456 said:

Well there is, just check out the picture in the spoiler of my post, in the fossil there are clear marks after feathers.

Either way, I am not going to challenge your beliefs, just wanted to offer a more detailed view behind the ´´chicken from dinosaurs´´ hypothesis, as something that might seem ridiculous at first glance may become quite plausible after you dig a bit deeper into the matter.

Yeah yeah  thought a tl:dr would be nice

[LambSauce 1,889]

17 hours ago, Incorp said:

Acceptance doesnt mwan it is true. Though evolution aupports natural selection, natural selection does not support evolution.

First of all, let me just clear one thing up. Accepting evolution does not necessarily make a person an atheist. Even the vast majority of Christians accept evolution as true.

Natural selection is simply the mechanism by which evolution occurs. It describes how the genes of those animals in a population that are better adapted to their environment are more likely to be passed on the the next generations. Evolution by natural selection is the basis of modern biology.

17 hours ago, Incorp said:

Through natural selection, no new kind is created. 

What is your definition of a “kind”? If a “kind” has the same definition as “species”, then it doesn’t work because speciation (formation of new and distinct species) occurs and it’s an observable fact. For example, scientists see the formation of new and unique bacteria species all the time. If a “kind” means something else (e.g. kingdom, phyla) then that doesn’t contradict evolution in any way. Moreover scientists can prove that all living things are related using genetic evidence.

17 hours ago, Incorp said:

And besides, if our brains were evolved, who knows whether our thought processes are correct? What if through chsnce, our reasoning abilities werent perfect. Who would know? What if we are all maniacs, but we dont think so as there are so many of us, we thino it is normal? If we are a product of evolution, there is no knowing whether we are sane or not. 

We don’t know all the facts about reality and consciousness. Just because we don’t know them doesn’t mean we should say these things are supernatural or originate from “god”.

17 hours ago, Incorp said:

Also, how do you explain souls into evolution? 

What is a soul? Can we observe it? Can we test it? Can it be measured? If not, then it’s no more than mere speculation.

17 hours ago, Incorp said:

No, it isnt. They are variants; not a new kind of virus. 

A “variant” is just a non-scientific word to describe new sub-species.

17 hours ago, Incorp said:

With natural selection, animals just dont suddenly become a new species. 

Correct. They don’t. No creature ever gives birth to a creature that is fundamentally different. Evolution is “descent with inherent modification”, meaning that each creature is simply a modified version of its ancestors. Over many, many years the creature will perhaps end up looking and behaving quite differently to its ancestors. This happens slowly via random mutations, which is an observable fact in biology.

17 hours ago, Incorp said:

I mean, a dinosour is the ancestor of a chicken? What?!! D you really beliece that? There is no way through natural selection that dinosours, which are REPTILES, can turn into a chicken, which is a BIRD. it just doesnt work that way.

Modern day birds ARE dinosaurs. They are the one of the groups of descendants of avian dinosaurs (all the other groups of descendants being extinct). Once again, we can prove this using genetic evidence.

17 hours ago, Incorp said:

Though natural selection does happen, it does not change the kind of animal. 

Again, there is no such thing as a “kind”. It is a made up, non-scientific term that means different things to different Creationists.

4 hours ago, Incorp said:

It can be both: an extinct bird or an extinct dinosaur. I searched the name on google, the pictures showed it have feathers, but there is no real proof of that. 

Actually there are a bunch of recently-discovered fossils that show that most dinosaurs (including velociraptors, interestingly enough) had feathers. That is contrary to what was generally accepted before but, as is always the case in science, new evidence leads to a revision of current theories.

4 hours ago, Incorp said:

as a Christian I do not believe in evolution

There is really no reason not to accept both if you are already religious. Evolution and belief in the Christian God are not incompatible. In any case, the Book of Genesis can’t be taken literally because it makes no sense if it’s taken literally.

4 hours ago, Incorp said:

However, it is estimated that the earth began in 4000 B.C. According to the Bible anyways. ( don’t hold it as the truth, I might be wrong. But I’m pretty sure that at 4000 B.C. Adam and Eve lived.) So, before 400 B.C., no animals would have killed for food. They all feeded on plants. It was not until after Adam and Eve left the garden of eden, that animals began to eat each other afaik. So it is impossible for dinosaurs to be carnivores before 4000 BC.

Scientists have countless dating methods to calculate with a good degree of accuracy the age of the Earth. All the geologic and fossil evidence seem to fit with the idea that the Earth is billions of years old.

If you are a believer, the Bible simply cannot be taken literally. Too many problems arise if you try to do so. In my opinion, it is a work of mythology written by men, but that is of course my opinion and I can’t stop you from believing what you choose to believe.

[Dopamine 2,161]

20 minutes ago, LambSauce said:

Actually there are a bunch of recently-discovered fossils that show that most dinosaurs (including velociraptors, interestingly enough) had feathers.

I think most therapods did. The way I understand it is most of them had only down or some sort of semi-plum feathers, function of which was mainly protection and/or thermoregulation. The real divide arose with the gradual addition of structural integrity to the acral feathers of some therapods that eventually branched of as avian dinosaurs - gain of function like impact damping, gliding and eventually active flight.

(I presume change of bone structure occurred aswell, but didn't really read much on that yet).

[LambSauce 1,889]

6 minutes ago, frederik123456 said:

I think most therapods did. The way I understand it is most of them had only down or some sort of semi-plum feathers, function of which was mainly protection and/or thermoregulation. The real divide arose with the gradual addition of structural integrity to the acral feathers of some therapods that eventually branched of as avian dinosaurs - gain of function like impact damping, gliding and eventually active flight.

(I presume change of bone structure occurred aswell, but didn't really read much on that yet).

Correct. A large group of dinosaurs had feathers or semi-feathers; not “most dinosaurs” as I stated.

Here I am referring to many dinosaurs in popular culture and movies which are usually depicted without feathers when in fact they did have them (most notably velociraptors in the Jurassic World movies lol).

[Dopamine 2,161]

11 minutes ago, LambSauce said:

Here I am referring to many dinosaurs in popular culture and movies which are usually depicted without feathers when in fact they did have them (most notably velociraptors in the Jurassic World movies lol).

Yeah, also in many movies I think it is just the effort to make the creatures look more terrifying, by not including the feathers, and leaving teeth and prominent skull features exposed (While most of them would probably be hidden partially or fully by lips, fat, skin and other stuff). It always reminds me of this meme when I see something like that .

[alkyng 3,080]

1 hour ago, LambSauce said:

 Accepting evolution does not necessarily make a person an atheist. Even the vast majority of Christians accept evolution as true.

1 hour ago, LambSauce said:

. Evolution and belief in the Christian God are not incompatible.

Realistically if someone going to believe evolution while he is religious, then he is lying on himself. If human came from another species not from adam and eve, then what's the meaning by creation, and if someone reached this distortion, then what the thing he will take literally.

[LambSauce 1,889]

7 minutes ago, firety31 said:

Realistically if someone going to believe evolution while he is religious, then he is lying on himself. If human came from another species not from adam and eve, then what's the meaning by creation, and if someone reached this distortion, then what the thing he will take literally.

Not necessarily. All a religious person would need to do in that case is read Genesis metaphorically instead of literally - read it as poetry instead of history.

[Incorp 2,084]

On 6/4/2022 at 8:30 PM, firety31 said:

Realistically if someone going to believe evolution while he is religious, then he is lying on himself. If human came from another species not from adam and eve, then what's the meaning by creation, and if someone reached this distortion, then what the thing he will take literally.

So true man. With evolution, God is out of the picture. However there are many other religious groups other than Christians, so it depends on your religion. 

 

On 6/4/2022 at 8:40 PM, LambSauce said:

Not necessarily. All a religious person would need to do in that case is read Genesis metaphorically instead of literally - read it as poetry instead of history.

It isn’t supposed to be read metaphorically. I think you have a materialistic point of view, so you are just trying to find a way for Christians to be able to believe in evolution, as well as God. But sorry, nope, can’t happen. If a Christian truly believes in evolution, then he is a big hypocrite lol. 
i think, evolution is supposed to be a ‘force of nature’. As in, it just goes on and on and on, like the water cycle and such. But that’s bogus. I mean, if evolution is true we should be able to see some proof of evolution in action NOW. give me a few examples of evolution.
So with evolution, explain to me the very beginning of the world. I think I can give a pretty good counter argument  

[alkyng 3,080]

18 hours ago, Incorp said:

So true man. With evolution, God is out of the picture. However there are many other religious groups other than Christians, so it depends on your religion.

I'm not a christian but muslim. But what I mean, is whatever your religion or sect, if you believe in one god not like (reincarnation or karma), then you just lie on yourself if you believed in evolution. I mean here specifically human evolution, not other species/animal evolution. Because it what's mentioned directly Adam-and-Eve.

If I've believed in human evolution, then I will just leave the islam, don't need to lie on myself or distort it, because what I will benefit from that? If it appeared for me that evolution of human is correct, then that means just every religion is wrong or human made and no need to tire myself in distortion of a thing that I know 100% is incorrect

[LambSauce 1,889]

@Incorp @firety31

Here is a list of evidence for evolution by the American National Academy of Sciences: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/

Evolution 101 is also an introduction of the subject to beginners by Berkeley University: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/

Evolution is not a belief. A belief is defined as something which is accepted as true or existing, especially without proof. However this is not the case with evolution as there is overwhelming evidence for it in the form of fossils and DNA. So you can’t just say, “I don’t accept evolution” because that would be like saying, “I don’t accept that the Earth is really a sphere”. To do so would be to ignore all the evidence.

And before you say, “it’s just a theory” please look up the definition of a scientific theory. Using this definition, gravity is also a theory, as is atomic theory, the theory of relativity and the germ theory of disease. These, along with the theory of evolution, are all established scientific theories. This is not the same as the everyday usage of the word “theory”.

Evolution is extremely well understood. There are no grey areas or disagreements about it among scientists. Evolution also has nothing, and I repeat, absolutely nothing, to do with the origin of life or the universe. It is simply an explanation for how life diversified. Diversified simply means how life branched out and became more varied.

Also even the majority of religious groups accept evolution as true: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/06/how-highly-religious-americans-view-evolution-depends-on-how-theyre-asked-about-it/

In fact, most religious people not only accept evolution but believe that God was somehow involved in the process (theistic evolution). On the other hand, the belief that evolution is completely untrue is very uncommon among most religious groups. For example, in the US, Christians who accept that the Bible is literally true and therefore reject Evolution are a minority.

I would highly recommend taking the time to read through the links I posted before replying.

Edited June 23, 2022 by LambSauce
Fixed links

[alkyng 3,080]

42 minutes ago, LambSauce said:

@Incorp @firety31

 

I know this post may not be completely for me, but I wasn't here for arguing about evolution. I just was about to correct the notion that human evolution doesn't contradict with religion (who believe in god).  If I get convinced that human evolution is true, I will simply leave the religion and wont look for any other religion.  I don't care about the obvious distortions, like there are who said speed of the light was mentioned directly in quran (islam's book), even though I read the article and it was just unreal, I believe in speed of the light but it wasn't mentioned in quran.

I understand what theorem means, it's common in science like, Theorem: In any triangle, the sum of the three interior angles is 180.  Theorem doesn't mean it's wrong, or not agreed. Inreal it's a proofed theorem.   So I wasn't arguing about the word theorem.  Also I don't believe in flat earth, obviously.  Who argue about word theorem is the same as the one who argue why you said earth is sphere it's in real an oval, you ignorant. Mostly those are flat earthers trying to convince you you don't even understand the concept you believe (spherical earth), while it's in real just a common sense.   Sorry for the length (or if I went far from the topic). and I will read the links you mentioned later.