Piano Found at top of Ben Nevis ( 3 days old )

[Royal Flush]

I don't think Man should interfere with Nature

We have been trusted as stewards of God's creation, so surely interfering is correct...

I'm not sure that's true. Who says we have been entrusted with the stewardship of God's creation?

But whether that's right or wrong, I really don't think we should interfere with nature. Animals & plant life have been around a lot longer than homo sapiens and survived very nicely without us for millions of years.

Many species died out long before we came about.

[tikay]

I don't think Man should interfere with Nature

We have been trusted as stewards of God's creation, so surely interfering is correct...

I'm not sure that's true. Who says we have been entrusted with the stewardship of God's creation?

But whether that's right or wrong, I really don't think we should interfere with nature. Animals & plant life have been around a lot longer than homo sapiens and survived very nicely without us for millions of years.

Many species died out long before we came about.

Yes, Nature doing it's amazingly clever thing, without interference by Man. There are checks & balances in Nature, & they are there for a reason.

There is no definitive "yes or no" to this, but it's always intrigued me, should we interfere or not. On balance, I think not.

But you never answred the question, "who said Man was entrusted with the Stewardship of God's creation?".

[Royal Flush]

Surely man interfering is nature at work....

And i read it in some book...

[bobby1]

Surely man interfering is nature at work....

And i read it in some book...

Actually that is very profound, if an animal kills an animal it is natures way, so if a man kills an animal is that not the next step of natures way?

Please note, i have no wish to kill anything, its just a thought.

[tikay]

Wow, that's an interesting way of looking at it.

Still not sure I agree, though.

Animals kill each other for practical reasons, to survive, to eat, but it's an instinct thing. Humans do it in a pre-meditated way, because we think we know best - but often, we don't.

Is destroying rainforests for commercial gain "stewardship"? When a rainforest is destroyed, a lot more than trees die - whole habitats die with it.

A whale, clealy in distress, is washed up on a beach. Whole hordes of well-meaning people try & rescue it, there are cranes & boats & flotation devices & cameras & stuff. In 19 cases out of 20, the whale dies anyway, but only after being pushed & shoved & manhandled for days. The poor thing was always gonna die, & it was denied the right to a peaceful & dignified death.

I'n very mixed up about all this. On balance, I think we have messed up bad, & if what we have done to animals in the last 100 years is anything to go by, we should leave Nature alone.

[RED-DOG]

I have I a different view on this to most. I am an animal lover, but I see nothing wrong with hunting, if you eat what you kill. Most hunters are the best conservationists I know.

A lot of Britan's wildlife wouldn't exist today if it wasn't for hunting, habitat would be bulldozed flat if it wasn't for the phesant or the fox. People decry killing animals that have lead a good natural life, and then the eat bacon from pigs that have never seen the daylight, or eggs from chickens that live their entire lives squashed together in a pen so small they can never extend their wing from birth to death.

You will never eradicate the gray squirrel, but the red may soon be just a memory. the cull is for the greater good

[Royal Flush]

Wow, that's an interesting way of looking at it.

Mankind is the only rational species on the planet so it is 'natural'

Taking down a rainforrest is practical for a rational species as they need the wood for something else, so it is nature at work...

[thetank]

In the 1930s, Australia had a major beetle problem.

The beetles were decimating the sugar cane crop in Queensland. The solution to the problem was to introduce the cane toad into the ecosystem. Cane toads love nothing more than to eat beetles all day long.

100 were brought over from Hawaii, in a big box full of toads. They were bred in captivity till they had around 3,000 toads. The motley crew of amphibious slimy beasts were let loose on the local beetle population. Problem solved.

Or was it? The plan went tits up. The cane toad can't jump high enough to eat the beetles that set up shop mostly in the upper stalks of sugar cane. They were a bit useless when it came to doing their job.

That's not to say the cane toads weren't successful. They ate everything else instead. Other insects, birds eggs and poor old (much cuter) native froggies. What's more, the cane toad is poisonous and they killed a heap of would be predators aswell.

So successful that they've bred all over Australia, and are wiping out rare species left right and centre in the 12th most bio-deverse nation on the planet. To make matters worse, they don't smell very nice. The Australian government is currently spending millions of dollars to try to eradicate the toad.


Red squirrels are much cuter than grey squirrels. Grey squirrels threaten red squirrels.

Plan A - Kill a whole bunch of grey squirrels and hope for the best.

Plan B - Let nature take it's course.

I know which one I would choose.

If, in 100 years time, we have to explain to our children why human beings are no longer the masters of the planet. That we are now the servant of the bees and wasps, we shall have to explain that it was all because some bright spark wanted to kill a heap of squirrels so that another bunch of squirrels might flourish.

[thetank]

Wow, that's an interesting way of looking at it.

Mankind is the only rational species on the planet so it is 'natural'

Taking down a rainforrest is practical for a rational species as they need the wood for something else, so it is nature at work...

Biodiversity is a good thing for the human race.

What if we find a cure for super-flu, HIV, or Cancer only to discover that the vital ingredient is produced by a plant that we killed off decades ago. All because we couldn't be bothered to recycle and forest responsibly.

The biggest experts in the field, if truth be told, have no idea what the eradication of one species will have on the ecosystem on the whole. Chain reactions cannot be predicted. If we mess too much, we might be slaves to the bees.

[fergus8]

"ITS THE BEES I TELL YA, FAR TOO AMBITIOUS"

[thetank]

We'll wait till the fools eradicate the squirrel.
Then, Pinky, we shall make our move.

[bobby1]

Two bees or not two bees, that is the question.

[Dewi_cool]

I agree wholeheartedly with this thread

[Hairydude]

Was it not the other way about with the squirrels tho- we already had Red squirrels in Britain but we introduced their evil arch nemesis DR grey squirrel into our wildlife and they didn't like our reddys that much and so the red population got decimated- so I dont think by removing the greys would do anything other than let the red squirrel flourish again to the top- and the reds would still eat all the neccessary insects to keep the insect population in check

So the greys werent here in the 1st place and surely wouldnt make a difference if they were removed!!!

[b4matt]

I agree wholeheartedly with this thread