(March 19, 2019 at 1:56 pm)Brian37 Wrote:(March 19, 2019 at 1:46 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Wild animals that are going to die should be left alone to do so. When resources (in this case, water) are scarce, what is supposed to happen is for enough of the organisms dependent on that resource to snuff it which lowers the population and allows the remaining animals to survive on the limited resource.
You're constantly yakking on and on about evolution, Brian, so here's a news flash for you: animals dying due to limited resources is one of the factors which makes natural selection operate. When you feed or water animals which would otherwise die, you are putting more stress on the population.
Boru
Yea and the same could be argued about humans. But I am damned sure if you are in distress and needed help you would not want others going, "Oh well, what are you going to do?.".
Ok fine, when you feel chest pain from a heart attack, don't call for help, because that is just nature's way of weeding out the weak.
Humans die too.
That's not the same. Resources for humans are abundant (at least where I live). If I die or don't die of a heart attack, it isn't going to affect the rest of my community, resource-wise. You're arguing something completely different. Remember - we're talking specifically about a woman giving water to a koala during a drought. The cases aren't remotely the same.
No one - least of all me - wants to see a cute, cuddly koala die of thirst. But what I REALLY don't want to see is wild animal populations put at risk because people can't let nature take its course. There's really no difference (other than one of scale) between what this woman did, and cutting down a eucalyptus tree. In both cases, she's altering the balance between resources and the koalas that need them. She did a bad thing.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
