I don't hate everything my species does.

[Jackie]

This following video gives me a severe case of, "AWE!" Australia suffers from heat waves just like California and it is nice to see humans care about wildlife.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

1.  Pity the koala didn't eviscerate that idiot.

2.  I hope the woman gets caught and fined.  What she did is illegal.

Boru

[Jackie]

1.  Pity the koala didn't eviscerate that idiot.

2.  I hope the woman gets caught and fined.  What she did is illegal.

Boru

How is preventing an animal from dehydrating wrong?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Interfering with wildlife is illegal in Australia (as it should be everywhere).  Feeding/watering animals causes them to become dependent on humans, which (long term) does more harm than good.

Boru

[Jackie]

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

[Jackie]

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.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

[Jackie]

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

Considering that human beings are the most destructive species causing the most damage currently, this is funny.

Sorry if you are going to say, "let nature take it's course" regarding the Koala, then don't call 911 when you have chest pains.

Otherwise all you are arguing is that humans are an apex, and we both know we are not.

I saved a turtle last year, no I am not sorry and I would do it again.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

Considering that human beings are the most destructive species causing the most damage currently, this is funny.

Sorry if you are going to say, "let nature take it's course" regarding the Koala, then don't call 911 when you have chest pains.

Otherwise all you are arguing is that humans are an apex, and we both know we are not.

I saved a turtle last year, no I am not sorry and I would do it again.

1.  So, your solution is to have humans do even MORE damage?

2.  I already explained why this is a stupid argument (and it wouldn't do me much good to call 911 for anything. The emergency number here is 111, but I wouldn't expect you to know that, you provincial boob).

3.  Not arguing that humans are an apex anything, just trying to point out that saving one animal may not be the best option for that species as a whole.

4.  Good for you.  You saved a turtle.  That was very nice of you.

Boru