Female African elephants are evolving without tusks due to ivory poaching

Post by seattle_spring » Thu, Oct 28, 2021, 12:54 AM UTC

Ansil849 wrote: post #236

seattle_spring wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm, uh, not literally saying that at all. No one kills humans for sustenance, and cattle do not have the same value as humans. The absurdity is in your PETA-fueled absolutism of giving all living beings an equal level of value. I'm going to eat a huge, expensive steak tonight just to cancel out the energy you've put into this conversation.

You stated, plain as day: > killing a non-endangered animal for sustenance is more acceptable than killing an endangered animal for a necklace pendant (or any other reason). Any other questions? Humans are non-endangered animals, are they not? Therefore you are _literally_ saying killing humans for sustenance is more acceptable than killing an endangered animal for a necklace.

Post by max_ » Thu, Oct 28, 2021, 1:19 AM UTC

mulmen wrote: post #148

Is this actually evolution or just selective breeding? By killing elephants with tusks the poachers are favoring elephants with the no-tusk gene. This isn't a lot different than killing a dog that bites sheep, which is how we bred herding dogs. Or a wolf that eats your baby, which is how we domesticated dogs. This trait already existed so it certainly wasn't "engineered due to mass poaching for ivory" as claimed.

Post by Ansil849 » Thu, Oct 28, 2021, 1:25 AM UTC

sillysaurusx wrote: post #240

Ansil849 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You stated, plain as day: > killing a non-endangered animal for sustenance is more acceptable than killing an endangered animal for a necklace pendant (or any other reason). Any other questions? Humans are non-endangered animals, are they not? Therefore you are _literally_ saying killing humans for sustenance is more acceptable than killing an endangered animal for a necklace.

Listen. You're right. There, I gave you validation. But you're not going to change anyone's mind. So what's the point? Remember, the primary purpose of HN is entertainment (intellectual gratification). Internalizing this helped me break the habit of making such arguments "just to be right." I'll throw it back at you: Yes, I just ate two pork steaks. I have two more in the fridge. In fact, I'd personally murder a fami…

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 28, 2021, 2:07 AM UTC

bambax wrote: post #233

Elephants are not "evolving" and it's not a "response" to poaching! Poachers killed elephants with tusks, and as a consequence elephants without tusks have a reproductive advantage. This is more like dog breeding than about nature fighting back.

Post by aaron695 » Thu, Oct 28, 2021, 2:14 AM UTC

tjpnz wrote: post #43

Ansil849 wrote: post #15

For people who are not from the region but are criticizing poaching...maybe you should make sure your own house is clean before throwing stones at others. How many people critiquing this have industrial animal farms in their country, for example? And just to be clear: I don't mean that vile acts like poaching shouldn't be criticized, I more find the hypocrisy extremely grating, especially when it comes from meat eate…

I've been a vegetarian my whole life yet find this argument nonsensical. The animals being poached are in many cases on the verge of extinction, the animals raised on industrial farms are not. While I do find the idea of killing animals abhorrent the industrial process is significantly more humane than what happens to poached animals, which are typically left to slowly bleed to death or are permanently maimed.