I'm all for nature taking it's course but it's a little messed up to just record instead of helping out. Who knows, maybe the baby squirrel threw the first punch and had it coming.
The snake deserves to eat doesnt it? It is as important as the baby squirrel. So who do you help? Help the squirrel and save a baby but the snake starves? Or maybe the snake doesnt starve but eats another squirrels baby?
There are no winners and losers in this, only life. This is part of the attitude we combat.
I'd make an intelligent decision neither creature is capable of understanding, in my own best interests. If I had a barn infested with mice and an attic being shredded by squirrels I'd shoot the mother and let the snake have his dinner. If the squirrel population was declining I'd free the kid. I shoot rattlesnakes here and save Bullsnakes, not because one is better or worse than the other for nature but because one can kill livestock and children and the other can't. I've also got a mountain lion on my property that I won't allow anyone to hunt.
You combat this attitude all you want but I'm not going to watch a crocodile hunt a child either. I put mouse traps in my crawl space and kill flies in the kitchen. I toss carp on shore to die when I go fishing. Nature can take its coarse elsewhere, I make my environment more suitable for me. By your logic you shouldn't pull weeds either, let them flourish and absorb nutrients from your garden soil. Bacteria is pretty important in nature too but I'll bet you've taken antibiotics to kill some.
How is bringing up different aspects of the food chain falsely equivalent? Crocodiles gotta eat, who am I to free that child from it's teeth? Crocodile might starve or maybe find another child to eat. By your logic I should just keep recording and let the crocodile have it's dinner. "There are no winners or losers just life". Fuck that kid, reptiles gotta eat too. I'm exaggerating to debate that morality should play a part if we intervene with nature. If you wouldn't save a baby squirrel from a snake in your front yard where would you draw the line and change the course of nature?
Spare the life of the fly on your kitchen sink laying eggs in your food? Spare the wolf eating your neighbor's lamb? Let the mice shit on your canned food in the basement? Let weeds take over your vegetable garden? It's just nature and there's no winners and losers right?
I'm all for nature taking it's course but it's a little messed up to just record instead of helping out. Who knows, maybe the baby squirrel threw the first punch and had it coming.
The snake deserves to eat doesnt it? It is as important as the baby squirrel. So who do you help? Help the squirrel and save a baby but the snake starves? Or maybe the snake doesnt starve but eats another squirrels baby?
There are no winners and losers in this, only life. This is part of the attitude we combat.
I'd make an intelligent decision neither creature is capable of understanding, in my own best interests. If I had a barn infested with mice and an attic being shredded by squirrels I'd shoot the mother and let the snake have his dinner. If the squirrel population was declining I'd free the kid. I shoot rattlesnakes here and save Bullsnakes, not because one is better or worse than the other for nature but because one can kill livestock and children and the other can't. I've also got a mountain lion on my property that I won't allow anyone to hunt.
You combat this attitude all you want but I'm not going to watch a crocodile hunt a child either. I put mouse traps in my crawl space and kill flies in the kitchen. I toss carp on shore to die when I go fishing. Nature can take its coarse elsewhere, I make my environment more suitable for me. By your logic you shouldn't pull weeds either, let them flourish and absorb nutrients from your garden soil. Bacteria is pretty important in nature too but I'll bet you've taken antibiotics to kill some.
You are making false equivalencies.
How is bringing up different aspects of the food chain falsely equivalent? Crocodiles gotta eat, who am I to free that child from it's teeth? Crocodile might starve or maybe find another child to eat. By your logic I should just keep recording and let the crocodile have it's dinner. "There are no winners or losers just life". Fuck that kid, reptiles gotta eat too. I'm exaggerating to debate that morality should play a part if we intervene with nature. If you wouldn't save a baby squirrel from a snake in your front yard where would you draw the line and change the course of nature?
Spare the life of the fly on your kitchen sink laying eggs in your food? Spare the wolf eating your neighbor's lamb? Let the mice shit on your canned food in the basement? Let weeds take over your vegetable garden? It's just nature and there's no winners and losers right?