They can save any specie you like or they can create more jobs and keep people of the streets.
Conservation and Wildlife (Almost $100 already donated)
- Thread starter Infrarednexus
- Start date
-
- Tags
- animals conservation wildlife
They can save any specie you like or they can create more jobs and keep people of the streets.
CaptainCool
Lady of the lake
It would cost about 10 million dollars to save all lemur species from extinction.
Compared to how much money the richest people in the world own that would basically be pocket change for them. It's about 0.01% of Jeff Bezos' capital.
They can do both. They could create jobs, save all species and yet still keep sipping their champagne.
And yet they are too stingy to achieve either of that. To me they are still failures, no matter how big their tech corporations and package empires are.
Donated $75 NZD or $50 USD to the fund! Here's hoping they're over a thousand in number by 2030!
Youre just jumping on hate the rich bandwagon. Jeff has donated hundreds of millions for humanitarian causes. How much have you donated?
KD142000
Leather-clad Lobo
They CAN. Doesn't mean they DO.
Having the ability to do something doesn't mean that they will do it, you know?
I also recommend that you go and spend your time elsewhere. You won't gain very much, here.
Those Kakapos are almost thankful for your many bullshit posts.
Look, none of us want to force you to care about conservation. Even though it's not an ideal standpoint, you've made it clear you won't change your mind.
I suggest leaving this thread well alone and devoting your time to something more productive...like helping the situation with poverty and education.
Hasn't yet saved the lemurs, though, has it?
Why doesn't he just donate the $10 million already?
This is our point. We don't just hate the rich cos they have more money than us. We dislike them cos they do absolutely bugger all to solve real problems.
Night.Claw
Well-Known Member
But... he already did. People answering him and trying to make him understand things. He already won. Why do you think he is here?
KD142000
Leather-clad Lobo
Oh...right.
I often forget about that.
CaptainCool
Lady of the lake
Why would I donate for that? We have enough people as it is. Donating for that is like adding fuel to a fire that is gonna burn your own house down...
And besides, why does he have to keep that much money for himself? I get by just fine with my salary. If he is such a great guy, why is be being so selfish with his billions?
I made photos availabe which, if they had been taken by a paid photographer, would have cost them thousands of dollars.
Now I am not an actual "pro". Neither did I study photography. My 7 years of experience aren't even that much. But I am good enough that my shots get the attention of their audience and I am good enough to be asked to become the local zoo's official photographer.
I do what I can with the limited means that are available to me. Jeff and the other rich "elite" aren't even doing a fraction of what they could be doing.
They just want to become even more rich... No matter what it takes.
Sirocco~
Victorian Gentleman
I shall help fund this worthy cause~
Some of us can't actually donate that much. I make something like $200 a month from a caring family member and I still find time to donate most of my money. If I were Bezos I'd probably have donated hundreds of millions if I put my percentage given to his wealth.
AppleButt
Well-Known Member
Awesome thread. I’ll make a donation to a conservation cause every so often.
I also like to help in smaller more direct ways. When I find an injured wild animal, I’ll call a rehabilitater.
Like once when I found an injured red tailed hawk, I called a woman who rehabilitates.
Unfortunately, it was too far gone and had to be euthanized, but I felt good that I at least tried to help it.
I also like to help in smaller more direct ways. When I find an injured wild animal, I’ll call a rehabilitater.
Like once when I found an injured red tailed hawk, I called a woman who rehabilitates.
Unfortunately, it was too far gone and had to be euthanized, but I felt good that I at least tried to help it.
Last edited:
Can you send a kakapo emote so I can add it to my server @Infrarednexus ?
I
Infrarednexus
Guest
thanks famSure
Kinare
RAWR
Snow leopards <3
snowleopard.org
They're so pretty and I luff them. I've bought a few shirts when they have them (very limited edition, gotta grab when ya can). Also got the most adorable booties for my nephew when he was born handmade by villagers that live among the snow leopards, got a lot of compliments on them and everyone wanted to know where I got them. It's a really great program they have going to help the local people and the cats. I have them set as my Amazon smile contribution too. Don't forget you can do that for a lot of charities! It adds up.
snowleopard.org
They're so pretty and I luff them. I've bought a few shirts when they have them (very limited edition, gotta grab when ya can). Also got the most adorable booties for my nephew when he was born handmade by villagers that live among the snow leopards, got a lot of compliments on them and everyone wanted to know where I got them. It's a really great program they have going to help the local people and the cats. I have them set as my Amazon smile contribution too. Don't forget you can do that for a lot of charities! It adds up.
M
ManicTherapsid
Guest
SSJ3Mewtwo
Well-Known Member
I'm going to just drop this as a reminder, rather than an outright warning or other infraction:
Please do not attempt to deliberately gaslight and derail discussion.
Your question, and a number of other questions/stances you've posed in this thread are so clearly diametric that they don't come across as genuine discussion. They come across as attempts to stir the pot.
If you're not going to genuinely discuss an issue, please do not participate in the thread.
Same warning.
I don't know why you got so incensed at the idea of care for the environment, the cycle of life, and the animals we interact with that you had to compare it with eating babies.
And I don't care.
Your post was vaguely (oh so vaguely) on topic that I won't count it as spam. But if you're not going to discuss issues with people reasonably and with actual honesty, you shouldn't participate in the thread.
Simo
Professional Watermelon Farmer
OK, Doomer
~
Gosh...is nice to see all the support for animals still...I recall a similar thing happening on another forum, years ago: there will always be a few Furries Against Animals but most seem to support conservation.
Felix Bernard
Chemist, Conservative, Mark Levin fan
Thank you. I promise I am going to do better at this.
SSJ3Mewtwo
Well-Known Member
Good to hear!
Ravofox
back to Aussie foxying!
Ooh! Very interesting thread!
I'm a big fan of the emerging compassionate conservation movement, which calls for the greater use of alternatives to culling, whether of invasive species or diseased individuals of threatened species.
Invasive species are certainly a major problem and have caused or contributed to extinctions, but their impact is largely overshadowed by habitat destruction and are only rarely the sole factor. So the movement is largely based around increasing the population of possible natural predators (dingos against foxes in Australia for instance), conditioning individuals of either species to avoid each other which can potentially be passed on to their offspring, physical and/or chemical castration, the use of protective barriers, breeding programs and more.
I don't think this can really work on its own, at least not yet, but I think a combination of some degree of continued culling along with the greater adoption of the above methods may well be effective as well as less harsh. I actually wish to get involved in something like this someday.
Here's a good article which addresses it:
www.google.com.au: When Conservationists Kill Lots (and Lots) of Animals
I'm a big fan of the emerging compassionate conservation movement, which calls for the greater use of alternatives to culling, whether of invasive species or diseased individuals of threatened species.
Invasive species are certainly a major problem and have caused or contributed to extinctions, but their impact is largely overshadowed by habitat destruction and are only rarely the sole factor. So the movement is largely based around increasing the population of possible natural predators (dingos against foxes in Australia for instance), conditioning individuals of either species to avoid each other which can potentially be passed on to their offspring, physical and/or chemical castration, the use of protective barriers, breeding programs and more.
I don't think this can really work on its own, at least not yet, but I think a combination of some degree of continued culling along with the greater adoption of the above methods may well be effective as well as less harsh. I actually wish to get involved in something like this someday.
Here's a good article which addresses it:
www.google.com.au: When Conservationists Kill Lots (and Lots) of Animals
Last edited:
it's an echo chamber, not a proper discussions
volkinaxe
i am now on https://www.anthrodex.com
thanks for this I live in new Zealand have not seen one in wildI've taken an interest in conservation and helping endangered species. I figure that it's our responsibility to help these animals because it is usually our fault they are endangered in the first place. I made this thread so we can share and inform each other of endangered species and ecosystems we know of and spread awareness to educate one another on environmental protection.
Share your opinions and knowledge on the subject if you'd like.
Also, for each post in this thread I will be donating money to the kakapo recovery program in New Zealand's conservation department to help them in their efforts to replenish the endangered parrots population in their native habitats.
You're posts will go towards a good cause.
Anthrasmagoria
Space Cadet
Conservation going forward definitely needs to be more grassroots and less governments promising things they won't deliver. For that though we need to get local people on side. For them to be on side, the wildlife has to bring them some kind of benefit.
This is why hunting reserves in say, Africa get more local people on side than if you passed some law banning hunting altogether. There'd be poachers ignoring the law and killing the wildlife for short term gain regardless of how much fencing and how many rangers you employed. But if you incentivized locals to protect the wildlife while allowing small hunting quotas, they would guard it as a precious asset against poachers. Reserves do need to be managed these days now anyway, so it's better to get the local people involved, even if it does mean x amount of wildlife must be culled each year to maintain the ecosystem of the reserve in balance. If it must be culled, why not let people with money pay to do it toward the upkeep of the reserve as a whole. Everyone is happy - the rich hunters, the local people, and the wildlife get to keep on existing within their protected reserve.
In many places of the world where things need conserving, there just isn't the social or governmental infrastructure to preserve wildlife any other way than this.
That said it's clear that we can't keep increasing our population on this planet exponentially and somehow expecting nature to keep giving ground. Education and local involvement is key, really. Get people caring, but not by lecturing at and shaming them - that doesn't work when people are poor and/or starving.
This is why hunting reserves in say, Africa get more local people on side than if you passed some law banning hunting altogether. There'd be poachers ignoring the law and killing the wildlife for short term gain regardless of how much fencing and how many rangers you employed. But if you incentivized locals to protect the wildlife while allowing small hunting quotas, they would guard it as a precious asset against poachers. Reserves do need to be managed these days now anyway, so it's better to get the local people involved, even if it does mean x amount of wildlife must be culled each year to maintain the ecosystem of the reserve in balance. If it must be culled, why not let people with money pay to do it toward the upkeep of the reserve as a whole. Everyone is happy - the rich hunters, the local people, and the wildlife get to keep on existing within their protected reserve.
In many places of the world where things need conserving, there just isn't the social or governmental infrastructure to preserve wildlife any other way than this.
That said it's clear that we can't keep increasing our population on this planet exponentially and somehow expecting nature to keep giving ground. Education and local involvement is key, really. Get people caring, but not by lecturing at and shaming them - that doesn't work when people are poor and/or starving.
Fallowfox
Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
This is a bit of a nuanced topic. I can't confidently comment that trophy-hunting is good for conservation- and in general the scientific community doesn't endorse the practice.
I would probably err on the side of saying that it's a false narrative that hunters who have historically harmed ecosystems severely use to make themselves feel good about themselves.
The whole thing strikes me as being fundamentally flawed in the same way as people who donate to charity to carbon-offset their flights, rather than taking fewer flights.
and you know, we don't want to end up getting trapped in a world where the only reason Lions still exist in Africa is because impoverished Africans allow them to exist so that wealthy Americans can kill them for fun.
It's a vision of dystopia.