No Question I would pick the innocent Animal...... there are way too many savages(people) spreading hate,war ,disease around the world the world would be a better place without 3billion people..yes?????? what you think?
2006-08-07 23:36:34 · 17 answers · asked by ZULUkilla 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
In resp...to would i still feel this way if the people were my family?even if i was the person in that 100 no question...im not selfish like some people who just choose people to benifit from them in some greedy way....sad
2006-08-07 23:53:01 · update #1
how about a 1000000000 people for a Gorilla ......$crew the selfish STD spreading humanoids
2006-08-08 23:18:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I actually agree, to a point. 100 people is too much, and it would have to be a complete stranger who is not in front of me at the time, as instinct would take over and I would say the human is to live (that's why soldiers have a tough time getting over their first close-up kill). When I hear of an animal put down, it always depresses me more than a human being killed or who passed away, unless they are a family member, then it would be close, but the family member would upset me more.
Humans are the only creature who seem to be capable of evil, and therefore get no sympathy from me. Animals dying upset me, especially if it was under human influence. I hate animals dying in films too, like when the guard dogs are shot, or a pet dies in a freak accident or by the villain. I hate those parts, and have to skip them.
2006-08-07 23:51:13 · answer #2 · answered by genghis41f 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd chose the 100 people. If an animal is endangered or is near extinction, there will be a reason for that. Everything and everyone has it's time to die.
Guys - all of you who chose to save the animal - would your answer still be the same if a member of your family or even all of your family were included in the 100 people. Is it easier to sentence 100 humans to death if you don't know them.....
2006-08-07 23:47:35 · answer #3 · answered by Queen Victoria of Port 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well if it's the last animal of that kind, the animal race will become extinct anyway.
If it's one animal of a small group, the close genetic similarity of those animals will cause the future generations to become weak and frail, so you're really doing them a favour by accelerating their extinction.
1 person in that 100 could help cure cancer.
Still, your choice. I'd pick the humans.
2006-08-07 23:45:40 · answer #4 · answered by anon person 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I love animals too much to say get rid of the animal. Can I choose the 100 people? This world is too overpopulated, and if an endangered species dies off, it could throw off the entire food chain.
2006-08-07 23:45:07 · answer #5 · answered by EvilFairies 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd rather have the 100 people take care of the 1 endangered animal.
2006-08-07 23:45:21 · answer #6 · answered by KU 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree because the human population is too high, we've already made many animals extinct so I'd give the endangered one a chance.
2006-08-07 23:46:28 · answer #7 · answered by Squirrel 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your endeavour should be to preserve both. There is no point in showing a lack of sensitivity to humankind, in your zeal to protect the endangered animal. We must learn to coexist.
2006-08-07 23:46:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lets say the 100 are you and your family. Still happy with your choice?
2006-08-07 23:40:03 · answer #9 · answered by Puppy Zwolle 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd choose to save the humans. I value human life more than animal life. Sorry.
2006-08-08 03:32:54 · answer #10 · answered by brevejunkie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋