If liberals are so big on evolution...?

Question

why do they think we need to save things that can't survive on their own?

thumbsdown,, well, I give you a thumbs down as well. Ha! How do you like it?

For those saying we are destroying their habitat, why don't you just say their habitat is 'evolving'?

--
sticky,, maybe we should 'choose to abort them'.

Answer 1

One big problem is that a lot of folks cannot accept the fact that MAN, homo sapiens sapiens, IS part of nature. Sure, we have a little more control over the effect we have, but we are going to have an effect nonetheless.

And it is not necessarily a "Liberal" thing either. Granted, you look at any environmental activist nut job (ALF, Earth First, PETA, and that ilk) and their political views will more than likely be on the extreme left. Active environmentalists, who believe more in stewardship, conservation, and balanced uses of evironmental resources, tend to be a little more moderate or even conservative in their politcal views.

Answer 2

Evolution is supposed to work naturally. We are changing the environment unnaturally. Also, evolution can keep up with natural changes to the environment. Humans are changing the environment so fast, it can't possibly keep up. We could call humans a form of natural selection and just say any animal that dies off is extinct, but then we would end up killing half the species or something. Most species depend on others to survive. Eventually it would be like Mad Max, no trees, no animals, no nothing.

I think you are in the very small minority if you believe that we should do nothing to protect the environment from annihilation.

Answer 3

Wow. I'm surprised by the answers here. I mean there are at least 5610 questions a day about the conservatives being religous. It appears that many liberals do not believe in evolution; however, those that do believe it's the human responsibility to control their effect on evolution. As if they're not part of the planet's ecosystem. Interesting question.

Answer 4

Interesting argument. And in some ways, you are right. But the libs aren't the only one concerned about the environment. There's so much about the world we don't yet understand. I'd prefer to keep things around for at least a while longer. Well, except for some of those parasitic worms.

Answer 5

Because were very caring and compassionate people. Evolution is science, nature conservation is compassion. While we recognize the science of evolution we also know we can manipulate that science to stop the undesired effects of evolution. An example would be we used evolutionary sciences to develop vaccines and thus made ourselves immune to some diseases. Other animals on the other hand have to suffer there fate at the hands of disease unless we immunize them as well. You should be thankful we live in a evolutionary world if we didn't we would have been killed of by a variety of diseases by now. Thankfully there is no such thing as creationism if there was I would have to kick god right in the nuts for allowing the creation of all those evil diseases and birth defects.

Answer 6

Big on evolution? What does that mean? It's like saying I'm big on eating or I'm big on the sun.

Evolution is reality. You can try to ignore it or disbelieve it if you like, no skin off my back.

Why do I think we should save things that can't survive on their own? Again not sure what your meaning is - I'm guessing you mean why do we believe in trying to prevent animals from going extinct?

Extinction is a natural part of evolution. Many species could not adapt to their environment and went extinct. There's a difference between going extinct because of excessive deforestation or other causes linked to human activity (pollution, global warming) and extinction due to non human causes. Extinctions caused by us should serve as a warning that we are causing major problems to our environment. We should heed these warnings. Not heeding them will have catastrophic results.

Answer 7

It's possible. But not just liberals (look up) support it. The earth will survive. It's the human race that's screwed. But we continue to refuse to evolve. Instead we just use a "conservative" approach.

Easy question next!!!

Answer 8

Evolution is a theory of how biological life forms have come to be what they are today . . . it isn't a theory of what we should do with those lifeforms.

In other words, evolution does not provide us with guidelines as to how we ought to behave, it merely provides us with information as to how we got to where we are now.

I understand your argument, but it is a lot like saying "because history is filled with war, shouldn't we continue to make war" or like saying "because historically men were also held as superior to women, shouldn't that remain the same today?" History merely provides us with information, it isn't a prescription for how we ought to act. Exactly the same way with evolution. All evolution really is, in the end, is a history of biology. So just like we don't limit how we ought to act based on the history of human behavior, likewise we don't base on how we relate to the world of animals and biology based on their history alone.

The reason you see many people who accept the idea of evolution coupled with the idea that it is morally correct to work to save animals who are being destroyed is because both perspectives are non-self-centric. In other words, to accept evolution you must put yourself aside, because evolution is very impersonal and doesn't directly benefit you the way that a belief in God -- at least in the sense of those who believe God = the opposite of evolution -- does, where such a belief gives the individual the feeling of importance. Likewise, concern for animals is again non-self-centric, because one has nothing personal to gain from helping animals, whereas the idea that animals are there to serve and benefit human beings is obviously self-centric since we are placing our own interests above those of the animals.

Answer 9

Because HUMANS alter nature in a way that is not controllable by nature. Why don't you leave conservation to people that are actually qualified to make decisions on conservation, like scientists. I do not try to make decisions about being an over opinionated uneducated person. I leave that to experts like you.

Answer 10

They could survive on their own if we were not destroying their habitat. If we didn't destroy their habitat and they could not survive on their own they would die. This is not the same as choosing an abortion.