ForumGarden

Prince Philip in the UK is one of an endangered species, perhaps that is why he is so keen on other animals in the same position. There were Kings and Queens galore in Europe (and elsewhere) two hundred years ago, and still quite a few at the beginning of the last century. At this Millenium they are nearly extinct. There has been some to-ing and fro-ing with the Bourbons in Spain, the Dutch keep theirs in a Council House, and there are a few King Zogs and Togs of extinct countries in exile. Why Prince Rainier of Monaco was not King Rainier, no-one knows. Our own Royals are the best preserved. They have special habitats called Windsor, Sandringham, Balmoral, Osborne, and Buckingham Palace.

The Do-Do did everyone a favour by dying out. If it had not, it would be just another zoo species. No more remarkable than a spiny ant-eater, or a wallaby. Historically, humans have always wanted to keep exotic animals. Most Nobles had their own menageries. Even the Romans imported wild beasts. Elephants, Giraffes, Rhinos, etc, for interest, and Lions for barbarism.

All we actually need here are us humans and, presuming we remain carnivorous, those animals we eat. The world changes it’s make-up. It changed it 80million years ago and the dinosaurs became extinct. There were no humans about at that time to create artificial conditions to save them, or we would be lumbered with all those as well as Giant Pandas. Imagine the out of date lettuces just one Brontosaurus would eat. If we save a species from extinction, as we are now doing, how long do we keep them going? We assume the obligation when we save them to keep them in existence for ever. No good keeping them for a while to kill them off. It would be better whenever species fade away just to let them become extinct. It is in their best interests. We humans are preserving them for our own selfish reasons, the main one being a sort of look-at-me saviour, a preserver for posterity, (let posterity look after itself) to satisfy an idle curiosity to see a living creature when there is no place in the world now that animal can naturally live.

Don't take offence this is just another point of view. :-3

Regards Peter

Peter, your point of view isn't unusual, I'm sorry to say. The idea that we "need" only those animals we eat presumes that WE get to decide the fate of millions of animals who share the planet with us. Who put US in charge, anyway? If species are disappearing due to our greed and stupidity in trashing the planet we all must share...is that acceptable? Don't we "need" a planet with giraffes and hummingbirds and insect life? Do we really have the "right" to decide that OURS is the only species which matters?

I'll post this as another view:



"We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals.

Remote from universal nature, and living by complicated artifice, man in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion. We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having taken form so far below ourselves.

And therein we err, and greatly err. For the animal shall not be measured by man.

In a world older and more complete than ours, they move finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear.

They are not brethren; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth."



Henry Beston

"The Outermost House"

Now, Peter, I'd suggest you do some research on the inter-dependence of all life on this planet. We cannot exist alone.

I'm not sure I can agree that it's in an animal's best interest to become extinct. I do have issues with zoo treatment and habitat (if you can call it that) but I tend to think that every species serves a purpose in the web of life and its ecosystem. I don't know why the dodo is extinct, do you? Was it hunting or what ended it? I do know that the passenger pigeon was over exterminated even after giving its collective life in service as tiny war bomb dispatchers. Humans tend to value animals only if they are cute or if they can be used for food, farming, pets or clothing. Humans tend to value themselves above all other species and not all, but many have no use, need or value of an animal that cannot serve the human need or want.



I am not convinced that these animals die out because of natural reasons. That hasn't been proven to me. I see nothing wrong with keeping pandas and myriad other creatures around by breeding in captivity because I want them to be there. Not to serve me beyond my basic enjoyment of them but because every time you pull a string in life's web you mess up other strings.



Maybe I missed it but do you feel extinction serves best the animal or the human? Who benefits from this?