Downsizing the Planet

A UN report says that a third of animals in the world are at risk of extinction. I’m not sure why, but I’m guessing it has to do with the environment. The environment has been nothing but trouble since we discovered it.

So, should we be worried? I’m not so sure. In this economy, we’re running out of money and resources, so maybe it’s time to start looking into doing some harsh cuts on the flora and fauna. A third seems like a lot, but have you ever looked at all the types of animals out there? Most of the species you’ve probably never even heard of. It really seems like the number of species in this world is a place we could afford to do some cuts. Like, do you know we have four types of echidnas? Exactly how many different kinds of egg-laying, spiny anteaters do we need? I’m going to go with zero.

So instead of freaking out any time a species is about to go extinct, we need to ask ourselves: “Do we actually need that animal for anything, or is it just taking up space and hogging resources?”

30 Comments

  1. I like your thought process Frank…and just imagine the carbon-footprint savings…if we killed off all of those endangered species, there would no longer be a need for printed or electronic reports, no need to fly folks around for meetings discussing how to fix it…it’d already be a done deal!

  2. Ah… Always good to see a UN bottom-feeder taking cheap shots at the U.S… You don’t disappoint, Ahmed. Funny how Brazil, China, etc are named explicitly as the big offenders, but Ahmed takes a shot at the U.S… I hate these people.

  3. Rather than downsizing all the flora and fauna, how bout we just blow the planet up like a balloon and make it larger. More land mass, more seas…therefore more resources for everyone.

  4. A UN report says that a third of animals in the world are at risk of extinction.

    This is true! I have two cats and my neighbor has a dog that barks all night. One of these three is headed for extinction.

  5. I find environment wacos to be highly illogical. Most believe in the theory of evolution but are unwilling to let it take it’s natural course. If these organism’s cannot adapt to a new environment they must be to weak to survive. If they are too weak to survive then to try to save them only promotes leaving the weak genes survive and every living thing on Earth will suffer because of those weak genes.
    They should be promoting the destruction of those weak genetic pools to aid their perfect Scientific! theory.

  6. I have a couple of cats. They don’t do much other than sleep, eat, use the liier box and purr. Scratch stuff too. Oh yeah, and they also lick themselves. Which is great, cause I don’t have clean them then.

    Besides, if I could lick myself I’d never leave the house! 🙂

  7. Most of these “species” are like a rat with an extra spot, or a bird with one extra feather than it’s sibling. “Lookm that dung beetle plays with black poop instead of brown poop. A new species!!!”

    The enviroment has been a big problem since we discovered it. I say get rid of it and buy a new one that is easier to get along with.

  8. I for one would like to see the species” Liberalasshaterous” gone from the planet…They serve no purpose other than destruction of their own environment and to control other much more beneficial species, you can tell when Liberalasshaterous has invaded an area.. see Picture of San Francisco.

  9. So what is achmed doing to help save the species headed for extinction? is he offing himeself so the world needs less resources? Is he abdicating genocide of the arabs so that the world needs less resources? No, he is taking shots at the U.S. Well achmed, got two words for you, you being one of them. Remember condor tastes like chicken.

  10. # Steve says:
    I like your thought process Frank…and just imagine the carbon-footprint savings…if we killed off all of those endangered species, there would no longer be a need for printed or electronic reports, no need to fly folks around for meetings discussing how to fix it…it’d already be a done deal!

    You and Frank do have something at hand. They say, whoever they are, that a dog has a much larger carbon footprint than an SUV. Soooooooo, we could sell carbon credits by killing animals. As libs are fond of saying, “It’s a win-win situation.” We’d get to shoot animals, and liberals would pay us for it.

  11. Why don’t we just treat them like the left treats innocent pre-born humans -exercise choice? But if its resources the left is worried about -they might just exercise choice themselves on themselves. It’s so simple.

  12. I’m with Mr. Burns, The environment was happy when it was winning, but now that we’re winning it wants to quit.

    Besides, most of what they’re talking about are probably bugs. Who in Australia wouldn’t want to see a few spiders go extinct?

    And of the animals, they’ll be stuff like pandas. They live on one side of one moutain and eat one food. That’s about as clear an evolutionary dead end as you’ll find outside a Star Wars movie.

    Are there any plans for wiping out the platypus? If not, why not? If we’re getting rid of animals, we should concentrate on the creepy ones.

  13. Only a third? “99% of all the species that have ever existed are already extinct.” I know this to be true because I read it on the internet. So, probably, EVERY species in existence today is in danger of becoming extinct, just in the normal run of things.

    It isn’t possible to “save” a life OR a species. You can only prolong it a while.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.