If you're unable to find a use for an animal, is that the fault of the animal or the fault of your imagination?
are there useless animals?
- Thread starter monkey_man
- Start date
Recommended Videos
even though viruses are said to be the superior life forms on earth?oppp7 said:
OT:this has been said before so I will slightly modify it. Snails...in Sweden. there are no creatures that feed on them and all they do is swarm over gardens like a plague. a few summers ago, I walked out to my yard and started picking snails from the lawn...I lost count after 200.
and this happened every day. it should be noted that I have a very big lawn and it was an extra wet summer but the average lawn gets several hundred snails every week in summer. I hate mother****ing snails.
You are wrong!
Pandas are taking over the world, they have spies and ninjas every where, and if you have never seen one, that's because they are just THAT good.
snails and slugs have a purpose, they provide food for birds, which help pollinate flowers and crops, which feeds live stock, which feeds us.
Every animal has a purpose, even humans.
Even the most useless animal can still be used as a hate-sink, like this thread is doing, so no, none of them are useless.
ahemm...
You, I believe, are wrong, because we're going TO SPACE!!!Hubilub said:
ahemm...
Not EVERY animal is vital to the food chain. Higher end animals are not necessary. In terms of "usefulness", it is the smaller animals and organisms, such as plants, plankton, bacteria, fungi, fish, insects and so forth that are absolutely vital.
If Tigers all died out, the food chain would not be greatly affected, as pretty much no other animal aside from humans would hunt a tiger. It might cause the prey population to grow, but the existence of other hunting species would quickly grow to suppress it.
It also depends on what you mean by usefulness. As someone who does not take the existence of any god or gods as an established fact, and as someone who studies genetics and evolution, I am of the opinion that the natural ecosystem arose due to natural selection and a few billion years of organisms slowly but surely adapting and changing and growing together. I am of the opinion that nature has no inherent meaning or purpose at all. Nature just IS, and animals do not have job descriptions or an established "order". Nature is just the composite collection of species and their interactions - and after billions of years, all negative interactions have been eliminated, while positive or sustainable ones have survived, due to the fact that dead animals do not pass on genes, while ones that live can reproduce.
Thus, only human beings have the concept of "order" or "importance". So the definition of "useless" or "useful" depends on what an individual human being thinks is useful or useless. It will vary from person to person. Nature has no inherent consciousness or "soul" if you want to use a quasi-religious term to signify consciousness.
My own personal opinion states that animals vital to sustaining the food chain and converting physical energy into chemical energy (i.e plants and plankton that use sunlight to generate carbon based sugars) are absolutely vital. The lifeforms at the bottom or near the bottom are the most necessary. Without them, no new chemical energy could be introduced into the biological system, and without that, no new growth is possible. It's simple physics - no energy, no change in the system. And when it comes to biological processes, no change, no energy, equals death. We need energy to fuel our cells, to repair our bodies, we need amino acids to generate new DNA strands, we need various trace elements to maintain our enzymes and replenish the chemical reactions that occur at our nerve synapses. Where do we get this energy, where do we get these trace elements and amino acids and compounds? From our food.
What is food? Meat and Fruit and Vegetables. Vegetables are plants and they get their energy from the sun by the process of photosynthesis. Fruits are generated by plants, and are enriched with sugars generated by the photosynthesis. Meat food comes from animals, and they grow either by eating other animals or by eating plants or fungi or plankton - but eventually, they have to get the energy from SOMEWHERE, and that means they have to eat or be one of the organisms that can turn sunlight into chemical energy.
Thus, the survival of 99.99% LIFE ON THE EARTH depends on just TWO THINGS:
1) THE SUN
2) ORGANISMS THAT CAN TURN SUNLIGHT INTO CHEMICAL ENERGY
Without those two things, almost all life would die. A few strains of bacteria could survive in the depths of the ocean, using heat from geothermal vents to sustain themselves, but that would be about it.
So the next time you look at a plant, THANK IT. It can't understand you, because, well, it's just a plant and it has no brains or ears, but thank it anyway because without plants, you'd be dead. We'd all be dead.
If Tigers all died out, the food chain would not be greatly affected, as pretty much no other animal aside from humans would hunt a tiger. It might cause the prey population to grow, but the existence of other hunting species would quickly grow to suppress it.
It also depends on what you mean by usefulness. As someone who does not take the existence of any god or gods as an established fact, and as someone who studies genetics and evolution, I am of the opinion that the natural ecosystem arose due to natural selection and a few billion years of organisms slowly but surely adapting and changing and growing together. I am of the opinion that nature has no inherent meaning or purpose at all. Nature just IS, and animals do not have job descriptions or an established "order". Nature is just the composite collection of species and their interactions - and after billions of years, all negative interactions have been eliminated, while positive or sustainable ones have survived, due to the fact that dead animals do not pass on genes, while ones that live can reproduce.
Thus, only human beings have the concept of "order" or "importance". So the definition of "useless" or "useful" depends on what an individual human being thinks is useful or useless. It will vary from person to person. Nature has no inherent consciousness or "soul" if you want to use a quasi-religious term to signify consciousness.
My own personal opinion states that animals vital to sustaining the food chain and converting physical energy into chemical energy (i.e plants and plankton that use sunlight to generate carbon based sugars) are absolutely vital. The lifeforms at the bottom or near the bottom are the most necessary. Without them, no new chemical energy could be introduced into the biological system, and without that, no new growth is possible. It's simple physics - no energy, no change in the system. And when it comes to biological processes, no change, no energy, equals death. We need energy to fuel our cells, to repair our bodies, we need amino acids to generate new DNA strands, we need various trace elements to maintain our enzymes and replenish the chemical reactions that occur at our nerve synapses. Where do we get this energy, where do we get these trace elements and amino acids and compounds? From our food.
What is food? Meat and Fruit and Vegetables. Vegetables are plants and they get their energy from the sun by the process of photosynthesis. Fruits are generated by plants, and are enriched with sugars generated by the photosynthesis. Meat food comes from animals, and they grow either by eating other animals or by eating plants or fungi or plankton - but eventually, they have to get the energy from SOMEWHERE, and that means they have to eat or be one of the organisms that can turn sunlight into chemical energy.
Thus, the survival of 99.99% LIFE ON THE EARTH depends on just TWO THINGS:
1) THE SUN
2) ORGANISMS THAT CAN TURN SUNLIGHT INTO CHEMICAL ENERGY
Without those two things, almost all life would die. A few strains of bacteria could survive in the depths of the ocean, using heat from geothermal vents to sustain themselves, but that would be about it.
So the next time you look at a plant, THANK IT. It can't understand you, because, well, it's just a plant and it has no brains or ears, but thank it anyway because without plants, you'd be dead. We'd all be dead.
Well as a whole if every animal including us all died out I think it wouldn't matter.
The world'd just sit empty until it was destroyed by the sun or whatever.
The world'd just sit empty until it was destroyed by the sun or whatever.
Koala's, seriously what the hell do they do?
I've heard most of them have AIDS and most deaths are caused by the lack of immune system, but this is from what I've heard.
I've heard most of them have AIDS and most deaths are caused by the lack of immune system, but this is from what I've heard.
Uh, what? How are they the superior life forms on Earth? All they do is kill everything else or make it miserable. They aren't essential to any food chain.cabooze said:
And what about salt? Without all those snails to feed on, kitchen salt would die out.
Lastly, we use good grammar here. Blah blah Grammar Nazi rant blah...
I'm going to have to say Candiru. If you are rather fond of your genitalia, I suggest you do not google it.
