The ones who voted for are seeking for the good cause, the abstentions were the ones who seemed more confused of the situation while the ones against had other things in mind. The decisions we face everyday will always lead to winners as losers, and this article has clearly shown how divided this world is.
But why protect polar bears? They are not in anyway interferers with our society, and in truth their populations can be easily well managed with sustainable practices. Still, as the article shows, morality plays a key role in determining whether or not we take this initiative. The bible once said to Adam, to protect the animals and plants that he (God) has created. True, Adam and Eve soon disobeyed him and fell from purity but is that said statement still true even today? Is it still our honourable duty to protect animals? Or is it a duty to sacrifice them to seek God's salvation? Or simply kill them as a trophy display?
It does not state explicitly in the bible that the killing of animals is wrong, but with today's environmental problems, do we have to adjust our morals? Is killing an animal now a sin? Are the countries who pursue economic goals always in the evil whilst the ones pursuing the green cause good?
If you want to make quotes from the bible, you also know that the bible also contains the Ten Commandments, one of which is "thou shall not kill". So if you're going to use the bible to back up morality, then killing animals is a sin according to the laws of god. Like us, Adam and Eve were sinners, so they were bound to do bad. Those countries that pursue money and greed are also breaking another commandment "thou shall not covet". They desire money, and they will do whatever it takes to get it, even if it means killing animals. So yea if we are going to use the bible as evidence, then it is a sin to kill animals.
Every animal on earth has a purpose no matter how much we hate them. We kill them to meet our needs, but we shouldn't kill them to meet our wants. That's where the two commandments come in. The whole world is driven by greed.
Religion is very biased. They contain beliefs not facts. I guess you can say that morality plays a huge role in this, but if you want to examine the different angles of morality in this situation, you also need to look at other religions as well. There are many counterarguments to what you are saying about the morality of people and the protection of polar bears.
Agreed, though the ten commandments stated clearly that killing is a sin and 'thou shall not covet' is related to greed and money (also a sin) it is really the combination of these two (the killing and greed) that is causing the current problem in Polar Bear hunting. So Fred, if it is a sin to purely kill, why does God still request the sacrificing of the lamb under Jewish traditions as a form of forgiveness? Jesus once said that even the thinking of anything sinful (in one's mind) is sinning, but we are human beings who often can't control ourselves. In the end; the Lord forgives but the consequences do not necessarily have to come from him, but ourselves.
But remember this: Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." (Genesis 1:26, NIV).
To what extent should humans invest more in safeguarding animal species rather than ourselves?
Polar bears are a very interesting beautiful animal, however its habitats are far away from humans and we must consider that its existence is irrelevant to us because we don't interact.
However, we must acknowledge polar bears right to exist, just like we have the right to exist on this planet.
How should people understand the animal population?
When I found out that Canada was against this new rule since they have much poplar bear population, I thought that they really did have a lot. However, number of polar bear mentioned in the article gave me the impression that that its population is not huge and polar bear does deserve to be protected.
On the other hand, Environment Canada insists that polar bear does not have small population, which is a very contrasting claim from my opinion.
Of course, the population of species is not the only criteria when deciding this type of rule. Nevertheless, since it is considered to be one of the most significant factors, I believe they should make clear guidelines when determining whether animal has large population or not.
Polar bears are dying from global warming. Global warming is mostly caused from human. Human should find out solution to rescue polar bears and our planet. However polar bears are far way from humans. Therefore, investing huge money into saving polar bear is not good idea. Instead of investing huge money into poplar bears, we should find out solution to global warming, Furthermore, investing more in human is more important than polar bears.
Although Polar bears do not have a direct effect on our lives, but it could to the environment where the polar bear habits. If we keep on hunting down this animal, it will greatly affect the environment around, the polar region and the species living in it will be greatly affected. However we don't know if the extinction of the polar bear will negatively affect the surrounding.
To what extent or when should we be responsible for the wild species.
There has been a number of conflicts and campaigns about polar bear protection for the current century. Despite such fact, the habitat of polar bears is starting to reduce in size due to the global warming and the destruction of ozone layer. Not only that, polar bear hunting is carried on secretly, for their fur and body parts. As this is all true, polar bears should be undertaken to legal protection if people want to keep their population alive.
Is it really right to ask for the vote of protecting life of a species?
In order to make late regret in the future (could be within 45 years), it might be more efficient to start protection from the present without asking for people's opinion. Why does it become a question when trying to save a life of animal? How come saving the life of human is something absolute but not for the life of animals?
Polar bears will be extinction soon because of some reasons such as melted glacier or cannot get protection like this article.
I think animals' life is also important. Even though polar bears are not directly relevant to us, but we have our basic duty that protect environmental and nature lives.
Although some animals important and need in human life, but they are also lives. I hope people protect them even a little.
Recently, world has rejected the new protection for polar bears. A.U.S recently have decided to give new protections to polar bears was unfortunately been rejected at a international conference about endangered species. The fact what we care is do we have the right to either reject or accept a protection towards other species? isn't taking care and protecting other species is what we humans should be doing as being the strongest species? for our own benefits we have taken away their houses, and damaged their habitats, but if we dont' care about them and just ignore them, it's just like saying people do not care whether polar bears extinct or not.
Polar bears which are extremely under danger are threaten by human. However, controlling them and threatening could lead to extinction.
In my personal opinion, they do have right to exist. However, we should care that, polar bears are not the only endangered animals. Protecting them is a good idea. On the other hand, why not other species?
To what extent do we have to help them to survive? Is this our mendatory job to help them? If we don't think we should help them not to be extinct then we are wrong. We are a dominating citizens in world. We have our power to do something going around the world. We should be aware of this situation. Look them with your mercy and help them be benevolent to every creatures it seems dangerous. Think about noblesse oblige, if you are high help the poor and be charitable.
To what extent should human have the right to vote for whether or not we should protect the animals.
Porlar beats do not have a small population, and their activities are not affecting human. However, polar bears, just like any other animals and human, have their right to exist on this planet. Yet, human's activities, such as emitting pollution from cars, factories, do lead to negative impact on the environment like global warming. Therefore, human shall also consider that our activities can affect them, and that we shall take care of the animals as well.
To what extent are polar bears useful to us?
The answer to that, is a big fat "not much." Polar bears are a species of bear that only live in the arctic areas, thus making them quite a rare species. However, we should not go out of our way to try and save an eventually extinct bear species within the next 50 years or so. As it is, there are plenty of other bears that are in the world, from the Grizzlies of California, to the Pandas of China. We have plenty of bears to go around, just not that many from from the Arctic.
It is not that I do not have a heart,it is just not realistic. Their natural habitat is slowly being melted away, we should let nature take its course. Even if we do decide to help them, it is just delaying the inevitable of extinction. Only the strongest, and the luckiest, will survive. That is why they are going and we are still here.
How far people and animal can live together.
According to the article Canada government showed negative opinion about helping polar bear. This come up with the question realated with human behavior to survive and co-realationship with animals. Back to the premival age, people were living based on hunting. So animal was their life source as a food, because they were not raisng them so they have no duty to protect them. The concept of protecting animal have started recently as world become globalization. Globalized society let people to understand how opposite part of earth is living. So I think it is okay to say don't need to protect them
To what extent, should people help protect other species?
Global warming is the one of the disasters which human made. Human’s activity polluted our world a lot, eventually climate change such as global warming became one of the most controversial issue. Due to global warming, lots of other species are suffered from climate change. Do people should help the other species? Of course people should help them. Humans are not the only creature live in the earth. Humans are coexisting with other species. We cannot change the environment of earth only for humans. If other species’ habitat and population influenced by human, human should protect them because it’s human’s fault. Therefore, I strongly believe that human should protect other species as much as we can.
Recently, there have been conflicts about polar bear protection, because polar bears are dying from Global warming. Global warming makes ice melt and makes polar bears nothings to go, so they are losing habitats. Not only they are threatened by losing habitats, but also they are hunted down. They even vote for protecting life of a species. But do human has right to decide killing animals or saving animals? To what extent does human has right to harm environment?
Do people have right to select saving polar bear? Nowadays, the number of polar bear is decreasing. They are threatened by human. The main reason that death of polar bears is climate change. As global warming become more and more serious conditions, polar bear has no place to live. They lost their habitat. Because humans are the main reason of causing global warming, human should try to protect poplar bear. Humans have responsibility to recover their habitat.
1. Read the article.2. Write your thoughts.3. Begin your post with a Knowledge Issue (KI).4. See me or Mr. Jones if you need help with your KI.