Originally posted by Joey@Aug 10 2005, 12:47 PM
Um, Not!

Nature has provided the fish for the polar bear.The polar bear does not empty the lake, but just takes what he needs.

Nature has provided oil for the humans. Humans also take what they need - but humans are multiplying so fast that their needs are outstripping the supply (hence my comment about the need to use the supplies in the most efficient/minimal waste/renewable way possible).


The Eskimos talk about one of God's creations: Keribou herds have diseased and unhealthy members in their herds. Diseases spread and eventually can kill off the herd. When wolves chase the keribou, the sick ones are the slowest, and get killed off, thereby removing diseases from the herd.
So, according to your rapturous celebration of Darwinian theory, where only the strong survive, then it's ok for the strongest countries to maintain a stranglehold over the poorer, developing ones, because they are not strong enough, and full of diseases, and therefore when these countries, who are riddled with SARS, Bird Flu, Men C, Dengue, Malaria, fail in the face of the stronger, developed countries, the human race will be stronger and fitter.


If all the polar bears stopped eating, the fish would overpopulate, finish off their food supply, and die.
No they wouldn't. The world's ecosystem isn't that simple. Even assuming your simplistic version is correct (ie, that if the polar bears stopped eating, there would be no other natural predator for the fish, and therefore they would 'over-populate', well there are plenty of animals who are at the top of the food chain in their environment but have not over populated - lions, great white sharks, elephants.

Humans, it could be argued, have overpopulated, but this over population is occuring in the poor, less developed countries - according to your Darwinian analogy, they are the ones who therefore get killed off in order to 'strengthen the herd' of the human race....?