Ah the paradoxes of imponderables.

[Ishmael]

A few week ago a friend sent me an email with a list of life's little dilemmas. One of them went, "What should you do if you saw an endangered animal eating an endangered plant?"

Well, in a case of life imitating humor, it is upon us now.

State wants to kill endangered bird to save endangered fish.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I saw that headline...




Life, as we know it, has become the Far Side.

 

[fair_warning]

It would depend on the species ranking in the ecosystem it was part of.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

We just dumped our gas so's we'd be light enough to take off.

Pogo

 

[Ishmael]

It would depend on the species ranking in the ecosystem it was part of.

Well I suspect that there was nothing altruistic about the decision to put the fish ahead of the bird. The fish represent a potential economic resource to the state, the bird has no such economic interests arguing for it's survival. And to be fair the economic reason is just as valid as any other when confronted with this sort of dilemma.

I'm envisioning two competing eco-freaks groups. The 'Pro-birds' vs. the 'Pro-fish' marching on the Capital and then bludgeoning each other to death in a street confrontation. Makes one want to go out and find more such dilemma's. Divide et Imperum.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

They need to import more Peregrinator...

 

[Saint Peter]

fish = food

bird = shit on my driveway



It is an easy choice.

 

[rosco rathbone]

A few week ago a friend sent me an email with a list of life's little dilemmas. One of them went, "What should you do if you saw an endangered animal eating an endangered plant?"

Well, in a case of life imitating humor, it is upon us now.

State wants to kill endangered bird to save endangered fish.

Ishmael

Not paradoxical at all, since it's impossible for two species to be equally endangered. A quick environmental analysis tells the onlooker whether or not to intervene to save the plant.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

fish = food

bird = shit on my driveway



It is an easy choice.

Then the tribe can go back to hunting eagle?

 

[Ishmael]

Not paradoxical at all, since it's impossible for two species to be equally endangered. A quick environmental analysis tells the onlooker whether or not to intervene to save the plant.

Actually the rational, and fair, decision would be to shoot the animal, cook it and serve it with the plant that you pulled up after the animal dropped.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Not paradoxical at all, since it's impossible for two species to be equally endangered. A quick environmental analysis tells the onlooker whether or not to intervene to save the plant.

A quick analysis?


A spot decision?


A timely campaign contribution...


Yet, the Keystone pipeline needs still another impact study.

 

[TonyClifton]

Who likes fried chicken and midget clowns?

http://s1.static.gotsmile.net/images/2010/10/07/midget_clown.jpg_1286401360.jpg

 

[Saint Peter]

Then the tribe can go back to hunting eagle?

Have at it.

Run the whole herd off a cliff so you can have a snack.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Eagles don't run in herds...

 

[busybody..]

It would depend on the species ranking in the ecosystem it was part of.

MoreOff