No, I didn't. You're taking what I said out of context. :)

This is a loaded question that cannot be answered simply. If you are trying to force me to say that I would save the child rather than the cat you have only partially succeeded.

A) Everyone else on the street will be trying to save the child, so I'd save the cat.

B) If there is no one else around (then where the hell did this small child come from??), I'm going to have to trust that the cat, being WAY more able to protect itself, has a much, much better chance of avoiding the renegade demon truck than the small child with undeveloped sensory- and motor skills.

I do not save the child because I value its continued existence more than the cat. I save the child (in the case of "B") because it needs help the most.

The child silly, but if the cat was cuter...well...

I don't think so. Explain the context and maybe we can figure out exactly what you were trying to say...

Case in point.

In some parts of southern California, our water supplies are being cut from the north because the delta smelt is endangered. You can read the stories if you want more detail...

I'm not sure I see your point, here. Are you implying that limiting water supplies to people in California to save an endangered species is wrong, or right?

You don't really need to read the whole thing, you just need to understand what was written in one of the blurbs on that page. Here's the sentence: The demise of the smelt is an indicator that the ecosystem is collapsing and that the human water supply is in danger. Maybe we need to cut back on the humans so we're not destroying the planet and everything we need to survive in the process.

Let the truck hit the kid (and no, I would not do that because my instinct would not let me) but the attitude of human supremacy, that we can do whatever we want with whatever we want because we're egomaniacally convinced we're superior is our peril. We overpopulate, we prolong human life long after we're intended to be here. All very lovely on the surface but a complete disaster to this planet. So no, I do not intrinsically feel human life has more value, I think it has far less because of our stubborn refusal to live up to our superiority with some common sense and self-control of our destructive and arrogant behavior.

Ok, so it's either cut the water supply to a relatively small percentage of the population by 30% or kill an endangered species that acts as an indicator for our growing water issues? That's a no-brainer in my book.

When you move to the desert, please expect to have water issues. Forcing the land to support you by taking resources from someone (or something) else's land does not solve the problem, it just moves it upstream.

When California's population is forced to trek a few miles on foot to collect enough water for the day, THEN I'd consider further endangering a species that carries so much environmental weight. But just having to NOT water your patch of imported grass for a while, or not refill your pool does not constitute any sort of emergency even to the most selfish water consumer.

The point is the topic of discussion.

The answer is, we are willing to pay more $$$ for water so a fish won't die.

Not sure what makes the delta smelt more valuable than the king salmon, or the trout, or tilapia, or albacore, or mahi mahi, etc...

As dolly pointed out above, what makes it more valuable is that is acts as an indicator species that we (humans) use to judge the health of our water systems. That makes it hugely important.

Funny thing is in both stories that mentioned 'indicator species' they don't clearly define what exactly that means. It seems like it is a term they threw into their story because a scientist explained it to them...

Until Californians figure out that this is NOT a sub-tropical zone and that green yards year round are ridiculous, more power to the smelt.

Whether or not the article's author knew exactly what an indicator species is does not invalidate the fact that the smelt IS an indicator species.

If anyone needs freshening up on the term, please see this.

True. I guess I was looking for more depth. ie. Who determined the delta smelt was an indicator species and how did they determine this...etc.

I rarely take information for granted and constantly inquire the who what when where why and how's...my wife gets irritated with me quite frequently because of it.

RG, what is it you do as a profession? (if you don't mind sharing)

Exactly why I want to move away from here.

No clue who did the study on the smelt, but for a biologist to put the label of indicator species on something, they've done a variety of long term studies on population dynamics. Establishing normal fluctuations, and then determined those that are specific to the changes being studied (ie, changes in water levels, temperatures and velocities), analyzed those fluctuations for patterns and found coorelations. Then ran models to see if they can predict population changes given changes to the identified factors.

All in all, it's most likely the result of several thousand man hours of work.

I'm going to hazard a guess that the IUCN was involved somehow. This is the same body that determines what species are endangered, at risk, etc. Also, there are biologists who work for a myriad of companies (including the US government, and governments of other nations) whose jobs are solely to research the environmental impact on species in a given area. If enough of them publish peer-reviewed papers that present facts supporting the theory that the Delta Smelt's overall health is a good indicator of the area's water supply health, it becomes commonly accepted by the science community at large. This is the same way almost all scientific knowledge is gathered, presented, and becomes "fact" until proven otherwise by other scientists who go through the same process.
*whew!*

BTW, I am a veterinary technician. I am also attending college currently as a biology major working toward a veterinary degree.

I'm going to butt in and add my two cents in regards to the issues/posts that concern me directly.


I killed my hamster when I was thirteen. It bit me hard and held on, and so I strangled it. I have no problem admitting it and might do it again if put in the same situation.

One difference is that the snake NEEDS to eat, but the fact that you enjoyed it moves you closer to the class of person that kills stray cats for fun. Also, your cousin shouldn't be allowed to have a pet she's afraid of and cannot care for herself. I can't bring myself to care much anyhow seeing as it does not affect me.

Depends on whether I knew the child or the cat, and how I was feeling that day. That said, I probably would save neither, as I would be trying to avoid the out of control semi myself.

I think my pets' lives are more valuable to ME. Value is subjective.

Aww. Did he do it on purpose?
Sorry for laughing at the image of you biting your dad.



By the way, I do agree with Rowangrey in regards to wishing suffering on someone that harms any of my pets, family members, belongings, and possibly reputation. The only difference is that I may not keep it to just wishing, so long as I can avoid repercussions, legal and otherwise.

I save the child, and in that particular situation I wouldn't risk my life for an animal.

I don't think I agree. If someone were deliberately attempting to torture a helpless animal for their own sick pleasure, I would call into question their ethics as a whole.
Having an 8 year old cat I've raised from it's birth, I honestly don't know what I would do if someone were to maliciously harm him on purpose.
The very notion sends extremely violent thoughts running through my mind.