Question for dasa

Originally posted by Dasa
Not true.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i was under the impression that in the wild animals very rarely die of old age or disease, the minute they slow down some thing eats them.

i maybe wrong and it was a bit of a slightly educated guess (by educated i mean i watched the really 'wild show' as a kid) but ill put a cyber-bet of 10 million of my own pounds im within 5% of being right. put your cyber-money where your mouth is mr.fudge.

Originally posted by FMF
Even if this were true, and assuming you were able to prove it, what would it matter if we are "be born 10 times as an animal" to whom "someone will be cruel", if - when we are in our human incarnation - we have absolutely no memory or perception of it?

Originally posted by FMF
What an odd thing for you to deny. You certainly have said in the past that you would not share your deeper "spiritual insights" with people who are not vegetarians, at the very least. You went through a phase of saying it repeatedly.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
10 million made up monies on the table mr. fudge...i aint tak'in kindly to be compared to that there mr dasa. put your money where your mouth is.

ive pegged out a 2 square meters in my garden ready, when the bets on im gonna count all the animals that die in the square and record how many were murdered and eaten. it doesnt get more scientific (and fair) than that.

Mortality Factors

Common to all living creatures are the events of birth and death. Few, if any, animals in the wild die from old age.
Instead they succumb to one of many factors that affect the members of their particular species. Mortality refers
to the inherent loss of individuals from a population through death. Mortality is difficult to measure because
carcasses are hard to locate. The fate of animals that disperse or move out of a population can seldom be determined.

Consequently, it is more practical to measure survivorship, or the numbers of animals remaining alive, as these
individuals can be located and accounted for. Wildlife species with a high reproductive potential, such as cottontail
rabbits, tend to have low survivorship and high mortality at younger ages, therefore offsetting their high reproductive
outputs. Animals with a lower reproductive potential, such as white-tailed deer, have higher survivorship of young,
compensating for the smaller litter sizes. Frequently, survivorship values or rates are obtained from field data for all
age classes in a population. From these values, survivorship curves can be developed for a specific population.
These are used to assess the population’s potential for growth or decline in a particular habitat.

Several mortality factors (e.g. disease, predation, exposure to severe weather, starvation or malnutrition, accidents,
harvest) can be the proximate cause of how an individual animal meets its fate. While the proximate cause may be
predation or exposure to severe weather, the ultimate cause may be related to a lack of sufficient cover to escape
predators or the effects of adverse weather.

A wildlife population will be subjected to many limiting factors over time that may produce an overall reduction in
population size. Because habitat conditions, weather patterns, and populations of predators and prey are constantly
changing, some factors that have a significant impact in one year may be less so the following year. Despite these
inconsistencies, in many cases the overall reduction in population size from mortality factors across years remains the
same.

In effect, the specific causes of death tend to balance or compensate each other. Wildlife professionals call this phenomenon
compensatory mortality. Stated another way, one type of mortality largely replaces another kind of mortality in animal
populations, while the total mortality rate of the population remains constant. For example, bobwhite quail have great
difficulty surviving severe weather conditions at the northern limits of their range. When winters are extremely cold, many
animals die from exposure, and fewer animals will be taken by predators. During mild winters, many quail survive only to
fall prey to a host of predators because of finite amounts of escape cover. The overall effect is that approximately the
same number of quail are supported by the habitat from year to year. Habitat to a large extent, determines the number of
animals that can survive in a population, or animals that produce a “surplus.” This surplus is removed by mortality.

Perhaps a more specific example with bobwhite quail will help. Let’s assume that total mortality on a bobwhite quail population
is 70 percent; 70 percent of the total population will die in the first year. In the first year when the weather is severe, 20 percent
of the population is lost to predators and 50 percent of the population dies from exposure. The total mortality rate for the
population is 70 percent.

In the second year when predation removes 60 percent of the population, only 10 percent of the population is lost to exposure for
a combined total mortality rate of 70 percent.

Wildlife managers employ the concept of compensatory mortality when establishing hunting and trapping regulations. In compensatory
mortality, hunting and trapping serve to replace the natural mortality factors operating on a population, and keep the population
density in balance with what the habitat can effectively support.

In the quail example, the population was hunted, and 30 percent of the population was removed. In this situation, predators removed
10 percent of the population, and 30 percent of the quail died from exposure. The total mortality rate remained unchanged at 70 percent.

The portion of a wildlife population that is capable of being removed is called the harvestable surplus, that portion of the population
that would invariably die from other causes. Data suggest that species with a high reproductive potential can have a larger percentage
of the population harvested in any one year than species with a low reproductive potential, because their higher reproductive outputs
will replenish the loss of animals more quickly.

Muskrats are a perfect example. When large numbers of muskrats are removed by trapping, the population responds in these ways:

the length of the breeding season is increased so more litters are produced,
the number of offspring produced per litter increases, and
surviving muskrats are less susceptible to disease or predation.

Regardless of which species we are talking about, man must regulate the removal of animals because all populations have a harvest
level at which the mortality factors are no longer compensatory but additive. This means one kind of mortality is added to the other
sources of mortality.

Additive mortality can be detrimental and lead to population decline. Back to the quail example: we know approximately 70 percent of the
population will die every year, whether we hunt the population or not. If hunting pressure is heavy and a large percentage of quail are killed,
pushing the total mortality above 70 percent, this would be considered additive mortality.

One important note: regulated sport hunting has never resulted in a species being placed on the endangered or threatened species list.
Commercial, market, or unregulated hunting has been responsible for, in some cases, the extinction of a wildlife species, such as the
passenger pigeon.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I wasn't comparing you to dasa.

Merely pointing out that there is no need to make numbers up to defeat him.

Particularly after I just mocked dasa for plucking a stupid number out of thin air it would be unfair of me
not to point out where someone I generally agree with did the same (albeit far less egregiously)

However here are some numbers th ...[text shortened]...
passenger pigeon.[/quote]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equation

Originally posted by stellspalfie
interesting albeit very long statistics. its too late though ive outlined the parameters of the scientific test to settle this argument. i shall begin to watch my garden for 1hr where i will count all animal deaths withing the allotted area, making notes to detail the cause of death and a simple tick or cross to indicate if the animal was eaten. animals that are killed then taken outside of the area will be presumed eaten.

start the clock.

Originally posted by Dasa
Your wording is not my wording.

Changing a few of my words -can make my comments sound completely different/negative.

This is what you have done.

What I have said is.......

I cannot present higher intimate knowledge in this forum because persons must understand the basics first - and if they cannot even understand that killing is wrong then I cannot present higher information.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
well the results are in.

at 17:22 a blue tit was seen pulling a worm from the ground and flying away. this qualifies as an eaten animal.

end of test. lets examine the raw data.

100% of all animals in the test zone that died, were killed and eaten. i think this proves quite clearly that i am correct.

but i think we can both agree that the tru ...[text shortened]... s i will go to when i cant find anything on the web to back up my wild statistical guesstimates)

If human mortality before the advent of modern medicine is anything to go by, most animals die when young. Causes may include disease, starvation, predation and even being killed by ones own species.

Originally posted by sonhouse
And I notice a pointed disregard for my arguments about the suffering of animals. You cannot know the suffering of animals, all you have is words written down by people thousands of years ago who didn't even know there was such a thing as a nervous system and such much less the inner angst of animals. I am TELLING you for a FACT animals feel pain, fear, and ...[text shortened]... itual a path you are on where you would perform genocide on a culture you happen to think evil?

Originally posted by sonhouse
And I notice a pointed disregard for my arguments about the suffering of animals. You cannot know the suffering of animals, all you have is words written down by people thousands of years ago who didn't even know there was such a thing as a nervous system and such much less the inner angst of animals. I am TELLING you for a FACT animals feel pain, fear, and ...[text shortened]... itual a path you are on where you would perform genocide on a culture you happen to think evil?

Originally posted by Dasa
Criminal Muslims and criminal Christians and criminal Jews and criminal atheists and any person who rapes and tortures and murders and plunders and pillagers will be dealt with by way of capital punishment.

Originally posted by Dasa
Capital punishment is not genocide.

Originally posted by Dasa


Living the true spiritual life raises the consciousness to the transcendental platform and then all things are know......even the plight of animals.