Just because the Europeans only finished them off doesn't mean humans had nothing to do with them being nearly extinct on the mainland already; the indiginous tribes could also have been hunting them to protect their cattle if they had any. That would also explain why they still survived in Tasmania till the Europeans came; since it's an island there would have been fewer humans.

________________

No doubt they did hunt them, but could a tribal society really wipe out an apex predator? A better question is would they even do it if they could? Aboriginals were very in touch with nature; they understood and respected every aspect of it. The fact that there weren't as many humans in Tasmania is a good point, however there are also no dingos in Tasmania, which I think is more of a factor.

________________

Didn't dingos also come with the Europeans? Before the coming of the Europeans there were only marsupials in Australia, right?

________________

Nah, dingos came well before then, at least a few thousand years before. You may be thinking of foxes, which came with the Europeans and had a greater ecological impact than dingos.

________________

Oh I see . Let me guess, those foxes came with the Europeans to help keep the rabbit population under control (but they didn't stick to rabbits, otherwise there wouldn't be a problem)? Those rabbits were also brought in by the Europeans (just because some chap wanted to go rabbit shooting; and if there aren't any rabbits, just bring your own and let them run loose ), and they bred, well, like rabbits; the abundance of rabbits caused the fox population to thrive, but rabbits being rabbits kept their numbers up, and Australia ended up with two national pests?

________________

is there a way in the photoshop to see your most used fonts up, like it is in word?

I mean this:


??

________________
if there is an option between "to do" and "not to do", I will always choose the latter.

"what kind of crazy, twisted conclusion is that...?" - banana bread no puding

On the same note, it's natural for people to want to save/support these animals/plants.

Perhaps the species are cute/beautiful, and invoke sympathetic response from humans. Perhaps they offer humans knowledge or other benefits.

Whatever the reason, the end result is that the species are being kept alive, even if it is by humans' mercy/benevolence/greed. Would you all consider that natural?

To me, it's as natural as a human baby's natural ability to invoke nurturing behaviour from other humans. They are all genetically equipped to take advantage of the fact that we're very social animals. Face it, they've got people shoveling their crap, cleaning them, FORCING them to have babies and keep the species alive (even if "artificially")... they are a national mascot for the second largest economy in the world, and a well-known icon for the international wildlife preservation movement (World Wildlife Fund).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Fund_for_Nature

In that sense, I'd say giant pandas have somewhat succeeded in a human-dominant world.

Tell that to the guys who make our papers
Honestly, there's so much to learn it's almost to much to ask of 17 y/o teens. Almost.

Edit - Polar bears are worth saving as far as I am concerned. Nothing can give us the right to decide whether a single person should live or die, let alone an entire species. And if we are doing something that destroys their habitats, and forces them to extinction directly or indirectly, the least we can do is at least try to help.

Edit 2 - Oh, and when's the third part of the Kingkiller chronicles coming out? Or has the series been cancelled?

Edit 3 - Wierd, possibly stupid question, but please ignore that part. My knowledge in these areas is sadly lacking
I want something to keep with me, something like a bracelet, which wouldn't look wierd if I wear it all the time, and shouldn't be a social gaffe. It's better if it's beautiful, but subtly so. Any suggestions?

Last edited by Casey D. Geek at 12:49 am, May 23 2011

________________
There are times when you will miss what you never had. I wonder how you will find what you so desperately need.

A diamond studded noose.

________________

Everyday I'm tumblin'

Fool me once and all that. You get the drift.

________________
There are times when you will miss what you never had. I wonder how you will find what you so desperately need.

I used to wear a couple of crystals (one was carnelian, the other was rainbow obsidian) on a leather necklace. It was pretty subtle if I wore it under my shirt, and unique and understated when I wore it on top of my shirt. Unfortunately the leather started wearing after a year or two and I stopped wearing it because I didn't want to make it worse.

________________

An expensive watch.

Or a cheap one. So long as it's understated (leather band, thin gold one) you're safe for all occasions. Actually that goes just as well for any piece of jewelry-lots of people go for a chain/leather strap with a religious symbol hanging off it, though for years I wrapped dog tag chains around my rest.

At the moment, I keep a little stuffed elephant on my key chain in part 'cause my grandma's think of them as a good luck charm, and for ages I had a resistor on my keychain as a hairband for the elephant. It's really whatever you want 'cause the whole point of this piece of jewelry is that it's meaningful to you.

It should be out in a couple years. He said he expects it to be a little quicker than the second one came out, but that was just this year so be patient.

Here, a bracelet.

________________