TechSpot

Drunk Elephants kill six people

By Arris
Dec 17, 2002
Post New Reply
  1. I wonder if they had to put "Killed by drunken elephants" on the death certificates. Can't be a nice way to go I'd imagine. Unfortunately four children are among the victims of this terrible incident.

     
  2. poertner_1274

    poertner_1274 secroF laicepS topShceT Posts: 4,745

    That is hilarious, I heard about something like this a while ago. I can't imagine going out that way.
     
  3. Mictlantecuhtli

    Mictlantecuhtli TS Evangelist Posts: 4,919   +9

    :blackeye:
     
  4. Vehementi

    Vehementi TechSpot Paladin Posts: 3,199

    Wait...this isn't a joke?
     
  5. MrGaribaldi

    MrGaribaldi TechSpot Ambassador Posts: 2,802

    Veh> BBC aren't known for joking on their news, with the exception of on April fools day...

    But it is kinda hard to believe for us here in the west...
     
  6. conradguerrero

    conradguerrero TS Rookie Posts: 357

    Very true. Huge jungle and forest ranges have been reduced to islands in a sea of people. Overpopulation of humans will continue to put enormous presure on wild ecosystems.


    What will the world be like in fifty years?
     
  7. Vehementi

    Vehementi TechSpot Paladin Posts: 3,199

    "overpopulation is a threat to mankind
    they always depended on the same food
    some may call it controlled resources
    just another phrase for extinction"
    - Funker Vogt - The Last
     
  8. Justin

    Justin TS Rookie Posts: 1,595

    And yet more then 50% of the earths useable wilderness is still unpopulated and unaltered.


    People completely overinflate "overpopulation". The fact of the matter is it that the earth could easily easily support 40 billion people having an acre of space EACH, and yet having more then half of the earths surface (not including the oceans and antarctica) free.

    We aren't overpopulated, we are overpopulated in a few small areas because we have horrible land management skills as a species.
     
  9. conradguerrero

    conradguerrero TS Rookie Posts: 357

    I disagree, last time I checked there were limited resources on the earth.
    What would you have us do? Cut down the rest of the 'useable' rainforest. Then, farm cows on the 'fertile' soil, no wait rainforest soil has few nutrients, so the farm only last's five years, let's just cut down more rainforest. Then, when the rain season hits, we'll wonder why there's so many deaths from mudslides.

    How else do you think you can buy a pound of beef for practically nothing? We may have wilderness now, but what about tomorrow? It's not that we cannot use the land we have now, it is the way it is used that will ruin the land.

    In Australia, mismanagement of the farm lands has caused deserts to grow; in South America, rainforest is cleared at the rate of 30 million ACRES a year; and in the US, rich topsoil the size of Connecticut is lost to erosion every year and in over the last two hundred years, the us topsoil has gone from 21 inches average to less than 6 inches average.

    The alternative is simple, stop most cattle grazing and instead grow food crops. A pound of beef will require around 390 gallons of water and 16 pounds of wheat. A pound of wheat will require only 25 gallons of water and will produce a pound of wheat. Spinach grown on an acre of land will produce up to 26 times as much protein as beef will.

    In Hawaii we have limited resources, there are vast fields of pineapples and sugar cane, but very few cow pastures. heck, we even have untouched jungles and lush vegitation. We aren't going around saying, "we have so much jungle, let's clearcut it and grow grass instead." It's about using what land we have already damaged and preserving what is still untouched.

    In reality, it will actually be our children that will wonder how could we let ourselves ruin the world.

    I did a report on world nutrition last year, by the way
     
  10. vassil3427

    vassil3427 TS Rookie Posts: 822

    Well I disagree with you, we are no were near over populated, and as far as limited resources, about the trees, there are more trees now, than a 100 years ago, there's been plenty of studies on it, when I find a page to one I'll post the link. And I like Beef, no way I'd give it up for more green stuff. Cows Rock:grinthumb .... In my opinion the earth is fine, we have plenty of resources, for the most part, lots of space left, there is no global warming(because there isnt), and the ozone layer is fine....
     
  11. conradguerrero

    conradguerrero TS Rookie Posts: 357

    I believe that global warming is still a natural cycle that will continue for as long as the earth is around.


    I agree that the earth is 'fine' ... however my point is what will be in store for the future.


    We will never be wiped out, but it is our responsibility, our moral duty as sentient beings to preserve what God has given us.
     
     
  12. Vehementi

    Vehementi TechSpot Paladin Posts: 3,199

    And the last time I checked, that's impossible, because nothing can be truly created or destroyed. Once we stockpile all the food in lcoked underground chambers because we're selfish and paranoid of a nuclear war, that's when there will be limited resources ;) And, the same thing will happen when we mummify our dead, as we pack them with preservatives, and we won't allow the nutrients stored in their body to return to the earth for some bizarre reason. We will never truly "run out" of resources on earth, but rather we will convert it all to unusable products. Then our strain of infestation will move to another planet because of humanity's incredible, selfish, all-powerful need to live. :dead:

    I'm not a vegetarian because I don't appreciate the killing of animals, and it's cruel or anything, and eating cows will someday do anything to our environment, but rather it's because you're eating dead meat, most of the animals are caged in spaces barely larger than them, and it's terribly bad for you. Next time, when you're eating a McDonalds cheeseburger, think of the dead cow who was stuck in a cage for it's whole life, the cow who's *** you're eating. You are what you eat ;)

    And cows do discharge a lot of methane, which is terrible for the ozone layer, but I'll only be on this planet another 90 some years so it won't affect me, and I don't care!

    Amazing how a conversation about drunk elephants can turn into something like this...
     
  13. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 12,687   +334

    Methane is bad for the Ozone? How?
     
  14. Vehementi

    Vehementi TechSpot Paladin Posts: 3,199

    It just does, SNGX.
     
  15. RustyZip

    RustyZip TechSpot Paladin Posts: 418

    I heard once that a vet went out to a farm where he had to have a look at a poorly cow. Anyway he forgot his torch (it was night time) and all he had was a lighter... He popped on his gloves, lit the lighter so he could see what he was doing, inserted his hand in the cows backside, and the cow farted:p ... He and the farmer ended up in hospital with major burns, and the barn was barely standing after..... KABOOOM...:blackeye:

    A true story story apparently...

    (Sorry - going off the subject a bit:D )
     
  16. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 12,687   +334

    Wow - convincing evidence there.
     
  17. conradguerrero

    conradguerrero TS Rookie Posts: 357

    Yes, I'm aware of the law of conservation of mass and energy.

    You can't grow plants without fertile soil. Forests are cut down to grow grass which feeds the cows, when the plants are eaten, some of the topsoil is removed via wind or water, after a few years of this the topsoil is gone, which means that no grass grows there, so they throw down fertilizer, which also washes away, until they pave it over and turn it into a parking lot. This can be seen in the Gulf of Mexico, where fungal blooms decimate fisheries along the Mississippi river delta. When's the last time anyone drank from a river?

    This loss of topsoil and pollution via animal droppings and fertillizer will continue to harm people and the general environment. erosion is an ongoing process, but it is the unnatural acceleration of this process that causes so much disruption. The resources are there ... we are simply messing them up, and that's what makes them limited.
     
  18. conradguerrero

    conradguerrero TS Rookie Posts: 357

    Methane (CH4) is a "greenhouse gas". Other examples include water (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), ozone (O3), nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's). These gasses all absorb some of the infrared radiation from the sun. Which is the same energy that warms the surface of the earth everyday.
     
  19. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 12,687   +334

    So its a greenhouse gas... That has nothing to do with the Ozone layer. Chloroflurocarbons are bad for the ozone.
     
  20. Spliffmeister

    Spliffmeister TechSpot Paladin Posts: 527

    This Earth is Precious

    Be warned - this is long - But well worth a read if you have the time. I've read it many a time - It's on a poster on the back of my toilet door ;).

    In 1854, the "Great White Chief" in Washington made an offer for a large area of Indian land and promised a 'reservation' for the Indian people of the North West of the USA. Chief Seattle of the Suquamish was said to have made this reply.

     
  21. Rick

    Rick TechSpot Staff Posts: 6,305   +52 Staff Member

    That should take about 50 more years by projected estimates.

    I agree that land space is not a problem, but food and natural resources (especailly) will be.

    Selfishly speaking for our little race though, I can say we shouldn't have too much of a problem. The "S" curve of life will kick in.. As we run out of resources and food to sustain ourselves, our population will begin decreasing in size until we CAN sustain ourselves. Humanity will not become extinct because of lack of food or resouces (aside from global disaster).

    You can bet our great grandchildren, and possibly our grandchildren will grow up in a world that will feel the crunch of overpopulation though.

    Currently fossil fuels are estimated to last for another 75 years, while nuclear power will suffice for around 300 with current resources. I dont' have any estimates on food though - Homework for someone perhaps? :)

    As far as species go, we are very versatile. We are masters of our environment, and for this reason I believe humans can devise more efficient and intelligent ways of gathering and using resources. Depending on what the future of science has to offer, over-population may be greatly post poned. But the threat is there and it gets closer every decade.

    You should check some global population statistics and see exactly how exponential human growth is.
     
  22. Rick

    Rick TechSpot Staff Posts: 6,305   +52 Staff Member

    Interstingly enough, the reason we became "intelligent" is because we do eat meat. That one brave little monkey got so hungy that it decided to chomp down on a juicy carcass - And because of this - We were able to sustain ourselves for weeks on a single meal. For the first time, we had excess energy.. Energy that evolution put to good usage - The brain.

    The brain requires roughly 25% of the total energy used by your body. Our Neandrethal brethern were no so fortunate to be avid eat meaters and their brains did not have the luxury of developing. Ours did... So we killed them all. ;) Yay Magnum! :rolleyes:

    I agree that humankind will never be a peaceable species for as long as we are barbaric enough to feast on sentient beings, but it has been a necessity for our race to achieve evolution's idea of perfection.

    It's hard to change roughly 60,000 years of genetic programming and people just now are getting the message that vegetarianism may be a wise choice. For as long as high-calorie, fatty foods taste good to the majority of us - animals will continu to be slaughtered and eaten by many.

    Given the abundance of edible plants out there, I think it will be very good to switch over from omnivore to herbivore one day. Much energy is lost in the heiarchy of the food chain.. We should be going directly to the source which is plants. This is most economical, enviromental and conscious route to take. But you must realize Veh, that conversion on a global scale will take many thousands of years.

    For now though, I like the taste of a number of meats and I will continue to eat them. It's bad for me and bad for them, but I'm programmed to like meat and gladly fall into my cravings at the expense of others.

    Life feeds life - That's just the way it is. Sure, there are better ways of doing it, but hey.. I'm only human. ;)
     
  23. vassil3427

    vassil3427 TS Rookie Posts: 822

    Evolution.....What a bunch of giberish:dead:
     
  24. Spliffmeister

    Spliffmeister TechSpot Paladin Posts: 527

    going really off topic....

    For those of you who do eat meat, and for some of you who don't. 'My Year of Meat' by Ruth L. Ozeki is a great book and is a bit of an eye opener to the American meat industry.
     
  25. Rick

    Rick TechSpot Staff Posts: 6,305   +52 Staff Member

    Similarly, I would recommend "The Jungle".. It's quite an eye opened and a stomach churner from what I remember. ;)
     


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...


Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.