Talk:Baiji/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

So Long and Thanks for All the Fish

  • So long and thanks for all the fish
  • So sad that it should come to this
  • We tried to warn you all but oh dear?
  • You so not share our intellect
  • Which may explain your disrespect
  • For all of Nature's fair wonders that
  • grow in Yang-tze
  • Despite those dams the rivers greet
  • We found that you folks were pretty neat
  • Especially Chinese tots and your
  • moms-becoming
  • So long, Zedong, so long, Zedong, so long
  • So long, Zedong, so long, Zedong, so long
  • So long, Hong-Kong* and thanks
  • for all the fish

(yeah)

- Signed, the Chinese River Dolphin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.52.215.107 (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

  • By which the dolphins mean "fragrant harbor", rather than the city of Hong Kong which derived its name from the same term. 204.52.215.107 21:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Nice rework, very fitting, especially seeing how Adams covered the dolphins in Last Chance to See --209.214.34.83 00:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your personal blog. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Polar bears are next.

But do people care? Why do Americans still support Arctic drilling? But I digress. No politics here. Xiner 22:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Drilling in ANWR would leave a footprint the size of a sheet of copy paper on a tennis court. "OMFG!!! SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!" Please. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like not to have such a footprint on my tennis court. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.109.231.166 (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
If you say so. I shouldn't have brought it up on here anyway. Xiner 23:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Your opinions are noted but don't appear to agree with the opinions of a number of scientists. However in the end, both this is irrelevant since this is about the Chinese River Dolphin Nil Einne 23:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
It's math, not science. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's perfectly fine to blight a sheet of paper on the tennis court so we can gain another drop of oil for our bucket. Can we focus on my ill-advised decision to write that little note and hammer me personally instead? Xiner 00:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
No politics here. So much for that. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
A scientist who doesn't know math is not a scientist. And it is science since it's not just a bunch of numbers. Only someone who understands an ecosystem can understand the effect something will have on an ecosystem. I don't think any scientist claims to understand any ecosystem completely but I would venture a guess that most environmental scientists understand better then a mathematician and no offense intended but understand better then a layperson like you or me. Actually I'm partially a biologist but I've never studied and so don't understand the issues, but I trust other scientists better then I trust mathematicians on this. Not that there are many mathematicians who dispute the scientists analyse anyway. Most mathmeticians are smart enough that they role is only subdiary in this. I still don't get what the heck this has to do with the Chinese River Dolphin but if someone is going to claims something is all maths when it's not, that has to be disputed. However I've decided to best to end it here. If you wish to challenge my claims, feel free to do so, but don't expect me to reply Nil Einne 11:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The footprint of such a project would (should) be a fixed area, which would be calculated in square miles. I'm not trying to argue about environmental impact, I'm just saying it could only be so much based on the footprint. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
So a drill in Antarctica wouldn't make much of a difference?--Chickentoo 22:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It would depend; which is much better than an "OMFG NOOOOOO" argument, and marginally better than a "OK sure, why not" argument. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 11:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no right to say this, but I will anyway. If anyone gets into trouble here, the blame will be on me. So have mercy on me, please? Xiner 23:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

awful sad awful sin

I can find few things sosad as this an animal whose been around longer than man , who caused no wars who made no efforts to control peoples lives one day we must all answer to the creator when he asks: where are my river dolphine? wethe human race are trulya vile spieces truly a sad lot of stupidity how sad this is to see this so very very sad . I think one day the earth will defend its self from us witha nice nasty virus , so be it. we are worse than animals —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 20.137.52.231 (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Whoa, I didn't make anything go extinct. Should I die too? I agree though, it is sad, but it's not my fault.Nick Warren 10:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Species go extinct every once a while. Its part of nature. There's a number of volcanoes and other natural disasters killing over 97% of Earth's species at a specific time, and who is to blame for that? Everything has a time and a season. When the dinosaurs became extinct, the mammals started to grew, which eventually became us - so is the extinction of the dinosaurs a good thing or a bad thing?
Anyway, OT. The talk page is not for memorials. Aran|heru|nar 14:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
You obviously haven't studied the history of extinctions, or the delicate ecosystems with which we must co-exist. A good read is Work of Nature. Xiner 14:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's an interesting fact, according to palentologist, 99% of all the species that have ever lived on planet Earth are now extinct. However, more animal species have gone extinct in the last 200 years than in the last 6000. -Alex LaPointetalk 18:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

20.137.52.231, this is not your personal blog. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

and at the end...we are going to kill ourselves and our children. this is sad...but this is what will happen. as a chinese myself...can i just say that chinese govt is really bad at the whole environment and wild animal thing?? we are sacrifying our environment to product cheap stuff for the rest of the world...and we will eventually kill our own ppl.

Dolphins are intelligent?

Dolphin "Dolphins are considered to be amongst the most intelligent of animals" If the Chinese river dolphin was so smart, it would not be extinct. Ability to adapt is a good indicator of intelligence. The case could be made for artificially forced evolution.knowpedia 06:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Insects have the best ability to adapt to their climate, but still they are not considered intelligent. Jidan 10:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Your argument doesn't make sense as written. Did you know that? Xiner 14:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Evolution (the ability to adapt) takes time to occur. Such a sudden change in the environment wouldn't have given the dolphins enough time to reproduce offsprings that are better adapted for the new environment, yet that does not mean that dolphins aren't intelligent. We humans also connot adapt to sudden climate changes, or radiation in the air, yet that does not mean that we're not intelligent. Anyway, I still liked the point of view you looked at it :-) Keith Azzopardi 21:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Um, intelligence does not equal fitness, and artificial selection is STILL selection. "Ability to adapt" is not an indicator of intelligence; intelligence simply aids adaptability. Anyways, don't see how that's relevant to the entry unless you want to say, "animals are stupid and so deserve to die off." --Chickentoo 22:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Um guys, temperature is running high on this page. I think the point has been made about intelligence. Let's try to avoid yet another war here (see above discussions). Thanks. Xiner 22:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's put it this way, you are living in a river filled with disgusting stuff with half of tthe river blocked up, how could you adapt to that? Bioran23 - To the impossible

The publik school system has failed. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 11:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


who ever said it isnt my personel blog the whole world is one big blog that is both public and private and the cold hearted intectulat stuff about all things go extinct well many cry about becomming extinct on their death beds so we shoudl accept this kind of waste?/ , and 99 percent of all spieces have gone extinct?/ gee I guess that makes it all ok and who ever said i didnt do any thing am I gona die to no silly it was once said by a scientits that " viruses seem to bea way the earth defends its self from us , natural selection and made made distruction two different things , And the chinese person who said about cheap stuff yes seems the american corporation doesnt care about anything but the bottom line I still feel this is a very sad and very bad thing to happen to any decent life form on this planet. Actually this whole senerio shows just how primevile we still are . As I said earlyer I GUES THIS IS ONE OF THOSE SO CALLED GREAT LEAP FORWARDS THAT WAS JUST ANOTHER FALL BACK. sad and sad , death may bea normal part of life , but it doesnt make it ok.

Look, I've been lurking around this article as well, and I'm sad about the extinction, but you what I did? I made an entry to my LiveJournal about it. I agree that it is sad to lose such a species, but, really man, Wikipedia Talk pages are for improving the article itself; they're not a general discussion forum. This applies to everything from wondering who's going to be in Super Smash Bros. Brawl to the sad loss of a river dolphin. --Sparky Lurkdragon 07:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sad.

Well, that really sucks. So sad. Stupid communists, I'll bet someone tries to blame Bush for it. -Unsigned Comment by 63.245.145.110

I already have. See above. Seriously though, they're the most exploitative capitalists you'll ever find. Any true communist would be ashamed of the capitalist road dogs they've become. Xiner 14:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Seriously guys, this is a talk page, and it is here for discussions regarding the polishing of the article. If you want to make a comment here and there, then fine, but do not make a whole header so that you can express your opinion. Please go "invest" your time in a blog, so that people who are trying to get stuff done do not have to read your opinions here. The great kawa 21:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Its an dead fish, I don't see what all the fuss is about, although I do understand typical response of blaming Bush for everything bad that happens in the world. Mohammed al-Khawal 00:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I knew, it is (was) a mammal, not a fish.Nick Warren 00:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it really is sad. The Chinese will just haphazardly put up a dam here without regard for the people, species or artifacts that they destroy. Anyway, Capitalism totaly owns and the Chinese so don't know the meaning of that word. Nick Warren 23:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The government totally failed the people here. There was a dissenting vote on the Three Gorges Dam in the People's Congress, which was big news, so there was reason within the party. Money won the debate, though. Xiner 02:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a Travesty

I remember as a young'en, there was a book called "Draw 50 Endangered Creatures" There were Gorillas, Orangutans, Cheethas and the Yangtze River Dolphin. This was 25 years ago! In 1981! We have sat back all this time and let this poor mammal become extinct??? I'm gobsmacked and saddened! This is depressing! I'm Sickened that this has happened! --w2ch00

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/i/Talk%7EBaiji_Archive2_970d.html"