Animals or humans?

[Taz]

If you had to donate to one which would it be to help animals or to help humans?

I really dont know probably humans since i dont really care about animals much but i would never do anything to hurt one.

[Jah]

Well we should help our own first its my opinion

[C0FFINCASE]

Humanity needs all the help it can get. Animals will be ok, nature has a funny way of making sure it survives. If we can fix ourselves then the impact we'll have on the world will help nature as well.

[C0FFINCASE]

Yeah, there is more to it than just that. I really hope you didn't believe what you just said. Animals will not be okay. The humanity populates the more land we need. When we take land, we take habitats and species will go extinct.

Honestly I don't. Ultimately I don't give a rat's ass about the animals. Really don't. I'd save humanity and watch the Earth burn given the choice.
The issue you've just cited is a typical defense of why we need to help the animals. The only solution we have is population control and my thoughts on population control are that whoever is in favor of it should buy a pistol, load it with the exact number of bullets you have in your intimidate family and start shooting. Go oldest to youngest then slam that thing against your roof of your mouth and pull the trigger. Ultimately we won't have to do a thing in my opinion to curve human growth. Its a fact that humans have altered their population curve. Our species is designed to have a fairly linear curve like lions or tigers, but with modern medicine we've altered the curve to that of mice and insects, a "J" curve. Funny thing about J curve populations is they innately breed in huge excess until then deplete the resources available to them or until a natural control kicks in to level the population out. Typically its a virus, which if you think about it we've already seen start to form. Bird flu, Swin flu, ect. They're all just evolutionary steps of viruses moving slowly to being able to infect humanity. Nature helps itself, even if you don't see it.
To save the environment we need green technology that some will tell you we have if we'd only fund it. Ultimately the technology we have is so inefficient and expensive that the scale we need it on is impossibly large and impossibly expensive. We quadrupled our deficit then we might be able to power most of America, but the systems would require continual repair and up keep plus we'd have to level some forest to put up windmills and solar panels, not to mention dam rivers. This ultimately greatly alters the land you set out to protect.
You say animals will go extinct as if that is unnatural. The whole premise of evolution is those that are not fit to survive die. You see humanity as intrusive on nature, I'd say we are nature. We evolved to be this way and were born of the Earth. If we have developed to a point to be able to modify that Earth then who says we aren't a force of nature. People like to believe man is more than animal or separate from nature but we are just beasts and the effect we have on our environment is arguably natural. Tons of animals have adapted to humanity's alteration of the environment.
The real inconvenient truth is that we're not going to do anything about environmental issues. Industry controls government ad they will ensure that business stays lucrative no matter the cost. Even the environmental agencies that exist in states are just political tools that are used to gain support of politicians more that save anything.
You see groups like the Sea Shepherds are lucky they haven't been shot by the Japanese government who are not going to care about an imaginary line around an area when people will pay for whale meat if they bring it to them.