Ech.

I just realized my Economics paper is a whole lot easier than the one I took last semester.

To be honest, it's probably easier because I actually learned a few things back then. Also, there isn't that annoying compulsory forum section.

Which, coincidentally, forms the bulk of my Philosophy paper.

That isn't very good. But on the other hand, it'll force me to make a stand for once...even if it means getting my arse mangled by holier-than-thou Philosophy majors who always try to one-up everyone else with their thoughts.

Just kidding.

Actually, on the issue of possums in New Zealand, I believe (here we go) that they should be eliminated only if they're threatening human wellbeing. Ambiguously useful, that. Preservation of local species, perhaps for tourism or emergency food sources, may affect the welfare of humans, thus justifying the elimination of possums.

Yes, I know there's no justifying to killing. I'm taking the utilitarian view. The problem is that possums are probably already part of the NZ ecology, and getting rid of them may also cause problems in local ecosystems. Who can tell if the possums are actually doing something useful, perhaps keeping a rampant local pest from overpopulating and achieving the exact same thing DoC keeps spouting about possums? Take away all the possums (near impossible, given that they can breed and spread pretty fast), perhaps you'd leave an imbalance in the local ecology, one native species outcompeting all others. Could be just as bad as letting the possums go free, as an animal lover might argue.

Such is the joy of philosophy - you can say whatever shite you want and it'll still be valid as long as you keep it pleasantly ambiguous.

Hm.

I also seem to have injured my left wrist. Which is not good, because the Beginner Cup starts in about a month and a bit, if I've got my timetable correct. Must prove to myself that I too can fight! Yar!

[End Transmission]