Oh well.

Guess some humans consider their value as dangerous, powerful, exotic and amazing species so high they are worth to keep around even though they are dangerous to us =P

Being unique and diversification is also values :)

Oh well. I'd rather get rid of lots of humans ;D

Well, speaking of Amtrak employee accountability, I have a story about that. A few years ago my family took a train ride across the country. When we changed trains in Chicago I noticed that the reading light in my sleeping compartment was stuck on, which of course was bad if I wanted to actually sleep. I found the friendly and helpful attendant and reported it, and her reaction was like watching a balloon deflate.

"What's wrong?" I asked.

"If we report damage they take it out of our wages," she said.

"What! What do you mean take it out of your wages?" I asked.

"If a car is damaged under my watch I have to pay for it," she said.

"Well," I said, taking out my swiss army knife, "I guess there's nothing to see here."

I have to say that I've never encountered such a nice, enthusiastic, friendly group of people with such an abysmally low morale as the crew of a cross-country train. With passengers they're great, but all through the trip I'd see two or three congregated having low muttered conversations. It didn't take me long to figure out they were talking about management. And while the experience was wonderful, the equipment was in horrible shape. It was like traveling in a third world country.

With management that bad, more data doesn't equal more accountability and better performance. It means scapegoating.

Ok. I go with the one I know / could think of first hand:
http://www.mosquitoreviews.com...

I guess another obvious one is as bird feed. Another less obvious one as wasp feed.
http://www.wbrcouncil.org/Depa...
http://www.motherearthnews.com...

Which is beside the point. Consensus isn't about truth, it's about burden of proof.

Suppose Alice and Bob both try to make a perpetual motion machine. Alice claims she has failed, but Bob claims he has succeeded. The scientific community treats Alice's claims of failure without skepticism but it automatically assumes that Bob has made a mistake somewhere.

Does that seem unfair to Bob? Well, imagine you're a rich guy and Alice and Bob are both applying to you for a job. Bob says you should give the job to him because he's your long-lost fraternal twin your parents never told you about and which the hospital hushed up for some reason. When you mention this to Alice she freely admits she is not related to you. You automatically believe Alice, so is it fair to Bob to be skeptical of his claims?

It's a case of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In either case Bob can prove his claim, it's more complicated and time consuming because he has to explain what went wrong with all the prior knowledge. Alice's claims in either case are consistent with what you reasonably believe to be true so you can reasonably assume she's correct.

Er, no. That's like positing science going off the rails because it replaced instrumentation with data.

As ShanghaiBill says, Bats aren't rodents. I'll just add that bats and rodents are about as taxonomically unrelated as two mammals can possibly be.

Bats are more closely related to horses, bears, rhinos, even whales -- like most mammals they're members of the huge and diverse superorder Laurasiatheria. Rodents are in the much smaller superorder Euarchontoglires, the only non-extinct members of which are: rodents, rabbits, hares, pikas, tree shrews, flying lemurs, and the various primates.

There's not just one kind of bees and they don't all pollinate the same stuff.

You mean all bees / all pollinators? Good day for those who don't need them I guess ..

Ok all your guys.
I'll give you one chance:

[citation needed]

I'm sure the world feels the same about you too.

On a subjective scale from all the species of the planet if they where well-informed enough I think we'd be considered the worst for lots of them.
Not rats and possibly dogs =P

Only if you assume the loss of something is worth anything.

Various bees polinate various flowers and trees but remove one and even if some flowers and tress wouldn't be polinated others would take advantage of the loss.

But I guess it's correct in the way if finite consequences for others. Maybe no species depend on mosquitos only. What about the diseases they spread? But I guess that's what one usually want to stop anyway.

Oh there was that too.

Regarding mosquitos and killing them locally.

I'm vegan and kinda possibly want to be somewhat consistent there. So that's what make me question whatever to kill them or not. If I killed them I could at least put them to got use by sprinkling them on the lake and hope some fishes took them.

Then I would interfere but their death wouldn't be for nothing at least (likely wouldn't regardless of what I did with them.)

I think killing them of completely is much worse though because evolution takes time and you remove their branch from existance and decrease variety forever.

If you slaughter cows at least other cows will replace them so the whole species isn't loss. But to kill a whole specie(?) is fucking gross.

I have a so-so feeling about hunting to "preserve" wild life too. If that's the solution that's better than nothing. But I wish they wasn't breeded to bring less wild and less competitive versions of the animals just to get better trophies (you could of course argue that's what make them more competitive then but ..), I want them to have the best chances to live out in the wild so that eventually they could be released and survive again some time in the future. To not ruin them.

My opinion about what?

I saw some tweet about locals and tourists which moved a very large snake out of a city.

I don't like mosquitos either. I could want to kill them locally (I live in Sweden so it's scarcely populated outside of cities and inside cities I guess the mosquitos is pretty rare instead) but to kill them all?

Of course I don't want to be eaten by a tiger or killed by a bear or whatever (not a human either..)

But yeah. To kill them all?

If anything humans are the most dangerous animal of the planet so that should make things very simple.

I'm much more threatened by humans than bears too.

Can't that be said for everything?

Tigers doesn't either. Humans can eat their pray?

Small snakes can be replaced with .. owls?

And so on.

So why bother.

Same could be said about Christians, Muslims, Americans, French people, vacuum cleaner sellers, McD personal, .. too. Just kill them and let other humans replace them. Why not?

Guess it doesn't matter that all the extinct animals died because obviously the world carries on anyway.

Just destroy everything. WTF. Something else will replace it eventually. And really our existance is pretty useless anyway and the Earth will be destroyed and all life on it eventually anyway so why bother?

Same reason some people don't think we should kill all snakes, sharks, humans, crocodiles, tigers, ..

But sure. Kill all humans. Be done with it. Nothing to fear for us or anyone else from humans.

After some time. You can be marked for your failure to not pay your debts and that sits there for some time. I guess it may not be removed when you enter personal bankruptsy so to say but rather when that period is over and the loans are removed? So maybe there's a five year period or so where you're labeled as someone who has failed.

But yeah. Maybe that's better than someone with lots of debt going into that scenario.