The natural world is a beautiful and fragile place that we, as the most advanced and intelligent species on the planet, are systematically destroying day by day. Hundreds of species of plants and animals are on the verge of extinction.
But it's never the ones we can afford to lose, is it?
We've all seen the adverts - 'There are less than 300 Chinese Mountain Leopards left in existence. Please give £3 a month to adopt one, and help us save this beautiful creature. In return, you'll receive this fascinating fact sheet and glossy poster detailing this splendour of this animal. Plus, you'll receive this generic cuddly toy which vaguely resembles anything from a Chinese Mountain Leopard, to a Bottlenosed Dolphin - depending on which angle you hold it at. Not only that, but your adopted Leopard (which we've named "Chu-Cha" - because "Brian" just isn't cuddly enough) will actually write to you once a fortnight to tell you how he's getting on, and what animal he tore to shreds for his most recent meal. He'll even include photographs! So please give just £3 a month, and help Brian - I mean, Chu-Cha stay part of our wonderful world.'
It is a sad fact of life that many incredible animals will soon be gone.
But what about Sloths? They do absolutely bugger all. They hardly move, and spend virtually all their time sleeping. They move so slowly that algae actually grows on the fur of one type of Sloth. So would it really matter if Sloths became extinct? As far as I know, they do not have a Symbian (mutually beneficial) relationship with another animal, nor do they 'make' anything like Bees do. If they were to die out, it would mean a tiny bit more room for the rest of the animals in the rainforest.
And wasps - they could go as well. Wasps make nothing - no honey, no gravy, no pickle, nothing at all. As far as I know, they don't pollinate flowers, and they look a bit like a bee or a Hornet. They stripy, buzzy, sting you put of spite, things that wouldn't really be missed if they got wiped out.
It just seems to me that if sone animals are destined to go the way of the Dodo, it would be better if it was a few of the pointless ones. Like the Sloth, the Wasp - and the Flying fish. The Flying Fish exists only because Evolution changed its mind half way through: "I know, I'll give the fish extra large, wing-like fins so it can leap out of the water and 'fly'. Actually, that's a stupid idea - I'll leave it."
It's a sad irony that there are plenty of pointless animals, but it's the beautiful and unique ones that are in danger.
I'm a big film fan, but what irritates me more than anything else is the fact that in virtually every modern action or disaster movie, at some point in the film, there main man always finds time to get at least a snog (possibly more) in.
Their could be a huge bomb about to detonate in a city, but the hero still finds enough time to stick his tongue down the throat of his leading lady before saving the day. In real life, she wouldn't have let him anywhere near her until he actually had saved the day.
It is just ridiculous how fear of annihilation, or imminent death can be temporarily overridden by primal urges of the flesh. It would be more realistic if the hero made a move on the attractive piece of totty, but then found that he was unable to 'perform' because the massive Alien spaceship above the city was scaring the shit out of him, and 'Mr Happy'.
So come on Hollywood - make it more realistic!