If for any reason you’ve recently been feeling complacent about global security, international relations and oh, you know, little things like the continued existence of the species, here to h…
You judge that “we” against all other species (who are our cousins) deserve do be extinct.
I think a fundamental cornerstone of our disagreement is that you view us as being entitled to special privileges because we’re the dominant intelligence on the planet, whereas I think that bestows upon us additional responsibilities as custodians of the planet.
All that aside, though, I think you’re misunderstanding my viewpoint. I’m not saying that myself or others “deserve” to be extinct; I’m saying that I think it would be a net positive for the planet as a whole if we were. Almost every other species would be better off if we weren’t here. (The exceptions are mostly ones we’ve caused - there’s species near extinction that we’re preserving, but in most cases we caused their near-extinct status. There’s domesticated species that wouldn’t do well in the wild, but we created that reliance on us.) You can’t really compare the widespread intentional devastation we cause to habitats through deforestation, expansion, and pollution (as one example) to a whale eating krill. For one, it’s the natural cycle of life, and their ecosystem is balanced around it. For another, we have the intelligence to recognize and understand what we’re doing, and the fact that we’re continuing to do it anyway is, in my opinion, a wholly unforgivable act.
Without us they are utterly doomed, but with us they have a possibility of being preserved or remembered.
As intelligent creatures, we alone care about being preserved or remembered. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that any other species understands the concept, even, but I’d be interested in reading it if you’ve seen research to the contrary.
There is more to our species than the negatives you seem to be caught up on.
There is, and I am focusing on the negatives, but that’s because I feel that as far as the rest of the planet is concerned, the harm we’re causing out-weigh the positives we bring. That’s all my view is stating - there’s no ‘judging’ or claims that we deserve extinction. Just a belief that, objectively, our presence here is a net negative for the rest of the planet. We’ve removed ourselves from the natural order and now reign above it, and we’re ruining it for everything else.
You can’t really compare the widespread intentional devastation we cause to habitats through deforestation, expansion, and pollution (as one example) to a whale eating krill. For one, it’s the natural cycle of life, and their ecosystem is balanced around it. For another, we have the intelligence to recognize and understand what we’re doing, and the fact that we’re continuing to do it anyway is, in my opinion, a wholly unforgivable act.
Much to decompress in that statement.
Human devastation is intentional.
It cannot be compared to a whale eating krill, because that is “natural” and human behaviour is not “natural”.
Human behaviour towards our ecosystem is “unforgivable”.
To 1. I think it is more of a collossal case of denial and lazyness than what I would term “intentional”, but the result is the same.
To 2. Do you really think that whales would refrain from eating all the krill (and subsequently starve to extinction) if they had the chance? So why is our behaviour worse? We are a demonstration of the working of the “natural cycle of life”. We are in the process of using up, wiping out or poluting all the ressources that we (and incidentally most higher lifeforms on our planet) need to survive. Due to that we might die out. As would the whales if they ate all the krill (which many other species in the ocean need to survive).
To 3. You are applying human moral standards that no one but us cares about. There is no evidence of a higher authority that could judge us.
Don’t get me wrong, what we are doing right now is beyond stupid. We know what our impact does to the ecosystem and we should do everything we can to change that. But we seem to be unable to do that. That we are discussing this on a medium that produces millions of tonnes of CO2 each year, most of it just to distract us from our life and help us fight boredom, is a perfect sarcastic point to this.
Yet, humans will not be the end of life on this planet. Right now we don’t even have the means to wipe out all life on it, even if we tried. We might just manage to kill of all the higher animals, but that has happened multiple times before in the history of this planet.
To 1. I think it is more of a collossal case of denial and lazyness than what I would term “intentional”, but the result is the same.
I will concede that calling it ‘intentional’ may be heavy-handed. It’s being done with knowledge of the long-term effects, though. We’re making the informed decision to continue… perhaps due to laziness, as you note.
To 2. Do you really think that whales would refrain from eating all the krill (and subsequently starve to extinction) if they had the chance? So why is our behaviour worse? We are a demonstration of the working of the “natural cycle of life”. We are in the process of using up, wiping out or poluting all the ressources that we (and incidentally most higher lifeforms on our planet) need to survive. Due to that we might die out. As would the whales if they ate all the krill (which many other species in the ocean need to survive).
No, I’m sure they would eat all the krill and starve to extinction… that’s how nature works. The krill population is kept in check by the whales, and the whale population is kept in check by the size of the krill population. If there were too many whales, they’d eat too many krill and wouldn’t be able to sustain themselves, and their population would decline, allowing the krill population to resurge. Or they wouldn’t, and both species would go extinct.
We are in the process of using up, wiping out or poluting all the ressources that we (and incidentally most higher lifeforms on our planet) need to survive. Due to that we might die out.
I agree with you, it’s just that, unlike the whale / krill analogy, we’re poised to take out a lot of other species with us when we go. All my view is stating is that it would be a net positive if we died out before that happens.
To 3. You are applying human moral standards that no one but us cares about. There is no evidence of a higher authority that could judge us.
My statement that this was ‘unforgivable’ was in reference to our supposed role as custodians of the planet (as the most intelligent lifeform here). I believe we have a duty to take care of it and that, with respect to that duty, our failing to do so is unforgivable. (I suppose in this respect I am judging us.)
Yet, humans will not be the end of life on this planet. Right now we don’t even have the means to wipe out all life on it, even if we tried. We might just manage to kill of all the higher animals, but that has happened multiple times before in the history of this planet.
I agree with you, and I’m glad for that. I also agree with you that that doesn’t make any of it okay.
You stated very clearly “I honestly think that the best thing that could happen, overall, is humanity killing ourselves off.” That is a judgment and strangely a “belief” you have self-proclaimed and are now obfuscating.
The two statements that I made, both of which I stand behind, are:
I am not religious, but I honestly think that the best thing that could happen, overall, is humanity killing ourselves off. We’re a net negative for almost everything else on this planet.
[…]I feel that as far as the rest of the planet is concerned, the harm we’re causing out-weigh the positives we bring. That’s all my view is stating - there’s no ‘judging’ or claims that we deserve extinction.
I believe that, from the perspective of the rest of the planet, or the planet’s population as a whole, the best thing that could happen would be us killing ourselves off, yes. That makes no claim that we ‘deserve’ extinction, or that we do not. It’s merely a statement that, as a whole, we cause more problems than we fix. They’d almost all be better off without us.
You’re making a bit of a strawman out of me. I never stated that we didn’t have responsibilities to be a custodian.
I was perhaps misinterpreting your comment that
Our “comfort” does matter most beacasue we are the only ones who know enough to possibly change that.
And if so, then I apologize.
But based on our trajectory are a species, the evidence shows that we will overcome this period and move forward with the preservation of other species and our own.
Are you making this statement based on the fact that we’re still around, and therefore have overcome every other period of hardship we’ve faced (as a species)? With the state of climate change and global warming where it is, we’re moving into unprecedented territory; if we’re basing this statement on our trajectory as a species, I would argue that evidence shows that we’ll continue doing too little until it’s too late. I hope that proves incorrect.
[…]unless a person with the belief that we should all die presses the red button of nuclear annihilation […] The belief that humanity should end is the issue… exactly what the religious people in the article are gunning for.
Yes, and I think I very clearly stated that I disagree with their stance:
The difference is that I, and all - or at least, the vast majority - of the folks you refer to aren’t actively trying to make it happen.
Believing the world would be better off if something were to happen is not the same as actively hoping it does happen or working to make it happen. (Since we’re throwing around logical fallacies, that would be a false equivalence).
That would be true, except for the simple fact that, just because I think it would be the best outcome for the planet as a whole, doesn’t mean I have to be working towards it. From the perspective of everything else living here, it would be best if we all died. If we don’t, it’s increasingly likely that we take some or all of them with us when we do.
I think a fundamental cornerstone of our disagreement is that you view us as being entitled to special privileges because we’re the dominant intelligence on the planet, whereas I think that bestows upon us additional responsibilities as custodians of the planet.
All that aside, though, I think you’re misunderstanding my viewpoint. I’m not saying that myself or others “deserve” to be extinct; I’m saying that I think it would be a net positive for the planet as a whole if we were. Almost every other species would be better off if we weren’t here. (The exceptions are mostly ones we’ve caused - there’s species near extinction that we’re preserving, but in most cases we caused their near-extinct status. There’s domesticated species that wouldn’t do well in the wild, but we created that reliance on us.) You can’t really compare the widespread intentional devastation we cause to habitats through deforestation, expansion, and pollution (as one example) to a whale eating krill. For one, it’s the natural cycle of life, and their ecosystem is balanced around it. For another, we have the intelligence to recognize and understand what we’re doing, and the fact that we’re continuing to do it anyway is, in my opinion, a wholly unforgivable act.
As intelligent creatures, we alone care about being preserved or remembered. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that any other species understands the concept, even, but I’d be interested in reading it if you’ve seen research to the contrary.
There is, and I am focusing on the negatives, but that’s because I feel that as far as the rest of the planet is concerned, the harm we’re causing out-weigh the positives we bring. That’s all my view is stating - there’s no ‘judging’ or claims that we deserve extinction. Just a belief that, objectively, our presence here is a net negative for the rest of the planet. We’ve removed ourselves from the natural order and now reign above it, and we’re ruining it for everything else.
Much to decompress in that statement.
To 1. I think it is more of a collossal case of denial and lazyness than what I would term “intentional”, but the result is the same.
To 2. Do you really think that whales would refrain from eating all the krill (and subsequently starve to extinction) if they had the chance? So why is our behaviour worse? We are a demonstration of the working of the “natural cycle of life”. We are in the process of using up, wiping out or poluting all the ressources that we (and incidentally most higher lifeforms on our planet) need to survive. Due to that we might die out. As would the whales if they ate all the krill (which many other species in the ocean need to survive).
To 3. You are applying human moral standards that no one but us cares about. There is no evidence of a higher authority that could judge us.
Don’t get me wrong, what we are doing right now is beyond stupid. We know what our impact does to the ecosystem and we should do everything we can to change that. But we seem to be unable to do that. That we are discussing this on a medium that produces millions of tonnes of CO2 each year, most of it just to distract us from our life and help us fight boredom, is a perfect sarcastic point to this.
Yet, humans will not be the end of life on this planet. Right now we don’t even have the means to wipe out all life on it, even if we tried. We might just manage to kill of all the higher animals, but that has happened multiple times before in the history of this planet.
This does not make it OK in any way.
I will concede that calling it ‘intentional’ may be heavy-handed. It’s being done with knowledge of the long-term effects, though. We’re making the informed decision to continue… perhaps due to laziness, as you note.
No, I’m sure they would eat all the krill and starve to extinction… that’s how nature works. The krill population is kept in check by the whales, and the whale population is kept in check by the size of the krill population. If there were too many whales, they’d eat too many krill and wouldn’t be able to sustain themselves, and their population would decline, allowing the krill population to resurge. Or they wouldn’t, and both species would go extinct.
I agree with you, it’s just that, unlike the whale / krill analogy, we’re poised to take out a lot of other species with us when we go. All my view is stating is that it would be a net positive if we died out before that happens.
My statement that this was ‘unforgivable’ was in reference to our supposed role as custodians of the planet (as the most intelligent lifeform here). I believe we have a duty to take care of it and that, with respect to that duty, our failing to do so is unforgivable. (I suppose in this respect I am judging us.)
I agree with you, and I’m glad for that. I also agree with you that that doesn’t make any of it okay.
deleted by creator
The two statements that I made, both of which I stand behind, are:
I believe that, from the perspective of the rest of the planet, or the planet’s population as a whole, the best thing that could happen would be us killing ourselves off, yes. That makes no claim that we ‘deserve’ extinction, or that we do not. It’s merely a statement that, as a whole, we cause more problems than we fix. They’d almost all be better off without us.
I was perhaps misinterpreting your comment that
And if so, then I apologize.
Are you making this statement based on the fact that we’re still around, and therefore have overcome every other period of hardship we’ve faced (as a species)? With the state of climate change and global warming where it is, we’re moving into unprecedented territory; if we’re basing this statement on our trajectory as a species, I would argue that evidence shows that we’ll continue doing too little until it’s too late. I hope that proves incorrect.
Yes, and I think I very clearly stated that I disagree with their stance:
Believing the world would be better off if something were to happen is not the same as actively hoping it does happen or working to make it happen. (Since we’re throwing around logical fallacies, that would be a false equivalence).
deleted by creator
That would be true, except for the simple fact that, just because I think it would be the best outcome for the planet as a whole, doesn’t mean I have to be working towards it. From the perspective of everything else living here, it would be best if we all died. If we don’t, it’s increasingly likely that we take some or all of them with us when we do.