4 ms·
No - we're eating tuna, as in most cases, humans are at the top of the food chain.
by elthran 11y ago
No - we're eating tuna, as in most cases, humans are at the top of the food chain.
- ZenoArrow 11y agoComments like yours give me reason to look forward to the day humans become extinct. We're not meant to rule over nature, we're meant to be part of it. We are part of it. Damaging the capacity of the planet to support life will ultimately cause us problems, and that includes draining the oceans of its wildlife.
- shultays 11y ago> Damaging the capacity of the planet to support life will ultimately cause us problems At that point, we can always eat each other and keep our population in control.
- ZenoArrow 11y agoIf other life forms are made extinct, why do you suppose there'll be enough humans to eat? Also, cannibalism isn't particularly good for our health... http://www.healthmap.org/site/diseasedaily/article/spotlight-why-cannibalism-bad-you-72612 http://www.healthmap.org/site/diseasedaily/article/spotlight...
- Retra 11y agoAnd from what magic scrolls did you divine these universal truths about human purpose?
- ZenoArrow 11y agoExplain how a human could live outside nature.
- Retra 11y agoBeing part of nature comes with no moral qualifications. The fact that can't "live outside nature" implies that everything you do is living inside nature, whether you find it morally repugnant or not. We have (social) responsibilities to each other and to ourselves, and that includes taking care of our environment, but we do not have any metaphysical responsibility to nature itself, including such things as "not ruling over it."
- ZenoArrow 11y agoWhy would you want to rule over something that you destroy in the process?
- Retra 11y agoI don't see how that question has any bearing on anything at all. Your word choices in this discussion are strongly indicative of a none-too-thought-out black-vs-white worldview. Don't ask me why I would want to rule. Perhaps I would like to rule over your mind to destroy this propensity for dumb questions to be asked of me. The world would be a better place for it.
- ZenoArrow 11y agoIf you answered the question you'd have seen why it was relevant, but if you'd rather not then allow me to elaborate. Imagine someone is fascinated by seeing a butterfly moving between the plants in their garden. Does the person own the butterfly? Naturally, it has no allegiance to any person. Can they own the butterfly? The only ownership possible appears to result in the butterfly being held captive, either alive or dead. The captivity robs both the person and the butterfly, the butterfly is robbed of its freedom, and the person is robbed of the joy of seeing the butterfly live naturally, which is what they may have found fascinating in the first place. This is a hard thing to explain, because it requires a different mindset. If someone is of the ownership mindset then it doesn't matter to them what existed before that ownership, or what happens after their ownership. However, with a less individualistic mindset, different values emerge. For example, is a tree worth more than the paper it can produce?