5 ms·

Congratulations. You attach the lowest value to human life that I've heard assigned in all of 2010 so far. Just to be clear, would you like to state a value i

by Eliezer 17y ago

Congratulations. You attach the lowest value to human life that I've heard assigned in all of 2010 so far. Just to be clear, would you like to state a value in utilons for the tree and a value for each of the 150,000 lives lost in a day? Also, how unique does a human brain with 20 trillion synapses have to be before it is at least as unique as an unusually isolated tree? Very unique, apparently, if not one out of 150,000 people qualifies. That's more people than live in all of the city of Santa Clara. But then if everyone in Santa Clara died tomorrow, why, probably not a single one of them ever had a thought, a feeling, an unwritten poem, that was as worth preserving as a tree. I'm sorry if I sound a little sharp here, but I wouldn't trade 150,000 trees for one human being. I am honestly horrified that at least nine other people voted you up. This is a dangerous planet. Human beings should stick together.

danparsonson 17y ago
Well, not all of us elevate humanity above the other life on this planet; indeed, some of the important problems we humans face today are a direct result of the kind of attitude that one human being is worth at least 150,000 trees - that is, that we feel freely able to take as much other life as we deem necessary for our survival. This planet is indeed dangerous, but consider how much of that danger is caused by us and threatens both humans and other species. One of the things we could do to help change that would be to learn to see equivalent beauty and value in other life beyond our own.
- swombat 17y ago
  Having some ecological sensitivity doesn't imply valuing trees (even 150'000 of them) more than human beings. On the contrary: the only value of those 150'000 trees is to enable us to live better, happier lives in a more human-friendly world. Extreme statement: If there was a way to replace every single tree in the world with a plastic equivalent that looked and felt the same, and performed the same functions as a real tree (oxygen generation, soil processing, biological niche, etc).. if there was a way to do this and save a single human life, I would do it.
  - astrec 17y ago
    Equally extreme statement: I would go to war to stop you.
    - swombat 17y ago
      You're not alone, unfortunately. It's people like you, who value trees more than human beings, who are going to bring about the next variant of human oppression that will ruin millions of lives for no reason other than a false sense of "something more important than people", and be regarded as a dark chapter in human history.
      - astrec 17y ago
        What a load of old boots. To value a planet's worth of trees over some cockamany plan to save a single human life doesn't infer valuing trees more than human beings. I have no doubt you'll get your fake plastic trees as we simply won't have time to wait for an organic one to emerge from whatever primordial soup our descendants crash into. But until then, I'll happily bear your cross.
      - mapleoin 17y ago
        That "something more important than people" is actually... well... still people. If there aren't any trees left on this planet there probably won't be any people left here either.
    - mpk 17y ago
      Oh dear, well-meaning extremists. Scary bunch of people the lot of you.
  - Luc 17y ago
    Whew, I wouldn't want to be THAT kid growing up. The one for whom all the trees in the world were killed. You seem to elevate human life above all else. Religious reasons? Consciousness being inherently superior? I'd be interested to know the premises that leads to your conclusion.
swombat 17y ago
Just you wait till the ecologists get in power, and we'll see exactly how many human beings equate to a tree.
iamwil 17y ago
Well, it was the last of a group of trees that grew there in the middle of a desert. It held meaning to those that passed it by in a trek across a desert to a point of superstition. It may have breathed the same air with animals that are no longer with us. I think that's pretty unique. It's not that I don't think ~150,000 people dying is sad in its own way, I don't know that any random one of them are in the same unique position as being the last of something. Perhaps, sometimes, we get someone that dies who's the last speaker of a dying language, or the last in a lineage of a tribe. I'd say that's sad, in the way the last tree dying is sad. Take any random 150,000 people dying, it too is sad, but not in the same way. Of course, it's easier for us to sympathize with humans than it is with trees, because we too are human. It's also easier for us to think that human endeavors are also more important than non-human ones.
wheels 17y ago
That misses the point that the tree being destroyed is not a commentary on the tree, but on humanity. It would not be terribly sad if the tree just ran out of water and died. What is sad is that a human destroyed something unique and special in the natural world for presumably drunken amusement. The value lost is in the cheapening of our humanity, not the death of a single plant.

by Eliezer 17y ago

danparsonson 17y ago

Well, not all of us elevate humanity above the other life on this planet; indeed, some of the important problems we humans face today are a direct result of the kind of attitude that one human being is worth at least 150,000 trees - that is, that we feel freely able to take as much other life as we deem necessary for our survival. This planet is indeed dangerous, but consider how much of that danger is caused by us and threatens both humans and other species. One of the things we could do to help change that would be to learn to see equivalent beauty and value in other life beyond our own.

swombat 17y ago
Having some ecological sensitivity doesn't imply valuing trees (even 150'000 of them) more than human beings. On the contrary: the only value of those 150'000 trees is to enable us to live better, happier lives in a more human-friendly world. Extreme statement: If there was a way to replace every single tree in the world with a plastic equivalent that looked and felt the same, and performed the same functions as a real tree (oxygen generation, soil processing, biological niche, etc).. if there was a way to do this and save a single human life, I would do it.
- astrec 17y ago
  Equally extreme statement: I would go to war to stop you.
  - swombat 17y ago
    You're not alone, unfortunately. It's people like you, who value trees more than human beings, who are going to bring about the next variant of human oppression that will ruin millions of lives for no reason other than a false sense of "something more important than people", and be regarded as a dark chapter in human history.
    - astrec 17y ago
      What a load of old boots. To value a planet's worth of trees over some cockamany plan to save a single human life doesn't infer valuing trees more than human beings. I have no doubt you'll get your fake plastic trees as we simply won't have time to wait for an organic one to emerge from whatever primordial soup our descendants crash into. But until then, I'll happily bear your cross.
    - mapleoin 17y ago
      That "something more important than people" is actually... well... still people. If there aren't any trees left on this planet there probably won't be any people left here either.
  - mpk 17y ago
    Oh dear, well-meaning extremists. Scary bunch of people the lot of you.
- Luc 17y ago
  Whew, I wouldn't want to be THAT kid growing up. The one for whom all the trees in the world were killed. You seem to elevate human life above all else. Religious reasons? Consciousness being inherently superior? I'd be interested to know the premises that leads to your conclusion.

swombat 17y ago

Just you wait till the ecologists get in power, and we'll see exactly how many human beings equate to a tree.

iamwil 17y ago

Well, it was the last of a group of trees that grew there in the middle of a desert. It held meaning to those that passed it by in a trek across a desert to a point of superstition. It may have breathed the same air with animals that are no longer with us. I think that's pretty unique. It's not that I don't think ~150,000 people dying is sad in its own way, I don't know that any random one of them are in the same unique position as being the last of something. Perhaps, sometimes, we get someone that dies who's the last speaker of a dying language, or the last in a lineage of a tribe. I'd say that's sad, in the way the last tree dying is sad. Take any random 150,000 people dying, it too is sad, but not in the same way. Of course, it's easier for us to sympathize with humans than it is with trees, because we too are human. It's also easier for us to think that human endeavors are also more important than non-human ones.

wheels 17y ago

That misses the point that the tree being destroyed is not a commentary on the tree, but on humanity. It would not be terribly sad if the tree just ran out of water and died. What is sad is that a human destroyed something unique and special in the natural world for presumably drunken amusement. The value lost is in the cheapening of our humanity, not the death of a single plant.