3 ms·

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

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.
  - mapleoin 17y ago
    Killing 150.000 to save a human life doesn't sound like any religion I ever heard of. Religions are more concerned with saving souls and no amount of trees cut has ever saved a soul.
    - Luc 17y ago
      I was referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inviolability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inviolability , but I'm sure there's a rich vein of religious thought that considers 1 human life more worthy of saving than any amount of non-human life.
  - swombat 17y ago
    The reasoning is relatively simple, and my conclusions and actions are not all that different from those of people who do respect and take care of the environment. I believe very strongly that we humans will not be happy, nor even, probably, able to live, on a world without the eco-system we have around us. We need to preserve it, for our survival, our esthetic enjoyment, etc. However, what I believe equally strongly is that all of this comes down, ultimately, to us, and our subjective experience of the world. There is no intrinsic value to anything outside of the human mind. Man is the measure of all things. As such, any action to preserve the environment must do so while preserving, above all else, human life, freedom, the pursuit of happiness, and other core human values. I fear that ecologism will grow into a movement that declares nature worth more than other core human values, including human life and freedom. I fear that ecologists will become oppressors, turning society against itself in a bid to "save the world", and thus entirely missing the point of saving the world (which is, to allow us humans to continue enjoying the world). Is that clearer?
- danparsonson 17y ago
  > Having some ecological sensitivity doesn't imply valuing trees (even 150'000 of them) more than human beings I didn't say that, you misread me I'm afraid. My point was that trees (as an example) are no less NOR more valuable than humans. > the only value of those 150'000 trees is to enable us to live better, happier lives Well, the appeal to self-preservation is better than no appeal at all, if it drives you to do the right thing. That said, what 'the right thing' is in this case is not well understood and I believe we should err on the side of sharing the space we have rather than trying to own it all. That said, if you can't see the beauty and intrinsic value in the natural world then you have my pity.
  - RevRal 17y ago
    > My point was that trees are no less NOR more valuable than humans Through inference, you are saying that the value of humans and the value of trees are equal. So, now, you need to define value. I cannot think of any consistent definition of value, applied to the entire 'natural world,' that would make humans and trees worth the same. And there is no reason that this value needs to be 'intrinsic.' Or, I think you're using the word to mean 'obvious' and 'simple.' It is simply valuable, and that's obvious. Am I right? That's not a good way to go about it. *Addendum: maybe if they were ents.
    - danparsonson 17y ago
      An excellent point. This whole thread is (I think necessarily) subjective, but I will do my best. I would also be interested to hear what the parents of this post mean when they refer to 'value'. What inspired me to comment in the first place was the unquestioned assumption that saving a human life is always an acceptable motivation or excuse for (apparently) unbounded destruction of other life forms. This implies some sort of scale of relative worth with humans at the top, which guides us to make such decisions. My belief is that there should be no such scale - that is, it should never automatically be right to favour one life-form over another, whatever the species involved. Thus the inference that humans and trees have the same 'value'. I'm sure if you ask the Ents, they would not find it acceptable to save themselves at the expense of the non-Ents ;-)

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.
- mapleoin 17y ago
  Killing 150.000 to save a human life doesn't sound like any religion I ever heard of. Religions are more concerned with saving souls and no amount of trees cut has ever saved a soul.
  - Luc 17y ago
    I was referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inviolability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inviolability , but I'm sure there's a rich vein of religious thought that considers 1 human life more worthy of saving than any amount of non-human life.
- swombat 17y ago
  The reasoning is relatively simple, and my conclusions and actions are not all that different from those of people who do respect and take care of the environment. I believe very strongly that we humans will not be happy, nor even, probably, able to live, on a world without the eco-system we have around us. We need to preserve it, for our survival, our esthetic enjoyment, etc. However, what I believe equally strongly is that all of this comes down, ultimately, to us, and our subjective experience of the world. There is no intrinsic value to anything outside of the human mind. Man is the measure of all things. As such, any action to preserve the environment must do so while preserving, above all else, human life, freedom, the pursuit of happiness, and other core human values. I fear that ecologism will grow into a movement that declares nature worth more than other core human values, including human life and freedom. I fear that ecologists will become oppressors, turning society against itself in a bid to "save the world", and thus entirely missing the point of saving the world (which is, to allow us humans to continue enjoying the world). Is that clearer?
danparsonson 17y ago
> Having some ecological sensitivity doesn't imply valuing trees (even 150'000 of them) more than human beings I didn't say that, you misread me I'm afraid. My point was that trees (as an example) are no less NOR more valuable than humans. > the only value of those 150'000 trees is to enable us to live better, happier lives Well, the appeal to self-preservation is better than no appeal at all, if it drives you to do the right thing. That said, what 'the right thing' is in this case is not well understood and I believe we should err on the side of sharing the space we have rather than trying to own it all. That said, if you can't see the beauty and intrinsic value in the natural world then you have my pity.
- RevRal 17y ago
  > My point was that trees are no less NOR more valuable than humans Through inference, you are saying that the value of humans and the value of trees are equal. So, now, you need to define value. I cannot think of any consistent definition of value, applied to the entire 'natural world,' that would make humans and trees worth the same. And there is no reason that this value needs to be 'intrinsic.' Or, I think you're using the word to mean 'obvious' and 'simple.' It is simply valuable, and that's obvious. Am I right? That's not a good way to go about it. *Addendum: maybe if they were ents.
  - danparsonson 17y ago
    An excellent point. This whole thread is (I think necessarily) subjective, but I will do my best. I would also be interested to hear what the parents of this post mean when they refer to 'value'. What inspired me to comment in the first place was the unquestioned assumption that saving a human life is always an acceptable motivation or excuse for (apparently) unbounded destruction of other life forms. This implies some sort of scale of relative worth with humans at the top, which guides us to make such decisions. My belief is that there should be no such scale - that is, it should never automatically be right to favour one life-form over another, whatever the species involved. Thus the inference that humans and trees have the same 'value'. I'm sure if you ask the Ents, they would not find it acceptable to save themselves at the expense of the non-Ents ;-)