5 ms·

Replace "humans" with "white people" in your post, and you'll get a sense of how silly your beliefs seem to me. Not to say my beliefs are more right than yours

Replace "humans" with "white people" in your post, and you'll get a sense of how silly your beliefs seem to me. Not to say my beliefs are more right than yours -- to each his/her own.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nixos 10y ago
Would you kill two black men to save a white man. I wouldn't. Would you kill two otters to save a human? Yes. Absolutely. Would you kill two bacteria to save a human? Yes. Absolutely. I would kill a million bacteria to save a human. In fact, we do it all the time. It's about the lack of consciousness in bacteria, as I would never kill even one mentally deficient adult, even to save the life of a genius.
- astrodust 10y ago
  "Two otters" is a non-issue. What about "all otters" to save a single human being?
  - squidfood 10y ago
    If the OP answers it is anecdotal of course, but I'll point out that there's a whole field of bio-economics that tries to find survey/public answers to these questions for the purpose of making policies. And the result is laws such as the Endangered Species Act which dictates how far society thinks you should go in this direction.
  - nixos 10y ago
    If we could do that without hurting a single other human? Absolutely. Actually, we did that a few years back with Smallpox. True, there's a debate if viruses are alive, but I have no doubt we'd do the same if it was a bacteria (and possible to obliterate).
    - astrodust 10y ago
      Wiping out a species to save a single life is monstrous and absurd. I hope you're not serious.
      - solipsism 10y ago
        Many would call my answer ("not sure") to the original question monstrous. It's all very subjective. That was my initial point. We all draw the line differently. And no one can claim to be right.
      - in_the_sticks 10y ago
        "A single human" isn't a phrase meaning "literally one individual human".
      - totony 10y ago
        If there is no consequence for humans then I would find it perfectly normal. It isn't monstrous nor absurd.
        astrodust 10y ago
        The consequence is you've destroyed a species and set a precedent and for what? One life? While human life should be preserved whenever possible, there are situations where you must realize that human life is, from the perspective of our role as planetary stewards, cheap and disposable. Sacrificing some lab animals, even thousands, to cure some obscure but crippling disease that affects a handful of people could be justified. Wiping out an entire species to save a single person is atrocious, and completely insane. If you're prepared to wipe out, say, otters to save one person then what's next? Elephants for another? What if it takes two or three species to save someone else. At what point do you stop? Like would it be acceptable to kill all non-human life to save a single life? There must be some kind of line. The "no consequence to humans" part is hugely subjective, but a case could be made that we're worse off than our ancestors because of how many species we've obliterated.
        10y ago

Replace "humans" with "white people" in your post, and you'll get a sense of how silly your beliefs seem to me. Not to say my beliefs are more right than yours -- to each his/her own.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

nixos 10y ago

Would you kill two black men to save a white man. I wouldn't. Would you kill two otters to save a human? Yes. Absolutely. Would you kill two bacteria to save a human? Yes. Absolutely. I would kill a million bacteria to save a human. In fact, we do it all the time. It's about the lack of consciousness in bacteria, as I would never kill even one mentally deficient adult, even to save the life of a genius.

astrodust 10y ago
"Two otters" is a non-issue. What about "all otters" to save a single human being?
- squidfood 10y ago
  If the OP answers it is anecdotal of course, but I'll point out that there's a whole field of bio-economics that tries to find survey/public answers to these questions for the purpose of making policies. And the result is laws such as the Endangered Species Act which dictates how far society thinks you should go in this direction.
- nixos 10y ago
  If we could do that without hurting a single other human? Absolutely. Actually, we did that a few years back with Smallpox. True, there's a debate if viruses are alive, but I have no doubt we'd do the same if it was a bacteria (and possible to obliterate).
  - astrodust 10y ago
    Wiping out a species to save a single life is monstrous and absurd. I hope you're not serious.
    - solipsism 10y ago
      Many would call my answer ("not sure") to the original question monstrous. It's all very subjective. That was my initial point. We all draw the line differently. And no one can claim to be right.
    - in_the_sticks 10y ago
      "A single human" isn't a phrase meaning "literally one individual human".
    - totony 10y ago
      If there is no consequence for humans then I would find it perfectly normal. It isn't monstrous nor absurd.
      - astrodust 10y ago
        The consequence is you've destroyed a species and set a precedent and for what? One life? While human life should be preserved whenever possible, there are situations where you must realize that human life is, from the perspective of our role as planetary stewards, cheap and disposable. Sacrificing some lab animals, even thousands, to cure some obscure but crippling disease that affects a handful of people could be justified. Wiping out an entire species to save a single person is atrocious, and completely insane. If you're prepared to wipe out, say, otters to save one person then what's next? Elephants for another? What if it takes two or three species to save someone else. At what point do you stop? Like would it be acceptable to kill all non-human life to save a single life? There must be some kind of line. The "no consequence to humans" part is hugely subjective, but a case could be made that we're worse off than our ancestors because of how many species we've obliterated.
        10y ago