5 ms·

His pessimism caused by his inability to view the world.

lwansbrough 7y ago
Perhaps. Although I’m sure a blind person would say they’d like to be able to see, I bet they’d also tell you there’s much more beauty to the world than what can be seen.
RankingMember 7y ago
I think the world is beautiful. I love nature and everything in it. What I don't think is beautiful is the destruction of this world by overpopulation and selfishness. Edit: >Overpopulation is a meme. Many first-world countries today are literally seeking to import more immigrants because of under-population. Their being a need for more humans to meet human ends is not surprising, but it certainly doesn't make an argument for the necessity of more humans from any ecological perspective. > Besides, humans are natural too. It's not like we're built in factories and have smokestacks on our heads. We ARE part of that world which you think is beautiful, and to end human reproduction would be to partly destroy this world. This logic doesn't compute for me. Is your perspective that, by definition, anything humans do is natural? If so, I think we have a fundamental disagreement on the definition of "natural". I don't think that packing the Earth to the gills with humans at the expense of other species survival is in any way a positive development.
- xamuel 7y ago
  >the destruction of this world by overpopulation and selfishness Overpopulation is a meme. Many first-world countries today are literally seeking to import more immigrants because of under-population. Besides, humans are natural too. It's not like we're built in factories and have smokestacks on our heads. We ARE part of that world which you think is beautiful, and to end human reproduction would be to partly destroy this world.
- sudosteph 7y ago
  Heads up - it's considered poor form to edit your previous reply like this rather than responding directly to comment below. That said, are you claiming that life only has value if there exists some "ecological necessity" for it? Because I just don't see enough consistency in any definition of "ecological necessity" to make it a meaningful term. Ecology has shifted dramatically throughout earth's history - any species you could have called "ecological necessary" in the jurassic era doesn't seem so necessary in the long-run judging by the multitude of life that continued after extinction events.
  - RankingMember 7y ago
    Agreed. Strangely the reply button was missing when I went to reply to the other comment. I'm claiming that humanity should not be held so supremely important that in the name of blind procreation we should be displacing and bringing to extinction other forms of life and potentially bringing the habitability of the planet for all life into question.
- Cyph0n 7y ago
  > I think the world is beautiful. I love nature and everything in it. What I don't think is beautiful is the destruction of this world by overpopulation and selfishness. Isn't it also selfish to prevent your children from experiencing its beauty? To smell a flower, to touch and be touched, to experience love, to feel the joy of truly understanding something - the list is truly endless! Besides, our primary job is to ensure the continued existence of the human race, and the first and most important step in that process is to bring new humans into this world. Yes, I agree: there are other factors to consider when making this decision, and honestly, I don't judge you either way. The way I look it is that if we cease to give birth to new humans, we are guaranteed to go extinct, but there is no guarantee (yet!) that overpopulation or environmental abuse will cause a world ending event. The earth has gone through far more destructive eras and yet here we are! Ultimately, it is indeed a philosophical argument: does the risk of potential suffering outweigh the joys of experiencing life? I don't think so, at least not yet.

Perhaps. Although I’m sure a blind person would say they’d like to be able to see, I bet they’d also tell you there’s much more beauty to the world than what can be seen.

RankingMember 7y ago

I think the world is beautiful. I love nature and everything in it. What I don't think is beautiful is the destruction of this world by overpopulation and selfishness. Edit: >Overpopulation is a meme. Many first-world countries today are literally seeking to import more immigrants because of under-population. Their being a need for more humans to meet human ends is not surprising, but it certainly doesn't make an argument for the necessity of more humans from any ecological perspective. > Besides, humans are natural too. It's not like we're built in factories and have smokestacks on our heads. We ARE part of that world which you think is beautiful, and to end human reproduction would be to partly destroy this world. This logic doesn't compute for me. Is your perspective that, by definition, anything humans do is natural? If so, I think we have a fundamental disagreement on the definition of "natural". I don't think that packing the Earth to the gills with humans at the expense of other species survival is in any way a positive development.

xamuel 7y ago
>the destruction of this world by overpopulation and selfishness Overpopulation is a meme. Many first-world countries today are literally seeking to import more immigrants because of under-population. Besides, humans are natural too. It's not like we're built in factories and have smokestacks on our heads. We ARE part of that world which you think is beautiful, and to end human reproduction would be to partly destroy this world.
sudosteph 7y ago
Heads up - it's considered poor form to edit your previous reply like this rather than responding directly to comment below. That said, are you claiming that life only has value if there exists some "ecological necessity" for it? Because I just don't see enough consistency in any definition of "ecological necessity" to make it a meaningful term. Ecology has shifted dramatically throughout earth's history - any species you could have called "ecological necessary" in the jurassic era doesn't seem so necessary in the long-run judging by the multitude of life that continued after extinction events.
- RankingMember 7y ago
  Agreed. Strangely the reply button was missing when I went to reply to the other comment. I'm claiming that humanity should not be held so supremely important that in the name of blind procreation we should be displacing and bringing to extinction other forms of life and potentially bringing the habitability of the planet for all life into question.
Cyph0n 7y ago
> I think the world is beautiful. I love nature and everything in it. What I don't think is beautiful is the destruction of this world by overpopulation and selfishness. Isn't it also selfish to prevent your children from experiencing its beauty? To smell a flower, to touch and be touched, to experience love, to feel the joy of truly understanding something - the list is truly endless! Besides, our primary job is to ensure the continued existence of the human race, and the first and most important step in that process is to bring new humans into this world. Yes, I agree: there are other factors to consider when making this decision, and honestly, I don't judge you either way. The way I look it is that if we cease to give birth to new humans, we are guaranteed to go extinct, but there is no guarantee (yet!) that overpopulation or environmental abuse will cause a world ending event. The earth has gone through far more destructive eras and yet here we are! Ultimately, it is indeed a philosophical argument: does the risk of potential suffering outweigh the joys of experiencing life? I don't think so, at least not yet.