5 ms·
Now take in account the ecosystems destroyed and the picture is very different. We must leave behind the humans-only perspective.
by nahuel0x 6y ago
Now take in account the ecosystems destroyed and the picture is very different. We must leave behind the humans-only perspective.
- HenryKissinger 6y agoReturn to monke.
- kiba 6y agoHuman-only perspective? That is assuming we can thrive if not not without an ecosystem.
- BurningFrog 6y agoWe should always value humans over other species, and if you disagree you're an enemy of our species.
- namdnay 6y agoYou can value humans over other species without assigning a nil value to the latter
- BurningFrog 6y agoWhat does that mean concretely? Would you have something like an exchange rate where 2000 chicken lives = 1 human life?
- iterati 6y agoMore like "if all the bugs die because we use too many pesticides, the systems that support life on this planet will collapse."
- BurningFrog 6y agoWhich is exactly how someone caring only about human lives would reason.
- autosharp 6y ago> What does that mean concretely? E.g. you value your spouse more than you value a random other human. It doesn't mean you don't value the other human.
- Layke1123 6y agoYou can assign a value to both that says we should not harm these things.
- lupire 6y agoWe should always value our family and friends over others, or else you are an enemy of family and friends. Also race, religious and ethnic group... What's your point?
- amanaplanacanal 6y agoWe don’t, however, have any idea how to keep humans alive after killing of all the other species. We appear to be totally reliant on some part of the natural world continuing to work, and we don’t know what part of it is required. Prudence suggests we be cautious about how much of it we decide to kill off.
- OrbitRock 6y agoValuing humans over other species at all costs leads to humans collapsing our environment and thus harming humans.
- BurningFrog 6y agoOnly if you apply the idea in a stupid and shortsighted way. I advocate for doing it smartly. It's a bit exhausting to have to point out something so obvious.
- OrbitRock 6y agoWell then you come back around to valuing nature imo
- mint2 6y agoWhat if we found a living Neanderthal village. They’re taking up space that an equivalent human village could, should we get rid of them?
- BurningFrog 6y agoI mean, I'd say Neanderthals are humans. I'm 2.x% Neanderthal myself, according to my DNA vendor. If we're talking about other sentient and moral species, those are admittedly hard questions.
- woeirua 6y agoWhat are you talking about? Humans have already irrevocably altered the natural ecosystem over the past 100k years. We have: killed off all the megafauna, domesticated thousands of plants, drastically changed the landscape through agriculture, literally changed the courses of rivers, diverted water all over the planet, etc. And that was all before the modern era.
- kiliantics 6y agoSure, this sounds reasonable, but it's really not when you look at the magnitudes of our impact over time. It's clear that the actions of the last 50-100 years or so are in extreme excess of what can be stabilised by the global weather and ecological systems. We've gone from about two thirds remaining natural wilderness in the world in the early 1900s to one third remaining today. The continued survival of most species, including ours, is very much in danger if we don't reverse a lot of this.
- ravi-delia 6y agoThat assumes that population growth is somehow the primary cause of climate change and space expansion. The issue is lack of caring and technology, not population.