4 ms·

But is this a good thing though? (Excluding our own bias in that we want mankind to continue to exist) Mass extinction events seem to work as a big reset butto

by the_af 4y ago

But is this a good thing though? (Excluding our own bias in that we want mankind to continue to exist) Mass extinction events seem to work as a big reset button, dislodging dominant species that prevented others to succeed, rise and take more dominant roles. So a mass extinction that is bad for some species may become a huge opportunity for others. There is no inherent "good" value (excluding anthropocentric reasons) to preventing mass extinctions.

wonderwonder 4y ago
The concept of good and bad only exists because humanity created it. So humanity surviving at the expense of all else is good because we will it to be so. We are just an animal species that wants to survive and spread like all other animal species just as Darwinism made us. We are just pretty good at it. Humanity has the ability to survive the upcoming final extinction event that the sun will cause and spread life in the galaxy. I would say this is good, as without us doing this life itself dies.
- the_af 4y ago
  That's the anthropocentric argument, that the original comment we're discussing specifically excluded...
worldsayshi 4y ago
Yeah, stopping mass extinction events might not be inherently "good". But other actions can be "inherently" good. I think any action that allows life to exist where it wouldn't have existed otherwise, in time or space, is the closest we can get to inherent good.
- the_af 4y ago
  I understand, but excluding preference for our own existence -- and that of species we find pleasing or familiar -- wouldn't preventing a mass extinction event prevent the rise of new species? Every mass extinction so far became an opportunity for new species to rise and spread, of course to the detriment of many others. So why would you consider us to be "helping", if we exclude anthropocentric arguments? Maybe we are actually doing harm by preventing the rise of some new interesting species.

by the_af 4y ago

wonderwonder 4y ago

The concept of good and bad only exists because humanity created it. So humanity surviving at the expense of all else is good because we will it to be so. We are just an animal species that wants to survive and spread like all other animal species just as Darwinism made us. We are just pretty good at it. Humanity has the ability to survive the upcoming final extinction event that the sun will cause and spread life in the galaxy. I would say this is good, as without us doing this life itself dies.

the_af 4y ago
That's the anthropocentric argument, that the original comment we're discussing specifically excluded...

worldsayshi 4y ago

Yeah, stopping mass extinction events might not be inherently "good". But other actions can be "inherently" good. I think any action that allows life to exist where it wouldn't have existed otherwise, in time or space, is the closest we can get to inherent good.

the_af 4y ago
I understand, but excluding preference for our own existence -- and that of species we find pleasing or familiar -- wouldn't preventing a mass extinction event prevent the rise of new species? Every mass extinction so far became an opportunity for new species to rise and spread, of course to the detriment of many others. So why would you consider us to be "helping", if we exclude anthropocentric arguments? Maybe we are actually doing harm by preventing the rise of some new interesting species.