5 ms·

We're the only species to systematically (and of course casually) care for other species. Similarly, the only ones who travel great distances (across the world!

by ghusto 4y ago

We're the only species to systematically (and of course casually) care for other species. Similarly, the only ones who travel great distances (across the world!) to care for others we've never met our even know. Only species to care for our environment. Living in equilibrium with your environment isn't the same as caring about it. You can bet that if burning down the forest got you chicks as a leapord, we'd have run out of forests a long time ago. Meanwhile, we reflect on what we've done, and make our future decisions based on that reflection. These things are "as a species", and not about individuals or political allegances in America. I'm really tired of this hip-to-be-cynical attitude that dumps all over our species, and overlooks how amazing we are. Ironically though that's one of our redeeming character traits too.

bmitc 4y ago
Most of your "only species to ..." are outright false or responses to problems humans created in the first place or have very nasty analogs. It may bother you or make you feel uneasy or make you not want to believe it, but humans bring an immense amount of suffering into this world. > Only species to care for our environment. Living in equilibrium with your environment isn't the same as caring about it. For example, this is so strange. So the only way to care for the environment is to first destroy it and then try to fix it?
- vba616 4y ago
  >humans bring an immense amount of suffering into this world Is it really correct to regard humans as running the world and responsible for it, or are humans just a mechanism for making more cows? c.f. https://xkcd.com/1338/ https://xkcd.com/1338/
- ghusto 4y ago
  > Most of your "only species to ..." are outright false or responses to problems humans created in the first place or have very nasty analogs. Won't respond to the "outright" false since you say nothing further, but in response to "we created those in the first place": That doesn't negate my message, and in fact I addressed that very point indirectly already when I said we reflect on our mistakes. No other species looks at the mess they cause and thinks "maybe we should stop doing this". > It may bother you or make you feel uneasy or make you not want to believe it, but humans bring an immense amount of suffering into this world. I've come from a place of misanthrope, so it absolutely does not bother me to believe it. In fact, I believed it nearly all my life. What does bother me though, is how little thought is given to the other side of the story, and the whole picture. We do bad things, but we are a net gain in terms of "goodness", whatever your definition of that word is. I'll go further; we are the only species to do good things, because we have freedom of choice. A dolphin doesn't sit around thinking on the moral implications of killing a shark for fun, or saving a drowning human. > For example, this is so strange. So the only way to care for the environment is to first destroy it and then try to fix it? Of course it isn't, and many people around the world such as native Americans don't do that. Where we _do_ do that however, we are the only ones to think about it afterwards and try to do better. It's so easy to be pessimistic, isn't it? To write off the whole of humanity as "bad", because that's easier than saying; "shit's hard to get right, but we're trying, and I'm part of that attempt".
  - bmitc 4y ago
    > We do bad things, but we are a net gain in terms of "goodness", whatever your definition of that word is. That needs some backing up, as I highly doubt it's true for any definition of goodness. > It's so easy to be pessimistic, isn't it? It isn't about pessimism or misanthropy, which are largely irrelevant to this discussion. Realizing one is a narcissist or an alcoholic or an addict isn't pessimism. It's realization and acceptance of both the reality of the situation and that something needs to change. What humanity needs is realization and acceptance of our destructiveness and not apathy or denial. The rest of your post is unfortunately hopelessly human-centric. We have no basis or evidence of the feelings or thoughts of other animals. This, any such claims are anthropocentric speculations.
    - ghusto 4y ago
      In the great tradition of arguing with people on the internet for no goddamn reason, I'm going to argue with you some more. > That needs some backing up, as I highly doubt it's true for any definition of goodness. Come on man, be reasonable. Sure, I could come up with a definition that wouldn't fit, like "goodness == dinosaurs", but are we really going there? Let's pin it down to something we can probably both agree on: Goodness = That which is mostly of benefit to most animals. Now you can say I'm "animal-centric", but so what? I'm not into post-modernist nonsense, and we can argue on why I'm calling it nonsense too. > It isn't about pessimism or misanthropy, which are largely irrelevant to this discussion. Realizing one is a narcissist or an alcoholic or an addict isn't pessimism. It's realization and acceptance of both the reality of the situation and that something needs to change. We mostly agree; absolutely, acceptance of reality and the will (and action!) to change is what's important. What I don't agree on though, is shitting on humans and saying we don't do that because you can find some examples of _instances of human_ which don't do that. Zooming out to the bigger picture shows that we do. Even if you found only a single instance in the 8 billion instances, it would still mean humans have at least the capacity. > The rest of your post is unfortunately hopelessly human-centric. We have no basis or evidence of the feelings or thoughts of other animals. It's human centric in terms of it being from the perspective of a human, but not in terms of what I'm willing to look at. Even if we "have no basis or evidence of the feelings or thoughts of other animals" (which we do^), we _try_ to. Humans try to understand what impact they're having on other animals. Animals other than humans don't. ^ Google search for "animal feeling studies" https://www.google.com/search?q=animal%20feeling%20studies https://www.google.com/search?q=animal%20feeling%20studies
aflag 4y ago
The other species are the environment
Dalewyn 4y ago
>We're the only species to systematically (and of course casually) care for other species. Homo sapiens are far from the only species that deliberately co-exist with others ("caring"). We humans like to put ourselves on a pedestal, that we're a special species. As far as I'm concerned: No, we're not special. We're animals just like our animal peers, and we're just another species to exist upon this planet. Humans might be (and are) amazing, but that's because life in general is amazing.
k0k0r0 4y ago
Wow, I have never looked at humanity from this view point. Thank you for changing my mind! The negativity of the other comments to your post is simple astonishing. I can understand that you are sick of that.
- ghusto 4y ago
  I'm so happy for that, and it's really what I wanted to do; bring the other side of the argument to the table, because pooping on humans is so easy and trendy that you never hear it. We have the capacity for amazing things! Now let's all do the best we can to steer mostly in that direction :)

by ghusto 4y ago

bmitc 4y ago

Most of your "only species to ..." are outright false or responses to problems humans created in the first place or have very nasty analogs. It may bother you or make you feel uneasy or make you not want to believe it, but humans bring an immense amount of suffering into this world. > Only species to care for our environment. Living in equilibrium with your environment isn't the same as caring about it. For example, this is so strange. So the only way to care for the environment is to first destroy it and then try to fix it?

vba616 4y ago
>humans bring an immense amount of suffering into this world Is it really correct to regard humans as running the world and responsible for it, or are humans just a mechanism for making more cows? c.f. https://xkcd.com/1338/ https://xkcd.com/1338/
ghusto 4y ago
> Most of your "only species to ..." are outright false or responses to problems humans created in the first place or have very nasty analogs. Won't respond to the "outright" false since you say nothing further, but in response to "we created those in the first place": That doesn't negate my message, and in fact I addressed that very point indirectly already when I said we reflect on our mistakes. No other species looks at the mess they cause and thinks "maybe we should stop doing this". > It may bother you or make you feel uneasy or make you not want to believe it, but humans bring an immense amount of suffering into this world. I've come from a place of misanthrope, so it absolutely does not bother me to believe it. In fact, I believed it nearly all my life. What does bother me though, is how little thought is given to the other side of the story, and the whole picture. We do bad things, but we are a net gain in terms of "goodness", whatever your definition of that word is. I'll go further; we are the only species to do good things, because we have freedom of choice. A dolphin doesn't sit around thinking on the moral implications of killing a shark for fun, or saving a drowning human. > For example, this is so strange. So the only way to care for the environment is to first destroy it and then try to fix it? Of course it isn't, and many people around the world such as native Americans don't do that. Where we _do_ do that however, we are the only ones to think about it afterwards and try to do better. It's so easy to be pessimistic, isn't it? To write off the whole of humanity as "bad", because that's easier than saying; "shit's hard to get right, but we're trying, and I'm part of that attempt".
- bmitc 4y ago
  > We do bad things, but we are a net gain in terms of "goodness", whatever your definition of that word is. That needs some backing up, as I highly doubt it's true for any definition of goodness. > It's so easy to be pessimistic, isn't it? It isn't about pessimism or misanthropy, which are largely irrelevant to this discussion. Realizing one is a narcissist or an alcoholic or an addict isn't pessimism. It's realization and acceptance of both the reality of the situation and that something needs to change. What humanity needs is realization and acceptance of our destructiveness and not apathy or denial. The rest of your post is unfortunately hopelessly human-centric. We have no basis or evidence of the feelings or thoughts of other animals. This, any such claims are anthropocentric speculations.
  - ghusto 4y ago
    In the great tradition of arguing with people on the internet for no goddamn reason, I'm going to argue with you some more. > That needs some backing up, as I highly doubt it's true for any definition of goodness. Come on man, be reasonable. Sure, I could come up with a definition that wouldn't fit, like "goodness == dinosaurs", but are we really going there? Let's pin it down to something we can probably both agree on: Goodness = That which is mostly of benefit to most animals. Now you can say I'm "animal-centric", but so what? I'm not into post-modernist nonsense, and we can argue on why I'm calling it nonsense too. > It isn't about pessimism or misanthropy, which are largely irrelevant to this discussion. Realizing one is a narcissist or an alcoholic or an addict isn't pessimism. It's realization and acceptance of both the reality of the situation and that something needs to change. We mostly agree; absolutely, acceptance of reality and the will (and action!) to change is what's important. What I don't agree on though, is shitting on humans and saying we don't do that because you can find some examples of _instances of human_ which don't do that. Zooming out to the bigger picture shows that we do. Even if you found only a single instance in the 8 billion instances, it would still mean humans have at least the capacity. > The rest of your post is unfortunately hopelessly human-centric. We have no basis or evidence of the feelings or thoughts of other animals. It's human centric in terms of it being from the perspective of a human, but not in terms of what I'm willing to look at. Even if we "have no basis or evidence of the feelings or thoughts of other animals" (which we do^), we _try_ to. Humans try to understand what impact they're having on other animals. Animals other than humans don't. ^ Google search for "animal feeling studies" https://www.google.com/search?q=animal%20feeling%20studies https://www.google.com/search?q=animal%20feeling%20studies

aflag 4y ago

The other species are the environment

Dalewyn 4y ago

>We're the only species to systematically (and of course casually) care for other species. Homo sapiens are far from the only species that deliberately co-exist with others ("caring"). We humans like to put ourselves on a pedestal, that we're a special species. As far as I'm concerned: No, we're not special. We're animals just like our animal peers, and we're just another species to exist upon this planet. Humans might be (and are) amazing, but that's because life in general is amazing.

k0k0r0 4y ago

Wow, I have never looked at humanity from this view point. Thank you for changing my mind! The negativity of the other comments to your post is simple astonishing. I can understand that you are sick of that.

ghusto 4y ago
I'm so happy for that, and it's really what I wanted to do; bring the other side of the argument to the table, because pooping on humans is so easy and trendy that you never hear it. We have the capacity for amazing things! Now let's all do the best we can to steer mostly in that direction :)