|
Humans and Nature
|
|
This subject has been bothering me for quite a while. The human race has taken over much of Earth, filled the skies with pollution, and hunted some species to extinction. Do you think it's our right to take over the world like this, or should plants and animals be given more breathing room? Should we try to curb our wasteful habits, or just let the world rot around us while we prosper?  "Bad!" |
|
Re: Humans and Nature
Link |
by
 
on 2007-11-16 18:18:41 |
|
That depends. For one thing, humans are forever going to grow and grow; provided we do not do something terribly stupid. It won't be long before we find other ways to live like underground or in space or on another planet. Second, there are environmentalists. Some just complain, but some are inventing things (such as the farm tower) to better help the earth increase its' maximum capacity for the human population. Third, species are bound to be extinct sooner or later, but the genus of it probably will not until for a long long time. Besides, there's a endangered species of freshwater mussels in Florida zapping Georgia's water supply. Georgia is currently experiencing a drought and has reached new record low levels in their lakes. As far as I know, those mussels are doing nothing, but we are suffering from losing water. D: Is it right for water to be used by them mussels?, or by us humans? I particularly want to keep trees from being knocked down, species to be saved and such, but my point of view is focused on a totalitarian mindset.  |
|
Re: Humans and Nature
Link |
by
on 2007-11-16 19:54:21 (edited 2007-11-16 19:57:25)
|
|
Your questions are black-or-white false dilemmas. Humans are part of nature, we are one of many species that live on the planet. Playing along, I will consider the question of the morality of our species-centric policies. 1. It is morally reprehensible to harm one's own family (postulate) 2. Every living thing on Earth is related by familial heritage (fact) 3. It is morally reprehensible to harm any living thing on Earth. (by 1 and 2) However, it is clear that the closer related the person is, the more we care about them. (See the same thought experiment I used in the Racism thread.) So, it is concluded that the closer related a species is, the more value we ought to place on it's protection. Ironically, this is not always the case. People are terrified and hateful of blood-sucking bats (mammals, like us), but love cuddly-wuddly duckies (birds, unlike us). It seems clear that people's emotional involvement with the protection of other species is irrational, for the most part. So, now we have it like this: It is morally reprehensible to harm animals we care about. This is not to say, "we have no right to do it". Rights exist in a society in which people give up freedom in exchange for safety and comfort, but maintain certain freedoms called rights. Humans have no such social contract with nature. (*sigh* since I must, i define nature as all life and life systems excluding humans and human-made systems) We do, however, depend on nature. If we cause mass extinction, it will cause us harm. It could be loss of food supply, or loss of other valuable resources. Or, it could be loss of enjoyable diversity. We all love to see cute panda bears and those crazy wild looking fish that live in coral reefs. To most people, these things are worth saving. That's the bottom line. There exists no God to judge our deeds, only our children. SkyL has the right idea: The real question is, how can we best act as stewards of our world? 
|
|
Re: Humans and Nature
Link |
by
on 2007-11-16 20:00:49 (edited 2007-11-16 20:03:14)
|
|
well yes i do feel we are over populating the earth and leaving little for other species...and we have done nuthing to help it ...onli things like war had help keep our people from over populating in the past. nowadays we do have too many people that is why wildlife perserves and environmentalists are more and more sought out. our government realizes the problem and realizes that if we dont do something our planet wont last and more and more problems will occur. that is why our goverment has requested many colleges to have a evironmental science major and/or a environmental engineering major and hope future generations will help solve our problem before it is too late.
name:********
age: depends XD
gender: depends
skype: silverxraven
aim: Xx4evaxlovin01xX
msn(rarely used): Xx4evaxlovin01xX@hotmail.com
|
|
Re: Humans and Nature
|
|
Humans are part of nature, we are one of many species that live on the planet. Yes, of course that's true. But do you not also agree that we are far removed from the system of nature? By the system of nature, I mean, the give and take of predators and prey, taking what you need, and no more, things like that. We've created our own system, which runs contradictory to nature. We mass produce, taking in much more than we give back to nature(as useful products, anyway). We regard animals as pets, livestock, or things to be gawked at. Thus, I think we can think of humans as if they were on another level. Indeed, almost every human regards himself/herself as superior. Otherwise, why would we keep pets, create zoos, and line up cows for the slaughter? We're dominating the Earth. There's no question about that. But we're ruling in a wasteful, and nonrenewable way. Did the dodo truly need to be hunted to extinction? Probably not. Is it our right to destroy the rain forest? I think not. Is it truly within our rights to do this? You're right, there exists no God to judge our deeds. But that doesn't make it any more right in my mind. If you're in a store, the owner's away, and there are no security cameras, it's still not right to steal. What we're doing FEELS wrong. People have proved that they chafe under tyranny. That's why there are no absolute monarchs in the world, and why there were revolutions around the world to overthrow them. What of the animals? We're doing the exact same thing to them. And we do it with a straight face. "Bad!" |
|
Re: Humans and Nature
Link |
by
on 2007-11-17 13:12:48 (edited 2007-11-17 13:15:52)
|
|
do you not also agree that we are far removed from the system of nature? No, I do not agree. Just recently, a man was eaten by an alligator. Worldwide, people are consumed by the malaria parasite by the millions. No form of life has EVER existed that took what it need, and no more. Population growth does not allow for this to be the case. Humans are no exception. It is a terrific mistake to think of humans as if they are on another level, apart from the rest of nature. This is my whole point, and you don't seem to hear it, or aren't willing to accept it. Bogus Argument: Humans are dominating the earth. Counter Argument: There is twice the biomass of krill as that of humans. If numbers OR biomass are any measure, than krill are dominating the sea! Bogus Argument: Humans are ruining the planet in a nonrenewable way. Counter Argument: Who the fuck are you to say what is the ideal condition of the Earth? Do you think that photosynthesizing organisms held UN meetings to discuss climate change as they introduced previously unprecedented levels of oxygen into the atmosphere? That's a laugh! We have this odd gift of consciousness, which allows us to second guess ourselves. That's great; we can create our future. Rock on homo sapiens! Other than this odd side-effect of our fatty cranial tissue, our effect on the environment is entirely normal. Mass extinctions are the rule, not the exception. Waste will degrade over time, granted, it will take a while. Forests will regrow. Animals will continue to speciate. The oil, which was just kind of sitting there and not doing much to begin with, will replenish. CO2 levels will balance out very rapidly (on a geological scale)! Nonrenewable my ass hair (which grows at an astonishing rate and can be replenished if shaved off for knitting a sweater of a chinchilla). almost every human regards himself/herself as superior Maybe thats how kids are raised where you're from, buddy, but I gotta disagree wholeheartedly. Both religious and scientific paths have lead to one obvious end: We are insignificant and small. I am insignificant and small, far inferior to even the fruit fly. My genome is a tumbled mess, I can't even produce my own vitamin C; something that nearly every other animal and plant can do! Is it our right to destroy the rain forest? As I explained above, which you must not have read, there is no meaning to this question. What is a "right" granted to any species? What the fuck does that even MEAN? Does the fruit fly have the right to vote? Does a chimp have the right to throw it's feces? Does the humpback whale have the right to breach the waves and shoot momentarily into the air? If he is a convicted humpback whale, does this constitute a parole violation? Just because it's a valid grammatical sentence, doesn't mean it's a valid philosophical question. AS I SAID BEFORE, AND AM GETTING TIRED OF REPEATING: The real questions is "DO WE WANT TO DO THIS", and, in regards to deforestation, the answer is, clearly, "NO". Is there any "moral rule" that will help us decide what is right and wrong? NO. GET OVER IT. YOU HAVE TO DECIDE FOR YOURSELF. I'm not even going to ADDRESS your anthropomorphism of animal as oppressed serfs. This colorful rhetoric has gone on long enough. It is possible to make elegant and compelling points that open people's eyes while maintaining a rhetoric-free argument. Give it a try next time.
|