The climate change thread

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Odin
Eli's specieism:

We're top of the food chain so tough sh1t!

[Eli]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
Doubt as much as you want, but be aware that you are just speculating. I for one doubt we'll be more happy when we are the single living creature in the universe when actually a lot of our struggle is to find something in others which is similar to us. There's no point in eradicating everything that is not us, besides the fact that it's racist.

Well, I wouldnt support eradicating everything that is not us. Even when/if we achieve total control over our environment, it would still be fun to have some animals arounds in zoos or reserves or in people's homes as pets.

a lot of our struggle is to find something in others which is similar to us

A lot of our struggle is to get quality sanitation systems, cheap and clean energy, vaccines to diseases, good textbooks, clean and plentiful water and food and less crappy TV shows.

Eli's specieism:

Why should I care about an ant? Why should I care about pandas, cows, chicken or colorado potato beetles? They have 0 intrinsic value.

Everything that is not sentient should be considered only in terms of it's benefit to us.

[Az]

Originally posted by Odin
Eli's specieism:

WTF????!!!

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Eli
Everything that is not sentient should be considered only in terms of it's benefit to us.

A self-replicating bag of chemicals only has the right to existence if it knows it is a self-replicating bag of chemicals?

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Eli


Well, I wouldnt support eradicating everything that is not us. Even when/if we achieve total control over our environment, it would still be fun to have some animals arounds in zoos or reserves or in people's homes as pets.

a lot of our struggle is to find something in others which is similar to us

A lot of our struggle is to get quality sanitation systems, cheap and clean energy, vaccines to diseases, good textbooks, clean and plentiful water and food and less crappy TV shows.

Eli's specieism:

Why should I care about an ant? Why should I care about pandas, cows, chicken or colorado potato beetles? They have 0 intrinsic value.

Everything that is not sentient should be considered only in terms of it's benefit to us.

I don't like your point of view. It's wrong, short-sighted, racist, abusive and usable in many dangerous ways (why not declare e.g. jews to be on the same level as animals?)

[Eli]

Originally posted by Atahualpa


I don't like your point of view. It's wrong, short-sighted, racist, abusive and usable in many dangerous ways (why not declare e.g. jews to be on the same level as animals?)

Wrong? I havent accepted your view yet.

Short sighted? I dont see how.

Racist? Definetely not, at least if you use the common meaning of the word. (Specieist? Yes, as ridiculous as that sounds).

Abusive? Abuse doesnt mean much when it is not applied to humans.

And I can use this argument too. Why not declare insects or bacteria to be on the same level as humans?

We need to put a separator somewhere.

A self-replicating bag of chemicals only has the right to existence if it knows it is a self-replicating bag of chemicals?

Yes.

[Atahualpa]

[Q=Eli]Short sighted? I dont see how.[/Q]

Q.E.D. (quod erat demonstrandum)

[Eli]

Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

You might want to show where exactly the short sightedness is and to reply to the rest of post. Otherwise people might think that you ran out of serious arguments.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Eli
Why should I care about an ant? Why should I care about pandas, cows, chicken or colorado potato beetles? They have 0 intrinsic value.

Define "intrinsic value."

Originally posted by Eli
Everything that is not sentient should be considered only in terms of it's benefit to us.

How do you determine sentience? How could you tell if something else is not beneficial to us? Tangle with something you don't understand often ends up with disasters.

Again, DDT and CFC come to mind.

[Atahualpa]

I am not the one who needs to play catch-up here. If you like to play the nazi, fine, but I'll not take you serious.

[Sava]

Everything that is not sentient should be considered only in terms of it's benefit to us.

wow... what a completely moronic statement

it's precisely this attitude why humanity should be destroyed (for the good of the universe)

if anything, it is our supposed sense of morality that sets us apart from other forms of life... maybe human society will outgrow the barbaric attitude Eli illustrates... but I doubt it.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Define "intrinsic value."

What is there to define? Seems pretty obvious to me.

How do you determine sentience? How could you tell if something else is not beneficial to us? Tangle with something you don't understand often ends up with disasters.

We've been tangling with things we dont understand since the moment someone first lifted a stone and threw it on a gazelle.

I cant determine sentience with 100% certainty(heck, I cant even define sentience ) and I cant be 100% certain whether a certain act is beneficial or not but that's how it has always been and will be.

I am not arguing for filling the planet today with huge polluting factories to build the most gas-guzzling SUVs for everyone or of building thousands of nuclear reactors and throwing the waste into rivers.
In today's situation, looking on actual proposed policies and ignoring rhetorics, I can vote for the Greens with no qualms.

What I'm arguing against is this overly moralistic view that Sava showed, the caring and crying for an inanimate mother nature.
Destroying humanity "for the good of the universe"? As if it will do any good for some asteroid to continue orbiting the sun until the big crunch instead of being harvested for resources. As if there is such a thing as the "good of an asteroid".

[Az]

A self-replicating bag of chemicals only has the right to existence if it knows it is a self-replicating bag of chemicals?

Your reductionist approach is selective."right" is meaningless without humans.

[Sava]

this overly moralistic view that Sava showed

as if I am a member of PETA



where in this thread have I supported policies that would be considered anywhere near the lunatic fringe of environazi or PETA-like leftist hippy you are grouping me into?

Sure, I made a whimsical statement... but if you take that seriously, you have problems

but nevertheless, your view is quite disturbing...

Everything that is not sentient should be considered only in terms of it's benefit to us.

Now I am not a vegetarian, nor would I ever propose we stop using animal products... but you are sounding like you want to round up all animal life, destroy what is not useful, and create animal factories to exploit all that we can!!!

THAT IS JUST PURE INSANITY!!

And if that is what is to become of humanity, an asteroid should hit the Earth and destroy us.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Sava




as if I am a member of PETA



where in this thread have I supported policies that would be considered anywhere near the lunatic fringe of environazi or PETA-like leftist hippy you are grouping me into?

Sure, I made a whimsical statement... but if you take that seriously, you have problems

I'm sorry then, I did take it at least somewhat seriously.

Although we do have a poster that IIRC seriously supports such views. General Ludd I think(or not?).

Now I am not a vegetarian, nor would I ever propose we stop using animal products... but you are sounding like you want to round up all animal life, destroy what is not useful, and create animal factories to exploit all that we can!!!

This isnt new. We've been always doing it. Whenever there was a need for another city, another dam or more wheat fields it was the time for the turtles to get lost.
Animal factories? The methods we use today to produce the huge quantities of meat or eggs that we need are industrial for all intents and purposes.


Odin, you accused me (rightfully) of being specieist. Remember the recent thread of yours where you posited that the west is declining because of decadent stuff like New Age mysticism and no interest in science?

Well, here's another sign of this supposed "decadence":
The appearance and propagation of ideas of animal rights and your anti-specieism. Ideas that oppose the principle of using nature for our purposes. A principle which is a tenet of human progress as fundamental as science itself.

Can a society "armed" with these new ideas survive against societies that do not try to ignore reality?