The Value of Humans vs. Non-Human Beings

[Kmal]

You're also forgetting that we've gone from rocks and clubs to atomic bombs, from farming and gathering to exploitation of natural resources, from Bethoven to Justin Bieber.

Not everyone is evolving, I'll tell you that.

so, whats your point? by theory of evolution, the unaware ones will soon be gone through natural selection.

 

[Detective Conan]

I really don't think we're more important than them. In fact, as our volume grows, I think individuals within the species become less important in general, including our species.

 

[AUM]

so, whats your point? by theory of evolution, the unaware ones will soon be gone.

You're completely right. Unfortunately, those unaware ones are more likely to be us than anything else on this planet.

We are the weak species, we haven't been able to cooperate with nature. We've created a disequilibrium with our environment, and our downfall as a species. You talk about quantum physics, but what can quantum physics do about our pollution? What can quantum physicists do about our violence and natural disposition towards wars and genocides??

Nothing.

 

[Kmal]

You're completely right. Unfortunately, those unaware ones are more likely to be us than anything else on this planet.

We are the weak species, we haven't been able to cooperate with nature. We've created a disequilibrium with our environment, and our downfall as a species. You talk about quantum physics, but what can quantum physics do about our pollution? What can quantum physicists do about our violence and natural disposition towards wars and genocides??

Nothing.

instability is required to evolve. ants have been highly stable and have not evolved in millions of years. human societies, historically, have been very unstable. the more unstable it is, the higher the odds are its gonna change. the human world is so information rich that we have better odds of improving our situation rather than damaging it. again, it is still possible that the world could end in a firery explosion or one of your other favorite apolcalyptic scenarios.

 

[AUM]

instability is required to evolve. ants have been highly stable and have not evolved in millions of years. human societies, historically, have been very unstable. the more unstable it is, the higher the odds are its gonna change. the human world is so information rich that we have better odds of improving our situation rather than damaging it. again, it is still possible that the world could end in a firery explosion or one of your other favorite apolcalyptic scenarios.

I used to think the same Kmal. I used to think people would be more disposed to change when unstable structures were threatening their existence, but I'm beginning to think that people would rather die than to change. Take our current economic system for instance, it is obvious that the free market is not working, just turn on the news tonight. But still, people cling fiercely to the system because of greed and power. It takes great awareness and reflection to admit that we are on an economic collapse, and not only economic, but social and spiritual.

Ants, like you said, have not changed much, but at least they will never threaten their own planet because of their own self-interest like we do. Ants, don't really hurt anyone, they are very peaceful species working their bums off everyday. Maybe someday they will also evolve greater consciousness, and become another species of ants that are more suited to influence their environment.

It has been said that if insects ceased to exist one day the world would collapse, but if humans perished nothing would be affect by it. That just shows how significant we really are. (I'll include the source for this when I find it)

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I used to think the same Kmal. I used to think people would be more disposed to change when unstable structures were threatening their existence, but I'm beginning to think that people would rather die than to change. Take our current economic system for instance, it is obvious that the free market is not working, just turn on the news tonight. But still, people cling fiercely to the system because of greed and power. It takes great awareness and reflection to admit that we are on an economic collapse, and not only economic, but social and spiritual.

Ants, like you said, have not changed much, but at least they will never threaten their own planet because of their own self-interest like we do. Ants, don't really hurt anyone, they are very peaceful species working their bums off everyday. Maybe someday they will also evolve greater consciousness, and become another species of ants that are more suited to influence their environment.

It has been said that if insects ceased to exist one day the world would collapse, but if humans perished nothing would be affect by it. That just shows how significant we really are. (I'll include the source for this when I find it)

If ants gain greater consciousness, they will no longer be ants - they will be like us, although probably somewhat physically different.

I wouldn't worry about the planet either. Have you ever tried to disinfect something small, like a kitchen rag.... it is almost impossible to do - you basically need to boil it for quite a long time - and even then you will find some form of life on it. If all life goes out on earth, it won't be our doing - we just don't have the means at our disposal.

 

[Kmal]

I used to think the same Kmal. I used to think people would be more disposed to change when unstable structures were threatening their existence, but I'm beginning to think that people would rather die than to change. Take our current economic system for instance, it is obvious that the free market is not working, just turn on the news tonight. But still, people cling fiercely to the system because of greed and power. It takes great awareness and reflection to admit that we are on an economic collapse, and not only economic, but social and spiritual.

It has been said that if insects ceased to exist one day the world would collapse, but if humans perished nothing would be affect by it. That just shows how significant we really are. (I'll include the source for this when I find it)

We will have to change as a species-- or we will die. The majority of humans still have the bio-survival mechanism working, so I'm sure when it gets down to the nut-cutting, they will change. Of course there are always idiots, but they are not the sum.

If humans perished, the world may or may not be effected. If we perished though, we wouldnt exist-- The priority of existence is us-- the world follows us in terms of importance. We want to save the earth because it will help us survive; it's not a selfless goal. That being said, our significance being based on how we affect the earth rather than us is silly.

 

[AUM]

If ants gain greater consciousness, they will no longer be ants - they will be like us, although probably somewhat physically different.

I wouldn't worry about the planet either. Have you ever tried to disinfect something small, like a kitchen rag.... it is almost impossible to do - you basically need to boil it for quite a long time - and even then you will find some form of life on it. If all life goes out on earth, it won't be our doing - we just don't have the means at our disposal.

Heh, no I don't worry about the planet. The planet has gone through so much (e.g. earthquakes, ice ages, tectonic shifts, magnetic polar reverses, meteors) it has been here before us, and probably will be here long after we're gone.

My point of all that post was to humble our superiority complex that we are somehow responsible for all the good things in this planet, when clearly, it has been an organic process. All species have gone through the evolutionary ladder, but we(homo sapiens) are in this game for so long before we are recycled and replaced by other species. (and who knows, it could be these ants who will replace us some day lol)

 

[Kmal]

My point of all that post was to humble our superiority complex that we are somehow responsible for all the good things in this planet, when clearly, it has been an organic process. All species have gone through the evolutionary ladder, but we(homo sapiens) are in this game for so long before we are recycled and replaced by other species. (and who knows, it could be these ants who will replace us some day lol)

no one has claimed we are responsible for all the good things in this planet, but we are responsible for all the things we invented to help us and improve our quality of life. i'm not quite sure we have any recorded history of there being a human like creature in the evolutionary ladder; unless you wanna say whatever we evolve into will no longer be 'us'-- which would be a disconnect. no history of human like creature, besides us = no way to predict we will be replaced by something else.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Heh, no I don't worry about the planet. The planet has gone through so much (e.g. earthquakes, ice ages, tectonic shifts, magnetic polar reverses, meteors) it has been here before us, and probably will be here long after we're gone.

My point of all that post was to humble our superiority complex that we are somehow responsible for all the good things in this planet, when clearly, it has been an organic process. All species have gone through the evolutionary ladder, but we(homo sapiens) are in this game for so long before we are recycled and replaced by other species. (and who knows, it could be these ants who will replace us some day lol)

The fact that we are the superior life-form on the planet, would seem to burden us with at least some responsibility for the upkeep of all the good things on this planet.

 

[AUM]

The priority of existence is us-- the world follows us in terms of importance.

You're forgetting that we depend on everything else for sustenance. We need the sun for the trees to synthesize and provide us with oxygen. We need the insects to decompose our waste, we need the natural resources to provide us with shelter and luxuries of life. We need clean water to survive, and so on.

Our priority isn't really only focusing on us, but on everything else that comprises our habitat. We only think of ourselves, and that thinking will be our greatest demise as a species. The world doesn't follow us, we follow the world.

we are responsible for all the things we invented to help us and improve our quality of life.

No we aren't. See above.

i'm not quite sure we have any recorded history of there being a human like creature in the evolutionary ladder; unless you wanna say whatever we evolve into will no longer be 'us'-- which would be a disconnect. no history of human like creature, besides us = no way to predict we will be replaced by something else.

Why must we assume that any intelligent specie must evolve to be human?

The fact that we are the superior life-form on the planet, would seem to burden us with at least some responsibility for the upkeep of all the good things on this planet.

That would be a great argument for people who think highly of themselves as a species. For people who think that we share the same value as other species don't need to be held responsible for what we do, but it will come naturally as we realize that we are interconnected for our survival.

 

[Kmal]

You're forgetting that we depend on everything else for sustenance. We need the sun for the trees to synthesize and provide us with oxygen. We need the insects to decompose our waste, we need the natural resources to provide us with shelter and luxuries of life. We need clean water to survive, and so on.

Our priority isn't really only focusing on us, but on everything else that comprises our habitat. We only think of ourselves, and that thinking will be our greatest demise as a species. The world doesn't follow us, we follow the world.

Right, we do need the world to survive-- but we need ourselves to need to survive. Our priority is firstly, to survive. Our second priority is improving anything thereafter.

Why must we assume that any intelligent specie must evolve to be human?

I dont know what you're talking about; I never said anyhing like that. I said there hasnt been a human like creature in the past-- we're the very first human, with a mind, with written language, semantics, historical records, feelings, emotions, and the ability to communicate information about said information. if you want me to say that we may go extinct, then yes, thats a possibility, but the odds are not in that favor.

 

[AUM]

Our priority is firstly, to survive. Our second priority is improving anything thereafter.

How do you plan on surviving on a depleted planet? Isn't our priority to first take care of our habitat so we can then sustain from it? If our priority is us, sooner or later, everything on the planet would be extinct and polluted from our own self-serving mentality.

Take trees, for example. We use trees on an excessive amount. We destroy trees faster than they regenerate, making our survival unsustainable. Wouldn't it be better to find a way to prioritize how we are going to take care of this issue? And this is just an example, it could be said for any other natural resource for that matter.

I dont know what you're talking about; I never said anyhing like that. I said there hasnt been a human like creature in the past-- we're the very first human, with a mind, with written language, semantics, historical records, feelings, emotions, and the ability to communicate information about said information. if you want me to say that we may go extinct, then yes, thats a possibility, but the odds are not in that favor.

The planet is 4.5 billion years old. We don't know the totality of the history of this planet. There could've been other intelligences living on our planet during that time. In addition, you're assuming that planet Earth is the only habitable planet on the galaxy. That is a very dangerous assumption to make. On the other hand, the same thing could be said about my argument that there could be other intelligent life out there, so I'll just say that I am ignorant on the matter since I don't have enough information to make a valid conclusion.

 

[Kmal]

How do you plan on surviving on a depleted planet? Isn't our priority to first take care of our habitat so we can then sustain from it? If our priority is us, sooner or later, everything on the planet would be extinct and polluted from our own self-serving mentality.

Take trees, for example. We use trees on an excessive amount. We destroy trees faster than they regenerate, making our survival unsustainable. Wouldn't it be better to find a way to prioritize how we are going to take care of this issue? And this is just an example, it could be said for any other natural resource for that matter.

I'm really not even sure what we're discussing now. Obviously, since survival is our top priority-- we're going to take care of the planet. The planet isnt as bad off as you think. You said it yourself how insignificant we were; or is that only if we were removed from the picture? Sounds fairly [in]significant either way--

You'll excuse the human race for not being perfect. Dont make the mistake of thinking we're not trying to find more efficient resources; or mistake someone elses subjective reality as your own.

 

[AUM]

or mistake someone elses subjective reality as your own.

OK, I'll take that in mind. I would suggest the same.

 

[Griffin]

I don't see humans as ever dying off because of what we are doing to the planet. Maybe in some cold war-esque nuclear holocaust, but not from us changing our environment due to our exploitation.

Eventually, if the environment stops supporting the growing population it will stop growing and maybe recede. But we're a very adaptable species, and if we have to be scaled back to tribal life before we can adapt to the new hole we dug ourselves, so we shall, but I doubt that anything non-catastrophic would kill off the species in the long term. You talk of the failing economic system as an example of our shortsightedness, but it's not failing for everyone. Many people enjoy a quality of life that is perfectly acceptable to them in the system, and many who do not lack either the power or the motivation to change it. Either way, that is very much a social issue, unlike global-scale environmental meltdown.

If we are in fact on the road to oblivion environmental-wise, scientific evidence will eventually make it obvious beyond a shadow of a doubt that things need to change now. For some, that time is already here, for others that time as already passed. For me, that time hasn't happened yet because we haven't realized that the shit's really about to hit the fan. Once we do, our huge development around the world and globalization of communication will play a pivotal role in making a U-turn before we really mess things up.
...hopefully >_>

 

[Barnabas]

Funny story but other animals aren't responsible of their habitats either, Argentine Ants are expanding and killing other species of ants all over the planet, leading to death of other species that ate those ants, like the horned lizard of Australia.

 

[invisible]

Funny story but other animals aren't responsible of their habitats either, Argentine Ants are expanding and killing other species of ants all over the planet, leading to death of other species that ate those ants, like the horned lizard of Australia.

ants don't have the capacity to think and be responsible about what they are doing.

 

[Barnabas]

ants don't have the capacity to think and be responsible about what they are doing.

this applies to just about any animal, they get an advantage and then they run with it. We as humans aren't alone in the notion in taking advantage of our resources and habitat.

In fact were the only species that reflects on it and tries to restore not only our habitat but the habitat of other creatures.

Now excuse me as I go eat a panda steak.

 

[invisible]

i need to pay more attention.