How can we maintain a healthy ecosystem at the expense of the lives of others? How can we be so cold that we must disallow people from obtaining economic prosperity for just the thought that a forest still stands? How can we be so irresponsible that we allow entire ecosystems to die and species to go extinct in a needless snuffing of the brilliance of life? Is the differentiation of the welfare of humans and animals just another form of racism and group-think?
I believe that nature has tried to cut back on the "human" problem. Disease is usually the population control, but it seems that we have sort of beaten that. I believe that it is possible for humans to coexist with nature. Step one, birth control. The human race is over populated, so people should stop having f***ing 5 or in rare case 10 children. Its harder on the world and on the parents. As much as I hate to say it, a large scale natural/biological disaster might be the only way to control the human race because I don't think that people will control themselves.
Humans are selfish and jealous creatures. As a human, i'm already biased to not care about the wellbeing of fauna and flora that's existence is not in some way advantageous to me. As a futurologist i'm all for the adaption of technology to replace nature's role in human survival. So I guess i'm pro-humanism.
Well then, I guess that humans are just like what Agent Smith said we are, a virus. We cannot let the things around us survive. Rant: Seriously is it that hard to stop ****ing so we aren't so overcrowded and is it to much to ask as to coexist with the life around us.
Humanism. And then there's the argument of natural selection and overpopulation. Humans > Inanimate objects I realize the relation between these two. Humans need inanimate objects to, essentially, live well. However, inanimate objects don't need humans. In fact, I think if they could think on their own, they'd despise humanity. Also, when I say inanimate objects, I'm not referring to inorganic matter. Big difference. Organic matter =/= animate object
I dont think our overpopulation is a result of too much f**king in society... although lessening that would obviously help cut down on overpopulation now that it has happened. The real culprit is our very being. We have no competition or predator in society. We don't have some animal that specifically hunts humans and keeps our population balanced. We don't have much competition, not like, with trying to get enough food, although obviously hunger is a problem. But the fact we are like seperate from food webs, and don't need are not interdependent on other organisms, we have created this problem in our very existence. And there is no survival of the fittest or something in society, that if someone is weaker they are left to die, everyone is for the most part helped to survive, despite their condition, as seen in injured people, mentally challenged and diseased people... Our problem I think is that we are not just too selfish and egotistic, but that we are uncaring for the rest of nature. I think there could be a coexistence between humanity and nature. But I don't see it as a very plausible outcome, and I see humanity pushing nature off the earth, and in turn probably killing ourselves in the outcome.
Grif, we're programed to over reproduce for the survival as a species. You wouldn't try to stop nature would you? Would you? The Earth or Humans, the earth or humans. Hmmm... I like the earth but only because what it provides me. And with that in mind I pick the earth. No starving south american person is giving me the pleasure of a nice view. Their economic succes doesn't help me in any way, but their non-existince would. Survival of the fittest, and being born to a middle class American family. Well that makes me the fittest; close enough that is.
*cough* There's no god *cough*. We haven't really "done" anything to ourselves. This is about us and the environment. If a plant does nothing for humans than it is a "weed". If an animal doesn't it is a "pest". It may suck, but this is survival of the fittest against other species. The linchpin of human development has always been selective killing. As long as other biological organisms are required for human development, then they will remain, or we will not.
I don't see why both can't work. Creating green jobs to help humans and the enviroment. Then humans can take advantage of air space by making giant super structures that hold communities in them.
If humans plan on surviving, they need too stop worrying about the environment so much. Rather then spending billions on Environmental protection, they need too spend billions on the science of terraforming.
The envoromen is Humanty's home plants are a source of food for us and the animals we use as food, so the people that burn and cut down forests are the ones who are not being humanitarianists..
They say ignorance is bliss Nitrous, though, in this debate, I think ignorance is the torch fallen in dry grass.
I hate it when people use the word "god" in a non-religious fashion, for emphasis rather than to express the idea of an implausible entity. ...and implying I am ignorant is rich, seeing as you didn't reply to the debate topic. "Is ignorance Bliss?" sounds like a good debate though.
humans are selfish as a species the reason the human race is keen on saving the environment is to provide a suitable climate for the next generation to live in. to sacrifice human life for the sake of the planet will only provide another canvas for humanity to desecrate once again. It's a cycle, and the human race will become extinct one way or another, at some point or another.
Very true, sad but true we are basically only trying to delay are inevitable extinction. I suppose we could find another planet or live in some sort of space station but we would probably destroy that planet or the technologt would age to the point of useless.
Wow, I suck. If mankind does become extinct, it will be because we weren't intelligent enough or fast enough to respond to whatever crisis we faced, whether it be exhaustion of resources or grey goo. Regarding that whole "Agent-Smith-Parasite-Observation", what species isn't selfish? The only species that I know of that can live without the destruction of organic resources are bees, which rely on flower pollen, a huge weakness. Even A.I, a theoretical "life-form" would require electricity, the production of which would cause the environment some harm. Unless human's can attain a "bee like" symbiosis with the environment or technology, non-human fauna and flora are going to suffer from our humanness. It would probably require us to be more than human though.
That bit on technology replacing the role of nature seems utterly unrealistic. Nature provides the food we eat, the air we breathe, the homes we live in (that could change), the water we drink, etc. Technology can never replace the role of nature because a world where humans are sustained by technology does not sound like a pleasant one at all. I have to stay moderate on this issue because the survival of nature and prosperity of humans are both key to maintain the world's balance. EDIT: I do believe in research on stem cells and other progressive but controversial issues, but when we reach a certain point like creating life out of next to nothing (if that is possible), I feel like there is a moral boundary where humans should stop. Nature is here for a purpose. We have more or less defeated animals and plants and are getting closer to defeating infection every day, but to forsake these things is impossible. A peaceful coexistence where we occasionally use nature alongside technology is necessary. Neither extreme environmentalism nor humanism is sane or possible.