Womens Right NOT Have Children and the Stigmas That Go With It..

[Deckerd]

You were when you said that none of the past mass extinctions were due to human activity. However you haven't been entirely correct in other posts. Is being right really the only thing that matters to you? I wasn't trying to derail the thread but I genuinely was trying to provide you with information on a subject I thought you might find interesting.

Eh? You're really touchy today. It was one comment, which was correct. I've never claimed to be perfect.

I'm the same way I am most days. I was trying to have a discussion with you about something but you seem totally uninterested in it, so I was trying to find out if you only cared about being right and not actually in humans being responsible for a current ongoing mass extinction event.

It was a throwaway comment. Why I'm being singled out for the Kestra treatment is beginning to interest me much more than the conversation. I don't believe humans are responsible for any mass extinction, present, past or future, except quite possibly their own.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I don't understand nihilism. In order to wish society didn't exist, you have to have a society in the first place. If it stops existing then there isn't anyone to say "this is great!" It's pointless.

It's not nihilism. It's the absence of the assumption that life on Earth is better off for having humans around.

I would say that humans are better off for the dominance of humans on Earth. The interests of other species are not so important beyond how their existence can serve both our short- and long-term survival.

This is assuming a lack of species that could pose a genuine threat to our survival. We would obviously have to negotiate if a civilization of nuclear-capable dolphins sprang up.

 

[Kestra]

It was a throwaway comment. Why I'm being singled out for the Kestra treatment is beginning to interest me much more than the conversation. I don't believe humans are responsible for any mass extinction, present, past or future, except quite possibly their own.

What's the Kestra treatment? And have you read literature on the supposed current mass extinction? Like I said, I don't know a lot about it so if there are reasons not to believe in it, I'm interested in hearing them.

 

[RoJoHen]

I don't understand nihilism. In order to wish society didn't exist, you have to have a society in the first place. If it stops existing then there isn't anyone to say "this is great!" It's pointless.

It's not nihilism. It's the absence of the assumption that life on Earth is better off for having humans around.

I would say that humans are better off for the dominance of humans on Earth. The interests of other species are not so important beyond how their existence can serve both our short- and long-term survival.

This is assuming a lack of species that could pose a genuine threat to our survival. We would obviously have to negotiate if a civilization of nuclear-capable dolphins sprang up.

I almost wish a civilization of nuclear-capable dolphins would spring up! I'm getting bored.

 

[Hermiod]

I would say that humans are better off for the dominance of humans on Earth. The interests of other species are not so important beyond how their existence can serve both our short- and long-term survival.

This is assuming a lack of species that could pose a genuine threat to our survival. We would obviously have to negotiate if a civilization of nuclear-capable dolphins sprang up.

I'm talking about life on Earth, not our lives on Earth, if you see the difference.

Overall, human presence hasn't exactly been beneficial to the other living things we share this planet with.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

It was a throwaway comment. Why I'm being singled out for the Kestra treatment is beginning to interest me much more than the conversation. I don't believe humans are responsible for any mass extinction, present, past or future, except quite possibly their own.

What's the Kestra treatment? And have you read literature on the supposed current mass extinction? Like I said, I don't know a lot about it so if there are reasons not to believe in it, I'm interested in hearing them.

The Holocene Extinction Event is ongoing. We have hundreds of documented instances of human-caused extinction, but statistically we know that the vast majority of extinctions are undocumented--we could just as easily stumble across a new species' habitat, expose them to new diseases or simply wipe out their living space without ever realizing it. The deforestation of the Amazon is probably the single greatest source of modern-day extinctions.

I do not believe that the Holocene Extinction Event is all that controversial, either. It appears to be quite a well-established phenomenon. Just google "holocene extinction" and start reading. There are a variety of sources, some more reputable than others, but it is definitely not a fringe idea.

 

[RoJoHen]

I missed the part of the thread where this stopped being about babies and started being about mass extinction, but I like it. Anywho, I think it's pretty naive to think that humans are not responsible for the extinction of other species. We are the dominant species on the planet, and we do things to better our own existence. Often times this comes at the expense of other living things. Now, these days were are more environmentally aware and do things to protect all the various ecosystems on the planet, but that has certainly not always been the case, and we have no doubt caused irreparable damage to the livelihood of many species across the globe.

 

[Deckerd]

I agree.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I would say that humans are better off for the dominance of humans on Earth. The interests of other species are not so important beyond how their existence can serve both our short- and long-term survival.

This is assuming a lack of species that could pose a genuine threat to our survival. We would obviously have to negotiate if a civilization of nuclear-capable dolphins sprang up.

I'm talking about life on Earth, not our lives on Earth, if you see the difference.

Overall, human presence hasn't exactly been beneficial to the other living things we share this planet with.

I can see the difference, I just find the welfare of other species to be of little broader consequence beyond how the existence of those species serves us. As a practical matter, most humans seem to feel the same way--we raise countless species, both plant and animal, for the express purpose of killing and consuming them in one way or another. We also routinely decimate species that threaten us (e.g. bacteria, parasites.)

It seems pointless to argue whether or not our presence has been beneficial to any other species, because we are not obligated to be beneficial. We are only obligated, by our own genes, to survive and propagate.

 

[RoJoHen]

It seems pointless to argue whether or not our presence has been beneficial to any other species, because we are not obligated to be beneficial. We are only obligated, by our own genes, to survive and propagate.

While true, our intelligence allows us the unique opportunity to try and accomplish both.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

It seems pointless to argue whether or not our presence has been beneficial to any other species, because we are not obligated to be beneficial. We are only obligated, by our own genes, to survive and propagate.

While true, our intelligence allows us the unique opportunity to try and accomplish both.

Indeed it does, which is why we should consider the overall implications of our actions. But it makes very little sense to seek to benefit other species at our own expense, unless that expense is somehow tied to a long-term benefit for us.

For instance, it would be colossally stupid of us to decimate ocean plankton, because they generate most of the oxygen we need to survive. From that perspective, it is prudent to protect our planet's carbon cycle, even if it hurts us in the short-term.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I think the closest this planet ever came to that was the end of the dinosaurs.

There have actually been I believe five major "extinction events" in our history that we know of. I had to do a paper on one of them in a class, and there was a pretty good Scientific American article about a current extinction event. If you're interested, I'll see if I can find a link.

I bet none of them were caused by human activity.

Obviously none of the prior extinctions were caused by Humans, since Humans didn't exist at the time. However, as others have pointed out, the current and ongoing extinction event is caused by Human overpopulation.

Sure. So do you. So does everyone. The alternative is no people.

No, the alternative is less people, higher quality of life and a healthier ecosystem.

It seems pointless to argue whether or not our presence has been beneficial to any other species, because we are not obligated to be beneficial. We are only obligated, by our own genes, to survive and propagate.

That's rather reductionist. If all we needed to do is survive and propagate, we'd be less than Human. Pretty much everything that makes life worth living, from the Arts & Sciences to pets and chocolate chip cookies, is not required for survival and propagation; neither is preservation of history or prehistory, in the general sense. However, if you must have a selfish reason to protect the biosphere, keep in mind that the ecology is a complex system; what you consider an insignificant species may be vital to the survival of a species that is important to Human survival.