vixstile

Who says we have to accomplish anthing?
What have non-humans accomplished?

Im not suggesting that humans aren't extremely destructive. Im just suggesting :HUMANS COME FIRST!!!

I was speaking of a hypothetical situation were we would have an exceptional knowledge of environmental manipulation. My question was in regards to the ethical implications, not the practice implications.

I do agree. I suggest changes in favor of humans because IM HUMAN. What gives any other species any more of a right to survive? I mean, NON-subjectively.

Because I think these people are morons

Then what is the truth (as you see it)

ACCORDING TO WHAT?

Is there some physical law declaring this?
A deity?
Can you prove this?

I cant believe an atheist would make such an absurd claim.

Then how do you explain space exploration? Humans living in a completely human-created environment. I have no doubt that, with advances in technology, humans will create environments that can possibly sustain us indefinitely.

Currently this is true, but i don't think this will always be the case.

This is your SUBJECTIVE OPINION, not objective fact. I suggest you contemplate the differences.

No I don't. I made it quite clear that it is my SUBJECTIVE OPINION.

My definition of non-human environment was pretty weak. Allow me to redefine: A non-human environment is the opposite of my definition of a human environment (still weak, but i don't really care)

I support the conservation of the environment because rocks, trees, flowers, butter flies, and water-falls are pretty. Down on my list as well, but on it non the less.

Let me make something clear; I very actively support the conservation of the environment. I don't support the proliferation of the bankrupt ideological/philosophical position of many of the earth-first types. It is, in my view, completely false.

[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: vixstile ]</p>

ju'iblex

ok, ive slacked off long enough, time to post.

if you look at my original sentence i believe i said "what good have we accomplished", as opposed to "what have we accomplished", arguably the easier of the two to answer. What have non-humans accomplished? Considering non-H refers to anything which is not human, non-humanity has set up a finely balanced system capable of supporting life. which we have taken the liberty to do as we want with. as i said before, we rely on that which is not human for the essentials for life, and not vice versa.

which is exactly the type of thinking which warrants the destruction of human-kind.

fortunately i have enough of an insight to be able to think beyond my own needs.

simple, you get what you give; you destroy, you are destroyed in return, its how a balanced system works. very fair.

the irony

im not even going to bother. you cant look past yourself, its not my obligation to try and change that.

you cannot be serious. that is in no way a human-created environment, and nor is it capable of supporting generations of human life. humans living in a created environment yes, but its all been stolen from earth. the food, where do you think that came from? the metals necessary to get there? your viewpoint is truly parasitic and im appauled you could think that way. "if we destroy the earth, lets just live in space! find a new host planet to colonise and destroy!".

how sweet.

because theyre pretty. i see you have your priorities straight.

im a freethinker, by definition that means im more likely to have a different viewpoint. you want a sheep, find one of God's flock.

Quetzal

May I suggest both sides in this debate might want to do a little reading? I'm hearing fairly extreme POV's from most involved.

My recommendations:

W.M. Hanneman 1988 "Economics and the Preservation of Biodiversity" (in E.O. Wilson (ed) 1988 "Biodiversity")

R. Patrick 1997 "Biodiversity: Why is it Important?" (in M.L. Reaka-Kudla, D.E. Wilson, E.O Wilson (eds) 1997 "Biodiversity II")

Both articles present rational, sound reasons for the preservation of biological diversity. There are other articles in the two books that point out, for instance, the failure of the "deep ecology" (read "rabid environmentalist") movement, etc. Both sides need to take a deep breath and learn something about what they are arguing.

Just my two cents.

vixstile

juiblex

This topic isn't really about EVOLUTION/CREATION, so I created a new post
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000169" target="_blank">here</a>