God Fearing Atheist

Is it the case that non-humans are objectivly valueable? If so, why/how?

echidna

We all have different values. Personally I have no children, however I know many parents who do. For them there is nothing in this world more important than their children. And I don’t think this is wrong at all, even although personally I do value the moth highly.

It’s much easier to apply rules and make judgements on faceless people, however at the end of the day they’re no different to any of us. If I cannot criticise my friend, how can I blame a stranger ?

Ideally I would never be faced with the choice between extinction of a small moth or the well-being of those who I care for. But in reality, every time I drive to work, or switch on a lightbulb, or eat dinner, or fly overseas, I risk the existence of endangered species. And yet I don’t want to stop any of those things either. So neither can I blame those who I care for, and nor can I blame those in foreign countries.

Yes, unfortunately in the game of sharing, it’s usually the majority who wins. And people such as myself in the minority will be frustrated. But who am I to forcibly impose my aesthetic values on someone else ?

Again, using Australia, North America and Europe as a pattern, after the economic development has finished pillaging the environment (or not), there are still pockets of national parks.

Even Japan (with 125 million people in the same real estate of Victoria !) still has national parks such as Hokkaido. No, of course I wish there was more and it’ll never be enough, but I’d never want to stop someone else from having children at gunpoint.

It just seems to be an ugly but necessary part of the development process. Our own histories have been through this pain, and our grandparents would be proud of our prosperity. Who are we to now deny it to someone else ?

echidna

I don’t agree SS. The previous page details my objections with Dawkins on this.

I find this response the amoral response. Simply letting people starve (or imposing starvation as I’ve explained) is to use nature’s lack of morality as a means of absolving ourselves of responsibility.

The moral response is to find a moral solution.

echidna

Again, what evidence do you have for this ?

Of all the continents, life expectancy has risen dramatically over recent decades, in parallel with their population growth. Only save Africa where AIDS has actually reduced life expectancy by 10 years or so, not because of any overpopulation but by the cultural drivers which exacerbate its spread.

There is no evidence for life expectancy decrease.

tronvillain

alek0:
Do you think that another species would have inevitably developed to this level of sentience if humans hadn't? It turns out to be a really good trick, but that doesn't make it inevitable.

cricket

As opposed to the ones ... who do not?

Ms. Siv

And letting people starve is exactly what you would be doing if you do not institute controls on a situation like India or China. To prevent nature from taking its own "red in tooth-and-claw" course, you have to use contraception and perhaps, if the situation is drastic enough, institute family control laws.

Dawkins never has justified nature's methods. He in fact has explicitly said so many times - that Darwinian principles are lousy role models and act best as warnings to guard against. But people continue to misunderstand him !

- Sivakami.

Ms. Siv

What evidence do you want ? Have you seen the population figures of India ? Do you know what the average rural family size is ? Do you know that many families have 5-6 children irrespective of the fact that contraception is widely available ?

I dont understand your point.
Life expectancy increase without family planning is precisely what has resulted in an exploding population !

- Sivakami.

echidna

Your words indicate that "no one survives tomorrow’s world".

Well in a sense you are correct since immortality is not yet available to us.

However if you are implying that our lifespans are threatened BY population increase, there is NO evidence for this.

echidna

<a href="http://mars3.gps.caltech.edu/whichworld/explore/india/indiasoc.html" target="_blank">http://mars3.gps.caltech.edu/whichworld/explore/india/indiasoc.html</a>

According to here, along with its rampant population growth, from 1970 to 1990 India’s life expectancy has increased by 20% in only 20 years, truly astonishing. How do you so clearly see doom and gloom and the end of the world ?

Yes, we must achieve more, but just for a second, consider the miracle that this improvement represents.

How are we threatened ? What evidence do you have for a threat to our lifespan ?

I think the problem is more of a lifestyle and aesthetic concern.