vixstile

This is in regard to <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000712" target="_blank">this</a> topic. I originally posted it in the Evolution/Creation forum, but the subject is really more of a mater of morality and ethics.

I take the position of "Man always comes first!".

I am opposed the Earth First philosophy.

I also state that this is merely my subjective opinion.

Freethinking Ferret

Don't you think that it is in man's best interests to keep as many species of plant and animal alive as is possible; if only for the fact that they might at some time in the future prove useful to humans?

I just think it's awfully shortsighted to have this "damn the torpedoes" attitude towards the destruction of the rest of nature in favor of this one species. Especially when we can survive without being so destructive.

I don't know why this issue is being made into a two-sided thing in the previous thread... there are more positions than simply against nature or against humanity. A balance can be struck; and needs to be, IMHO, considering that the miracle technologies being talked about to save endangered species and ecosystems don't exist yet.

tronvillain

"Oh, so Mother Nature needs a favor? Well, maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys. Nature started the fight for survival and now she wants to quit because she's losing? Well, I say 'Hard cheese!'"
-Mr. Burns, the Simpsons, 4F17.

vixstile

I do support the conservation of the environment. I agree that the way we are currently effecting the environment is possibly detrimental to human interests.

So let me make my position clearer with yet another extremely, far-out, implausible hypothetical situation: A group of extremely advanced aliens beam me up to their space ship. They then begin to explain to me that, based on my decision, they will either wipe earth of human life, repair the earths ecosystems to a state in which they mite have existed if humans had never existed-OR-They will, based on my decision, wipe the earth of non-human life, transplanting all of humanity to a new environment, allowing humanity to continue to thrive.

I would, without hesitation, allow every last molecule of non-human life to be completely annihilated, in favor of humanity.

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: vixstile ]</p>

Freethinking Ferret

That was supposed to make your position clearer?

SmashingIdols

It is inconcievable that aliens could transplant humans to a place they would survive without bringing all the life along that we are dependent upon. However, that being addressed:

Wiping out human beings to return the earth to some "static" state of perfection implies that such a balanced and static state must have once existed.

It didn't. That's the bible speaking, and it just isn't true.

The living organisms on this planet have been evolving since the very first time a protein hitched a ride with RNA. Every single bit of it has been a change for the biosphere. From the first life changing the atmosphere, to the first organisms with chloroplasts, to modern homo-sapiens, it has been all about change.

The earth doesn't stand still for no one, or no species. To remove the human race matters not a wit to that process - it will go on changing with or without us. And ultimately, there are destroyers far greater and larger than any life could concieve - agents of destruction in the deep, dark, depths of space waiting to bring another mass extinction; to date there have been numerous such events.

So, kill us exactly for what? There was no paradise to return to, it is a bit of Biblical fancy; nothing more. The story will continue with or without humans, but in any event it will continue changing and species will continue going extinct - examine the fossil record itself, this is the very story it tells.

There is no balance of perfection, there is only change.

A bigger challenge will be arresting this process enough to stay alive.

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]</p>

vixstile

I don't exactly know what you aren't clear on. Im trying to state that i value the single species of Homo Sapiens, more than all the other species combined.

And SmashingIdols, I stated that my hypothetical situation was "extremely farout and implausible". The particle implications of the aliens changing earth are completely irrelevant.

Im not trying to make any commentary on the current environmental situation. Im trying to explore the ethics of the earth-first vs. man-first position .

SmashingIdols

Eliminate my first sentence then, of my post above, and just continue. I think I stated the case regarding this rather eloquently.

To sum it up but again - there is no earth first versus man first argument to be had.

The earth never was and never will be in some static balance. That is a biblical fairytale - this place is all about change. Saying that eliminating man so the earth can recover implies there is some pristine state for it to actually recover to. There isn't. It has always been in a state of flux. Constant change is the norm here.

I couldn't state it any better than I did above in my original post. The challenge will be arresting the process enough for us to survive.

Also, my statement about the agents of mass extinction has nothing to do with alien life forms, just comets and asteroids taking their natural course.

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]</p>

vixstile

I don't know were you're getting this "static" or "state of perfection" stuff from. It really doesn't have anything to do with my hypothetical situation. The aliens, with their magic-like technology, transform earth to a state in which it mite have existed in if humans had never evolved.

Some people have made it clear that they would prefer the partial, if not total, annihilation of humanity, in favor of non-human life. I could accept someone holding this position if they acknowledged that they have a subjective preference for rocks, trees, and butterflies over sky-scrapers, cars, and smoke-stacks. But most try to claim the earth-first position is objectively justifiable by making statements like "rocks, trees, water falls, and butterflies; that is what is supposed to be there".Implying some pre-destined state of the planet. Saying mans exploitation of the environment is objectively wrong, immoral, or evil.

I think that position is absurd

vixstile

I agree with this completely, but many people don't. Many think man is somehow unnatural. Many think how we behave is unnatural. Many think man must have no interaction with the environment, for the environment to be pure.