| Philosophy Discussion geared towards general philosophical and logical topics. NEW!! |
Want These Ads To Go Away? Become A Premium Member. Click here to see how...
Bookmark this thread at ThreadSoup:
 Add it! | 
04-12-2008, 11:22 PM
|
#21 (permalink)
| | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 320
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by to_hobbes  Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinterland I agree. I think our current exploitation of virtually every resource on the planet is an indication of the future and I see no reason why humans continuance is a "good" thing. | Well, a tree consumes resources in the soil and in the atmosphere, and competes with other trees for resources, and the humans species acts the same way. So humans just exist, like a tree -- how could one claim that our existence is either good or bad? | Trees and flora do not typically destroy entire niches, habitats, and ecosystem unless it is an "invasive species" introduced by humans so I think it is wrong to compare them. Humans take and take and never give back and that is the general rule.
__________________
And on we walked. Suddenly we heard a voice crying, "This is the sea. This is the deep sea. This is the vast and mighty sea." And when we reached the voice it was a man whose back was turned to the sea, and at his ear he held a shell, listening to its murmur.
And my soul said, "Let us pass on. He is the realist, who turns his back on the whole he cannot grasp, and busies himself with a fragment."
—Gibran Khalil Gibran, “The Greater Sea.” | 
|  | |
04-12-2008, 11:25 PM
|
#22 (permalink)
| | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 320
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowind good, bad, relative to what?
relative to humanity, the improvement of the human condition is good no? | Bad relative to the damage other creatures do to earth. It is correct to say that humans do more damage than all other animals on earth combined. "Improvement" (something you should define) is good, but if were are improving at all significantly, which I doubt, then I see no reason why our existence is a good thing.
__________________
And on we walked. Suddenly we heard a voice crying, "This is the sea. This is the deep sea. This is the vast and mighty sea." And when we reached the voice it was a man whose back was turned to the sea, and at his ear he held a shell, listening to its murmur.
And my soul said, "Let us pass on. He is the realist, who turns his back on the whole he cannot grasp, and busies himself with a fragment."
—Gibran Khalil Gibran, “The Greater Sea.” | |
| | |
04-12-2008, 11:31 PM
|
#23 (permalink)
| | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 320
| 
Quote:
Originally Posted by to_hobbes Quote:
Originally Posted by Bjarki Dalsgarð It sure depends on the point of view, and is why there is never going to be an aggreement on the subject.
It is not just bad because we destroy the nature, we destroy ourselves too, we are an unatural part of the nature (strange huh?) | If you insist, but I think consuming resources in the environment to the point of self destruction is not unnatural because a lot of things that aren't human do exactly that (e.g. any parasite).
But you probably know me by now, I have a tendency to re-define words, like "natural" or "free will", if you have been paying to the stuff I write in other threads. | ...Good point, what we're doing is natural and necessary for progress. Since we've already exploited virtually every resource, it is important to examine what is OK to exploit based on the benefit and damage. This is a part of prgress. Parasites is another false analogy. Quote:
Originally Posted by Jodou1 Quote:
Originally Posted by to_hobbes If you insist, but I think consuming resources in the environment to the point of self destruction is not unnatural because a lot of things that aren't human do exactly that (e.g. any parasite).
But you probably know me by now, I have a tendency to re-define words, like "natural" or "free will", if you have been paying to the stuff I write in other threads. | As far as we know parasites do not have the knowledge that the consumption of those resources will lead to their own destruction, humans do.
Human intelligence puts us in a seperate category I believe, as far as what is natural, good, or bad. | I agree. Most parasites are probably not even conscious as far as we know, unless you consider the Cuckoo a true parasite!
*sorry for the triple post, I'll put em all in one next time.
__________________
And on we walked. Suddenly we heard a voice crying, "This is the sea. This is the deep sea. This is the vast and mighty sea." And when we reached the voice it was a man whose back was turned to the sea, and at his ear he held a shell, listening to its murmur.
And my soul said, "Let us pass on. He is the realist, who turns his back on the whole he cannot grasp, and busies himself with a fragment."
—Gibran Khalil Gibran, “The Greater Sea.” | |
| | |
04-12-2008, 11:48 PM
|
#24 (permalink)
| | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: BC Canada, near the US border
Posts: 1,026
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinterland Bad relative to the damage other creatures do to earth. It is correct to say that humans do more damage than all other animals on earth combined. "Improvement" (something you should define) is good, but if were are improving at all significantly, which I doubt, then I see no reason why our existence is a good thing. | So those oxygen evolving photosynthesizing plants/organisms were a bad move?
__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams | |
| | |
04-13-2008, 01:06 PM
|
#25 (permalink)
| | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 320
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by romansh Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinterland Bad relative to the damage other creatures do to earth. It is correct to say that humans do more damage than all other animals on earth combined. "Improvement" (something you should define) is good, but if were are improving at all significantly, which I doubt, then I see no reason why our existence is a good thing. | So those oxygen evolving photosynthesizing plants/organisms were a bad move? | If different chemicals were involved in forming earth it's possible something else "like us" would have formed anyways, without oxygen and their resperation would likewise involve different substance. I acknowledge I can't make a good argument why humans should disapear now (maybe someone else could) because it's all a matter of perspective.
__________________
And on we walked. Suddenly we heard a voice crying, "This is the sea. This is the deep sea. This is the vast and mighty sea." And when we reached the voice it was a man whose back was turned to the sea, and at his ear he held a shell, listening to its murmur.
And my soul said, "Let us pass on. He is the realist, who turns his back on the whole he cannot grasp, and busies himself with a fragment."
—Gibran Khalil Gibran, “The Greater Sea.” | |
| | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | |
|
