do humans have value?

FiveB247x wrote:

Just saw this portion now.

In every circumstance you list, animals do these things for survival and mating purposes. The entire life cycle is set to carry forward genetics, life and maintain the balance. Where exactly in human existence is anything remotely like this? Absolutely no where. Animals have good reason for these brutish things we take out of context, can you say the same of humans? Not without making a ton of concessions and using excuses to do so.

mikepegg44 wrote:

edit: If all you do is focus on the negative for humans and then ignore the fact some animals eat their own young, that chimpanzees kill for no other reason than to kill, that males battle to the death(sometimes) to mate with a female, it is pretty easy to claim that animals are fantastic and that their behavior is so much better than humans. On average humans are pretty decent to each other, at least that is my experience. I may have a warped world view based on my upbringing in the midwest, but I don't think it is that far off.

yes, thinning the heard...it may sound crass, and you would think we would be above that type of behavior, but we are animals and as such we do the same things animals do...we compete for resources. I don't think it is anymore inhumane to kill someone with a bomb than it is to kill someone so that i can mate.

Animals are slightly different than we are, they do not have the ability to be stewards of nature. If a hungry lion saw the last two male and female antelopes on earth they would chase them down and eat them if they could...in this day and age I don't believe that humans would do that. I agree that humans should/can always be better stewards of the earth and her resources, but lets not pretend that animals are some how more pure or "better", for lack of a different term, because they don't have the ability to ruin things. i think given the chance, they would probably do it to their own benefit. But that is just me.

Humans don't thin the heard, in fact we are the species on earth like this. And much of what do on earth whether through science or medicine, it's basically to alter the life expectancy age. These may be beneficial to us, but in the cycle of life, balance of nature and many other areas' it is abnormal. Also, as I said before, "better" is not the correct term, but I think the gap between the two is a lot closer than many would like to presume.

mikepegg44 wrote:

yes, thinning the heard...it may sound crass, and you would think we would be above that type of behavior, but we are animals and as such we do the same things animals do...we compete for resources. I don't think it is anymore inhumane to kill someone with a bomb than it is to kill someone so that i can mate.

Animals are slightly different than we are, they do not have the ability to be stewards of nature. If a hungry lion saw the last two male and female antelopes on earth they would chase them down and eat them if they could...in this day and age I don't believe that humans would do that. I agree that humans should/can always be better stewards of the earth and her resources, but lets not pretend that animals are some how more pure or "better", for lack of a different term, because they don't have the ability to ruin things. i think given the chance, they would probably do it to their own benefit. But that is just me.

FiveB247x wrote:

Humans don't thin the heard, in fact we are the species on earth like this. And much of what do on earth whether through science or medicine, it's basically to alter the life expectancy age. These may be beneficial to us, but in the cycle of life, balance of nature and many other areas' it is abnormal. Also, as I said before, "better" is not the correct term, but I think the gap between the two is a lot closer than many would like to presume.

Who are you to say what is abnormal for nature??? We are apart of nature, life cycle, balance of life. Whatever we do is part of nature, just because its not primitive does not mean its abnormal. And the gap is huge, you just refuse to look at the good mankind is providing you.

you cant hug your children with nuclear arms!

Yes morality is subject but you could say that about anything. The topic was originally about humanity and yes we have open up many other avenues from it, but at what point is it mere selfishness to presume that humans attempting to adjust nature at its most basic level (life and death cycle) not normal? It's nothing more than self-preservation in one form or another, yet if you look at so many other areas of mankind it all undermines not only nature, but our place and existence in it.

"Man's destiny was to conquer and rule the world, and this is what he's done.. almost. He hasn't quite made it, and it looks as though this may be his undoing. The problem is that man's conquest of the world has itself devastated the world. And in spite of all the mastery we've attained, we don't have enough mastery to stop devastating the world.. or to repair the devastation we've already wrought."— Daniel Quinn

HeidiJam wrote:

Who are you to say what is abnormal for nature??? We are apart of nature, life cycle, balance of life. Whatever we do is part of nature, just because its not primitive does not mean its abnormal. And the gap is huge, you just refuse to look at the good mankind is providing you.

[/quote]

Since morality is subjective.[/quote]

mikepegg44 wrote:

the strongest eat until they are full, and give the weakest the scraps...how is that different?

They still only take what they can use. They don't stockpile a surplus of antelope for themselves, that they'll never be able to eat, while most of the rest of their species starves.

HeidiJam wrote:

catefrances wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

... Has any animal other than us protected other animals from extinction? I would say we are much better.

i find this interesting. why does this make people better??? i dont see saving species from extinction as being an inherently good thing. humans destroy environments and then go about 'rescuing' species they have forced to the brink of extinction. why do they do this? why do they even feel the need to do this???

Your basically punishing Humans because they are smart and are able to survive without living the hunter / gathering life style. Saving species shows that we value life. We destroy enviroments to survive and to be able to live a life without fear not being able to survive. I am not saying thats a good thing but you seem to spout bad of humans while your living your coushy lifestyle (typing on the computer / internet service) Life isnt fair and i am disgusted with alot of decisions humans make but we evolved to a point where we don't have to worry about day to day survival, but this also comes at the cost of using alot of resources from the eath that have harmful effects on the ecosystem.

im not punishing humans. i dont even hate humans.. some of my favourite people are humans...im just asking questions. humans are not smart, humans have intelligence. theres a difference. quite often the decisions they make have enormous repercussions that im not sure they quite understand. we do not destroy the environment to survive, we do it cause we can and because we dont know how to stop. we see no other way of living than that which weve been using since we discovered agriculture. we produce to excess, not just what is required to survive. if you think inventing weaponry and continuing all our other destructive ways even after we know theyre destructive is progress then i suggest your reasoning is unsound.

and i disagree... saving species does not show we value life... it shows weve realised how destructive we are and were now looking for a way to somehow redeem ourselves for our actions. its like recycling... its just to make ourselves feel good whilst we continue to destroy the planet. a band aid if you will. if humans valued life, i mean truly valued life then wed live in eternal peace. dont fool yourself, humans are animals, were just a breed apart.

catefrances wrote:

im not punishing humans. i dont even hate humans.. some of my favourite people are humans...im just asking questions. humans are not smart, humans have intelligence. theres a difference. quite often the decisions they make have enormous repercussions that im not sure they quite understand. we do not destroy the environment to survive, we do it cause we can and because we dont know how to stop. we see no other way of living than that which weve been using since we discovered agriculture. we produce to excess, not just what is required to survive. if you think inventing weaponry and continuing all our other destructive ways even after we know theyre destructive is progress then i suggest your reasoning is unsound.

and i disagree... saving species does not show we value life... it shows weve realised how destructive we are and were now looking for a way to somehow redeem ourselves for our actions. its like recycling... its just to make ourselves feel good whilst we continue to destroy the planet. a band aid if you will. if humans valued life, i mean truly valued life then wed live in eternal peace. dont fool yourself, humans are animals, were just a breed apart.

You can't uninvent something, so there will always be weapons. And saving a species does show we value life. How is it destructive that we are using resources from the earth. Do you blame the earth when a volocao erupts and devistates the ecosystem??? NO... then why to do you blame humans for using what is part of the earth for progress. We evolved form this earth it is here for our growth, Humans do, do terrible things but some things need to happen in order for you to live the lifestyle that you live by going to clubs drinking and listening to music and being detached from everything that lives the life of survival. If you are so again using resources, get off your computer and go live a primitive life you hypocrite. Walking

Can you tell me why the earth is here?