Jump to content
hibini

Are humans more important than animals?

Recommended Posts

No matter what you consider yourself you are still human. You can't change that. So because you don't consider yourself human do you rank yourself above them?

 

And to clarify, I respect your opinion to think that way, I'm just curious.

Edited by Yowl

Share this post


Link to post

"Just because I am not a vegetarian does not make me a hypocrite. Tigers are carnivores; they eat other animals, including humans sometimes. Therefore, it is acceptable for me to eat other animals"

 

Yes, it does make you a hypocrite. The tiger would also be a hypocrite if it valued the animals that it eats over itself. But it doesn't. Your logic does not make much sense there. Especially since you specifically say that tigers sometimes eat people, yet you would not. I'll use your own arguement of "if a tiger can do it, then it's ok for me to."

 

 

 

"(but not people xd.png."

 

Why not? If you consider yourself better than humans, which you later said you do, then why should it be any worse for you to eat a human than for a tiger to eat a human? It couldn't be that you actually value human life quite a bit, but can't bring yourself to admit it, could it? The very idea of eating a human is clearly ridiculous to you since you played it off as a joke. Why is that? I'll answer my own question here and tell you that it's because you and most everyone else here DOES value human life, whether they will admit it or not. We have this thing called Oxytoxin. It's a certain chemical in our brains that makes us value human life above animal life. Studies show that high levels of oxytoxin in a person's body makes them more attached to other organisms that look the same, since we are driven by a natural urge to perpetuate life. You can try to convince yourself otherwise, but the chemical is in your brain and you can't do much about that.

 

 

 

"Personally, I refuse to consider myself a human. It is not what I am spiritually, so I will not acknowledge any connections to humanity. I do put humans, as a species, below other animals, but perhaps above insects. This does not mean that I refuse to recognize individuals, however."

 

Not to be a jerk or anything, but you ARE a human. A spoon can call itself a fork, but it's still a spoon. "I think therefore I am" unfortunately doesn't work too well in reality.

Edited by Cheeze

Share this post


Link to post

I am not human, nor am I perfect. But as long as I strive to do what I do, I have the will to live in this society. I normally don't say any of these beliefs to people, because of how they judge it. If I am not harming anyone or anything in they way I live, why be so offended by it? I find that the anger and negativity of humans towards the unknown or radical concepts to be highly hurtful and demotivating. And if I personally lose my motivation, they why bother continuing? Throw on another guise and hide away again. I could never bring myself to suicide, because I respect myself and I don''t want to reincarnate as a human.

Edited by blackchimera

Share this post


Link to post

You completely neglected to counter any of the arguments against you there. Whether you verbalize it or not, you just admitted defeat.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't eat humans because they are gross and unhealthy. I will never accept or admit defeat. That's just rude. If I accept it, I have utterly lost the will to live.

Edited by blackchimera

Share this post


Link to post

Fine. Humans taste gross. Why not?

 

That still leaves you defeated unless you can somehow justify eating animals that are substantially more valuable and important than yourself.

Share this post


Link to post

I am not human, nor am I perfect. But as long as I strive to do what I do, I have the will to live in this society. I normally don't say any of these beliefs to people, because of how they judge it. If I am not harming anyone or anything in they way I live, why be so offended by it? I find that the anger and negativity of humans towards the unknown or radical concepts to be highly hurtful and demotivating. And if I personally lose my motivation, they why bother continuing? Throw on another guise and hide away again.

But by your own logic you ARE hurting things. You say that animals are higher life forms, and yet you eat them.

 

If you truly were some sort of Übermensch I would expect better behavior.

 

Also, humans are slightly more nutritious than pork. Fyi.

Share this post


Link to post

"Also, I think humanity is a beautiful thing. We are an extraordinary race. It's amazing that, from out of the rock and dust that comprised this universe, a single self-replicating cell was formed and from it evolved into an intelligent multicellular organism that is self-aware and has the potential to accomplish many great things. This, by itself, is already an immense feat of nature and a massive improbability in chance; though it could also be an evolutionary inevitability, but that's besides the point. The universe could've simply floated on forever, full of rock, ice, and dust, and nothing would've happened except for billions of supernova explosions and then who-knows-what at the end of it all. The very occurrence of intelligent life forms is amazing and certainly not something that should simply be eliminated because of a handful of corruptions; none of us are "perfect" and many are incompetent, but everyone deserves a chance at life since we all value ourselves as well as those that we love. Not saying that other animals don't deserve a chance of life as well, because I'm all for animal liberation. But Oxytoxin simply makes me more attached to humans."

- A guy on a different forum that I posted this same discussion to.

 

I don't agree with all of what he said, but I think he worded it well and it's worth putting here.

Share this post


Link to post

Before I continue: please do not say I have been defeated. I dislike it very much. I find it rude and that is one of the reasons I never debate. It is not "fun". And once it reaches that point, it is not longer of any value of intelligence.

 

By eating other animals, I gain the strength that they have accrued in life and utilize it to focus my strength and energy not only into every day tasks, but to achieve goals in my passions. I thank every animal for their sacrifice and in turn take care of animals currently living and the environment.

 

I also did not say I was an Übermensch, and expecting something from me when you have no clue as to how I live my life is rude. Also, when I said hurting, I meant hurting things via abuse or murder or hunting for sport. Killing for food is different, as long as it is done as quick and painlessly as possible.

Edited by blackchimera

Share this post


Link to post
You clearly haven't read this whole thread. There are people here that would wipe the human race off the face of the planet if they could do so without harming the precious tigers. You may not be for that, but there are people here who are, and my comment was directed at them. Saying "You invoked Godwin's Law! Your arguement is invalid!" is a pretty childish thing to do. My point still stands. I would also argue that withholding aid that you can easily give with no damage to yourself or others is indeed just as bad as causing the harm yourself, but that is an arguement for another thread.

Oh I've read the whole thread. It's one of the one's I've been watching, and you'll notice I've posted in here before. I'll quite happily hold my hand up and say I'm part of the voluntary human extinction movement. With the rate our population is currently expanding I *do* think we're parasites. If humanity showed mitself capable of anything other than mindless expansion I'd likely say there's no problem with us being here - but while we're so obsessed with this idea of growth (and you only have to see all the reactions to the recent shrinking of economies to see that we are) then we're doing ourselves, and everything else on this planet, no favours.

 

I also didn't say "You invoked Godwin's Law! Your arguement is invalid". What I said was offering no help =/= actively wanting to kill people, therefore the Nazi argument is completely irrelevant. If you do think that offering no help is the same as actively killing someone then you really aught to go an take a look at medical law - it's considered legal and ethical to withdraw treatment from terminaly ill patients, yet immoral and illegal to end their lives with an overdose.

 

I wasn't only talking about eating tigers here. You may put humans in the middle of the scale, but the overwhelming majority here puts them at the bottom. That is who I was arguing with. My post was in no way directed at you, and I'm not sure why you seem to think it was.

 

You adressed people that would place the animals over the humans. Which does, I'm afraid, mean you adressed me. If you make a generalised statement, without naming a specific person you are pointing it at, then anyone that falls into that vauge camp is well within their rights to disagree with you. Saying "But I wasn't talking to you!" when you can't actualy counter my points doesn't really help your argument at all.

 

Most of the "would send money to an animal charity over a human one" people here are not the complete monsters you seem to think. Most of us are dealing in shades of grey. If you can't see that there's a vast difference between eating an endangered animal and eating one specificaly raised to be food, or how that completely negates you 'hypocrits!' argument, then I would suggest that it's you that has more trouble seeing the world in black and white than most of us arguing that the animal charities would be the ones to get our money.

 

Well, since you still haven't gotten to the meat of my arguement, I think it is fine as is.

 

But if you insist, I'll throw this one at you as well.

I value intelligent life over unintelligent life. If you disagree with this, and say that all life is equal, then you are more than likely a hypocrite as you are probably that same guy arguing for abortion by saying "it's just a ball of cells."

 

I've never said all life is equal. However I *have* said that the unintelligent life that cannot help itself is more deserving of my help than the so-called intelligent life that's currently doing it's damndest to destroy the planet we're living on. Why should I help *any* species which is damaging the environment it's in? I wouldn't help minks, or grey squirrels (both of which are invasive species in the UK, which have done a lot of damage to native populations like water voles and red squirrels) any more than I find myself driven to help humans.

 

Double checkmate.

 

Really, you know, adding this at the end of your posts is very arrogant and self-satisfied. It's hardly checkmate is I can continualy negate or counter every argument you've come up with. None of which, I must add, have been very convincing.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh I've read the whole thread. It's one of the one's I've been watching, and you'll notice I've posted in here before. I'll quite happily hold my hand up and say I'm part of the voluntary human extinction movement. With the rate our population is currently expanding I *do* think we're parasites. If humanity showed mitself capable of anything other than mindless expansion I'd likely say there's no problem with us being here - but while we're so obsessed with this idea of growth (and you only have to see all the reactions to the recent shrinking of economies to see that we are) then we're doing ourselves, and everything else on this planet, no favours.

 

I also didn't say "You invoked Godwin's Law! Your arguement is invalid". What I said was offering no help =/= actively wanting to kill people, therefore the Nazi argument is completely irrelevant. If you do think that offering no help is the same as actively killing someone then you really aught to go an take a look at medical law - it's considered legal and ethical to withdraw treatment from terminaly ill patients, yet immoral and illegal to end their lives with an overdose.

 

 

 

You adressed people that would place the animals over the humans. Which does, I'm afraid, mean you adressed me. If you make a generalised statement, without naming a specific person you are pointing it at, then anyone that falls into that vauge camp is well within their rights to disagree with you. Saying "But I wasn't talking to you!" when you can't actualy counter my points doesn't really help your argument at all.

 

Most of the "would send money to an animal charity over a human one" people here are not the complete monsters you seem to think. Most of us are dealing in shades of grey. If you can't see that there's a vast difference between eating an endangered animal and eating one specificaly raised to be food, or how that completely negates you 'hypocrits!' argument, then I would suggest that it's you that has more trouble seeing the world in black and white than most of us arguing that the animal charities would be the ones to get our money.

 

 

 

I've never said all life is equal. However I *have* said that the unintelligent life that cannot help itself is more deserving of my help than the so-called intelligent life that's currently doing it's damndest to destroy the planet we're living on. Why should I help *any* species which is damaging the environment it's in? I wouldn't help minks, or grey squirrels (both of which are invasive species in the UK, which have done a lot of damage to native populations like water voles and red squirrels) any more than I find myself driven to help humans.

 

 

 

Really, you know, adding this at the end of your posts is very arrogant and self-satisfied. It's hardly checkmate is I can continualy negate or counter every argument you've come up with. None of which, I must add, have been very convincing.

Because feeding yourself is obsession with growth?

 

No. It's the basic will to survive, which has been hardwired into life via 4 billion years of evolution. And losing your job in a recession kinda kicks that into higher gear.

 

You say that humans are incapable of anything but "mindless expansion" and are only "doing their damndest to destroy the planet." Why then are there hundreds of thousands of people working to conserve the environment, discover renewable energy sources, control chemical emissions, save endangered species, and sacrifice their lives to help others? Trying to bring aid to the destitute African community so that they don't have to poach animals for money? Donating millions of dollars a year to charities like Heifer International, the Peace Corps, the Humane Society, Greenpeace, etc? Offering alternative farming practices-- and the means to use them-- to the Brazilian farmer, so that he is not forced to slash and burn to feed his family?

 

There's a hell of a lot of people actively making sacrifices to help the environment. Please don't just dismiss them.

Share this post


Link to post
Donating millions of dollars a year to charities like Heifer International, the Peace Corps, the Humane Society, Greenpeace, etc?

Thank goodness you didn't mention PETA or ALF. Those fools are the ones who let the minks out to ravage local wildlife. Pfft, protecting the environment, indeed...

 

To those who are still on the fence about where to donate, I would recommend this: donate to the local SPCA and play freerice.com for a bit. Win-win... right?! Right =P

Edited by Nine

Share this post


Link to post

"Oh I've read the whole thread. It's one of the one's I've been watching, and you'll notice I've posted in here before. I'll quite happily hold my hand up and say I'm part of the voluntary human extinction movement. With the rate our population is currently expanding I *do* think we're parasites. If humanity showed itself capable of anything other than mindless expansion I'd likely say there's no problem with us being here - but while we're so obsessed with this idea of growth (and you only have to see all the reactions to the recent shrinking of economies to see that we are) then we're doing ourselves, and everything else on this planet, no favors."

 

One of the problems with everyone saying that humans are parasites is that they are part of the disease. I'm sure at least one of the people here who have said that have or will have kids. I would also argue that humans are indeed capable of more than "mindless expansion." Technology is advancing rapidly, and humans can already clone animals. It won't be too long before we can clone a dead Wooly Mammoth and other such endeavors. But I suppose I need a clearer explanation of "doing the planet a favor" to tell if that counts.

 

And out of curiosity to you and everyone else arguing for the animal supremacy, what is it that gives animals value? If humans lack value because they hurt animal populations, etc, then that implies that animals do have value. Why? What is valuable about them, and not humans?

 

 

 

"I also didn't say "You invoked Godwin's Law! Your arguement is invalid". What I said was offering no help =/= actively wanting to kill people, therefore the Nazi argument is completely irrelevant. If you do think that offering no help is the same as actively killing someone then you really aught to go an take a look at medical law - it's considered legal and ethical to withdraw treatment from terminally ill patients, yet immoral and illegal to end their lives with an overdose."

 

Like I said before, that is an arguement for a different thread, and isn't too relevant anyway, but I don't think it is too far fetched to compare a "human extinction movement" with the most popular genocide in human history.

 

 

 

"You addressed people that would place the animals over the humans. Which does, I'm afraid, mean you addressed me. If you make a generalized statement, without naming a specific person you are pointing it at, then anyone that falls into that vague camp is well within their rights to disagree with you. Saying "But I wasn't talking to you!" when you can't actually counter my points doesn't really help your argument at all."

 

I made it clear who I was addressing through the context of what I said. When I say that people who eat animals that they value more than themselves are hypocrites, then I am obviously not talking to people who don't value the animals that they eat more than themselves. That should go without stating. You value humans over farm animals, and so my arguement was not for you. I don't have to counter your points when they never countered mine in the first place, since mine were specifically and solely for those people who value cows and chickens more than humans.

 

 

 

"Most of the "would send money to an animal charity over a human one" people here are not the complete monsters you seem to think. Most of us are dealing in shades of gray. If you can't see that there's a vast difference between eating an endangered animal and eating one specifically raised to be food, or how that completely negates your 'hypocrites!' argument, then I would suggest that it's you that has more trouble seeing the world in black and white than most of us arguing that the animal charities would be the ones to get our money."

 

I never said anyone was a monster, but I do think it is morally wrong to choose an animal over a human. You can argue that morals are only what society has ingrained in me, and I'll give you that, but they're still there. Most of those "would send money to an animal charity over a human one" people were putting humans below even farm animals, specifically raised to be food. So my "hypocrites!" arguement is indeed still valid against them.

 

 

 

"I've never said all life is equal. However I *have* said that the unintelligent life that cannot help itself is more deserving of my help than the so-called intelligent life that's currently doing it's damnedest to destroy the planet we're living on. Why should I help *any* species which is damaging the environment it's in? I wouldn't help minks, or gray squirrels (both of which are invasive species in the UK, which have done a lot of damage to native populations like water voles and red squirrels) any more than I find myself driven to help humans."

 

If unintelligent life needs help, then I am all for helping it. But if intelligent life needs help as well, then I am more inclined to help it. If intelligence isn't valuable then I'm not sure what is. According to you the environment itself is valuable, yet the most intelligent dominant life in it is not. What makes the Earth so valuable that it is so outrageous for humans to "destroy" it?

 

 

 

"Really, you know, adding this at the end of your posts is very arrogant and self-satisfied. It's hardly checkmate is I can continually negate or counter every argument you've come up with. None of which, I must add, have been very convincing."

 

Only trying to lighten the mood. If it wasn't obvious that that was a joke then I apologize.

Share this post


Link to post

Thank goodness you didn't mention PETA or ALF. Those fools are the ones who let the minks out to ravage local wildlife. Pfft, protecting the environment, indeed...

 

To those who are still on the fence about where to donate, I would recommend this: donate to the local SPCA and play http://freerice.com/ for a bit. Win-win... right?! Right =P

I don't consider PETA or ALF a help to anything. d:

 

Freerice is definitely a good cause and I second the motion to go there as often as possible. You can donate several thousand grains of rice in virtually no time, absolutely free.

 

My personal favorite charity is Heifer International. It gives farm animals to communities in need, and educates them about animal husbandry and sustainable farming practices. This allows them to gather milk and eggs to eat, breed bunnies to comb for wool to sell, and be better keepers of the earth overall.

Share this post


Link to post

One thing to this whole thread:

 

Survival of the fittest. If humans are able to have mass expansion, it's because they're intelligent enough to have few to no natural predators above them, and able to adapt to almost anything. But one day, some force might evolve to knock us off the face of the earth. Evolution is always happening, and there's nothing that can change extinction. Therefore, we are just like any other species - equal. The only factors that seperates us from the "wild outdoors" is our intelligence boost that came from selective breeding over time.

 

I respect all opinions over this matter, but nothing can change how people think.

 

As for donating...Would if I could but I'm just too young lol But if I could it would be to whatever reliable source I can contact first. However, instead of just donating supplies they should actually teach the needy how to survive. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." C:

Edited by Ookami11

Share this post


Link to post
"Feed a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." C:

I've just been watching this thread except for one post, but I must counter this saying.

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

 

Seriously though, just a comment for those promoting Human extinction... There are weapons invented to nudge extinction along. They're called guns. If you're so against humans, why not end some? Then when you get the chair (or the needle in some states), just one less human right?

That last part is likely uncalled for, but I felt a need to post the first thing that came to mind upon hearing this.

Also, I believe PETA is just making things worse. By pouring blood (or the wussy version, paint) on peoples furcoats, they just cause them to buy more.

Share this post


Link to post

While i know that lots things are not the way they ought to be i would choose human over an animal.

And as we are talking about PETA and fur things i would like to add my penny.

Last winter someone throw a jar of red paint towards the old lady i know. Yes, she was wearing the fur. Fur, that belongs to her mother (say, it was older than me). And being poor she spent rest of the winter in a autumn coat, thin and not suitable for -17 C degrees. Guess this accident made her support PEta, right?

The person who has done it to her was ( I ASSUME) propably not wearing fur, not eating meal and really into PETA, pro-animal things. He propably was wearing a leather shoes (or at least own a pair) and also, he is a total jerk without imagination.

While i suport animal rights and im against cruelty i appeal for more smart action. Beating old ladies wont help the cause.

Share this post


Link to post

There's a difference between being pro-animal rights and being a member of PETA.

 

Frankly, PETA is crazy.

Share this post


Link to post

As we have no animal rights here(or only paper ones) i wouldnt mind people being more concerned about treating animals right.

But radical actions like the one i told ^ make people angrier and dont help.

I guess that idea is right, but shape turned somehow wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
I am going to take this opportunity to ask every single person who said that they would rather save a tiger than a human, if they are vegetarians. If not, then they are hypocrites. It's one thing to say that humans and animals are equal, but most people voting for the tiger are actually putting humans BELOW them. So why then, as a human, would you eat these gods of animals? Checkmate.

Surely vegan, as vegetarians still cause the suffering of animals.

Share this post


Link to post
One of the problems with everyone saying that humans are parasites is that they are part of the disease. I'm sure at least one of the people here who have said that have or will have kids. I would also argue that humans are indeed capable of more than "mindless expansion." Technology is advancing rapidly, and humans can already clone animals. It won't be too long before we can clone a dead Wooly Mammoth and other such endeavors. But I suppose I need a clearer explanation of "doing the planet a favor" to tell if that counts.

That's what the voluntary human extinction movement *is*, Cheeze, it's people making a cast-iron choice not to have children. I'm being sterelised as soon as the doctors will allow it. Steps can be made to help reduce one's personal impact on the planet without topping oneself - and refusing to add to the genepool is one of those ways. The fact that humans exist isn't actualy the problem - the problem is that there are already far too many of us.

 

And out of curiosity to you and everyone else arguing for the animal supremacy, what is it that gives animals value? If humans lack value because they hurt animal populations, etc, then that implies that animals do have value. Why? What is valuable about them, and not humans?

 

Balanced eco-systems. Without the prescence of everything in them eco-systems become ever more difficult to support and maintain - and without our eco-system our planet would be pretty much uninhabitable. Humans are only low down on the value scale at present because there too damned many of us. The existence of such large amounts of humans (and our global population is increasing at a truly alarming rate) has a massively negative impact on the planet. Have you heard of the term carrying capacity? It's how many of a certain species the eco-system it lives in can sustainbly support. Certain areas of the planet are already well over their carrying capacity for humans (take the UK for example) and by some calculations the entire planet is already well over it's human carrying capacity.

 

Like I said before, that is an arguement for a different thread, and isn't too relevant anyway, but I don't think it is too far fetched to compare a "human extinction movement" with the most popular genocide in human history.

 

Fair enough. But I will say *do* go and look up the voluntary human extinction movement. The key word is voluntary. You find it has nothing to do with killing either yourself or anyone else and everything to do with not reproducing.

 

I made it clear who I was addressing through the context of what I said. When I say that people who eat animals that they value more than themselves are hypocrites, then I am obviously not talking to people who don't value the animals that they eat more than themselves. That should go without stating. You value humans over farm animals, and so my arguement was not for you. I don't have to counter your points when they never countered mine in the first place, since mine were specifically and solely for those people who value cows and chickens more than humans.

 

You may have wanted to make that clearer at the start then, because the way you phrased it *certainly* adressed it to everyone that said human didn't come top.

 

I never said anyone was a monster, but I do think it is morally wrong to choose an animal over a human. You can argue that morals are only what society has ingrained in me, and I'll give you that, but they're still there. Most of those "would send money to an animal charity over a human one" people were putting humans below even farm animals, specifically raised to be food. So my "hypocrites!" arguement is indeed still valid against them.

 

Personaly I consider it moraly wrong to be contributing to the destruction of the planet we live on, and to allow species to go completely extinct where I know I could have helped prevent it.

 

I can also honestly say that a good number of the people saying they'd choose animals over humans have given me the impression they fall into my camp, rather than the one you claim to be arguing again. Again, clarity in the original posts would have helped here.

 

If unintelligent life needs help, then I am all for helping it. But if intelligent life needs help as well, then I am more inclined to help it. If intelligence isn't valuable then I'm not sure what is. According to you the environment itself is valuable, yet the most intelligent dominant life in it is not. What makes the Earth so valuable that it is so outrageous for humans to "destroy" it?

 

Of course the environment itself is valuble. It's the only reason we're able to live on this planet in the first place. And the major problem here is that the "most intelligent dominant life" is on a very fast track to destroying said environment that keeps us alive in the first place. An alcoholic is a member of our 'intelligent' species, but I don't think anyone would say giving him more alcohol is a terribly clever plan. Likewise I cannot see how helping the population of our species continue to grow is doing the species as a whole any favours. The fact is that if we keep going down the track we're going down then there's not going to be much planet left for us to live on. That, for me, is a far, far greater worry.

 

Only trying to lighten the mood. If it wasn't obvious that that was a joke then I apologize.

 

It wasn't, but apology accepted.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Donating millions of dollars a year to charities like Heifer International, the Peace Corps, the Humane Society, Greenpeace, etc?

Greenpeace is profoundly corrupt. If they will pull BS like that at the highest echelons of worldwide government, I don't believe there is any corruption beneath them. Not heard anything in particular about the other charities you listed.

 

I do respect people willing to act intelligently on their beliefs, the way Tikindi is describing. I may not agree with all the underlying, but I've got no issue with that. Tikindi, as I understand it, the English as a society have negative growth so should be extinct soon. Perhaps there will be more room in your neck of the woods then.

Edited by Princess Artemis

Share this post


Link to post

In that case would you please tell the government of the US to start allowing immigration from England again please? You have a lot of space in the US, there's extremely little space in England, and I would like to move to somewhere where it's not so crowded.

I thought it was. As far as I know, you just need the right kind of paperwork and a decent background to be accepted. Only thing that would be a problem might be becoming a citizen. Our citizenship exam is kind of dumb and most native born Americans wouldn't even be able to pass.

 

Also, to Daydreamer09, I believe that humans are overpopulated. Just because humans have the freedom to migrate to all parts of the globe does not mean they aren't hurting native animal populations. Humans bully native animals out of their original territories and habitats, which is what causes animal-human conflicts that unfortunately tend to end with the senseless killing of those animals, when they could be moved to a preserved area to be given another chance.

You fail to realize, that "overpopulated" is not necessarily defined by how a population impacts other species. Being overpopulated means that our needs as a species outweighs what our habitat can provide us with. Wikipedia even defines it as, "Overpopulation is a condition where an organism's numbers exceed the carrying capacity of its habitat."

 

In ecology studies, when a species reaches the carrying capacity of its habitat, there's always competition among them and the scarce resources result in a higher death rate and a lower birth rate. We as a species have not yet reached that point yet. We are estimated to reach it sometime around 2050. We are on the road to overpopulation, but we still haven't hit it yet.

 

If you do think that offering no help is the same as actively killing someone then you really aught to go an take a look at medical law - it's considered legal and ethical to withdraw treatment from terminaly ill patients, yet immoral and illegal to end their lives with an overdose.

So... If you saw a person, dying in the street, it's perfectly fine to just walk past him without batting an eye? By calling an ambulance, you'd be helping that person. Not doing so is a contributing factor to their death. Having the ability to help is one thing, not being able to do anything even if you tried is another.

 

That's what the voluntary human extinction movement *is*, Cheeze, it's people making a cast-iron choice not to have children. I'm being sterelised as soon as the doctors will allow it. Steps can be made to help reduce one's personal impact on the planet without topping oneself - and refusing to add to the genepool is one of those ways.

"voluntary human extinction movement"...? Er... I don't want to go extinct. 3x

 

My personal opinion is that the decision to have children or not isn't one that should be decided based only on the fact that we have a high population and that our numbers need to drop. huh.gif

I mean, there's nothing wrong thinking that way, but many people have children for the basic want of having a family and leaving a legacy behind.

Edited by Daydreamer09

Share this post


Link to post
I do respect people willing to act intelligently on their beliefs, the way Tikindi is describing. I may not agree with all the underlying, but I've got no issue with that. Tikindi, as I understand it, the English as a society have negative growth so should be extinct soon. Perhaps there will be more room in your neck of the woods then.

If only that were the case. Our birth rate is negative, yes, but that fails to take into account population growth driven by immigration. And the birth rate has actualy risen slightly recently, as non UK-born women are having more children over here. The population in the UK is still rising, and still set to rise. I think, last time I checked, they were predicting a rise roughly equivalent to the entire current population of London by 2050.

 

I thought it was. As far as I know, you just need the right kind of paperwork and a decent background to be accepted. Only thing that would be a problem might be becoming a citizen. Our citizenship exam is kind of dumb and most native born Americans wouldn't even be able to pass.

 

Nope. If you are born in the UK you are not eligable for a Green Card unless you are a) sponsored by an employer or B) a parent or child of a current US citizen. Apparently being the grandchild of a US citizen doesn't count - I asked. I could probably pass your citizenship exam *now*, but I wouldn't be allowed to take it in the first place.

 

You fail to realize, that "overpopulated" is not necessarily defined by how a population impacts other species. Being overpopulated means that our needs as a species outweighs what our habitat can provide us with. Wikipedia even defines it as, "Overpopulation is a condition where an organism's numbers exceed the carrying capacity of its habitat."

 

In ecology studies, when a species reaches the carrying capacity of its habitat, there's always competition among them and the scarce resources result in a higher death rate and a lower birth rate. We as a species have not yet reached that point yet. We are estimated to reach it sometime around 2050. We are on the road to overpopulation, but we still haven't hit it yet.

 

No, there's no failure of realisation here. I would think it quite obvious from the massive famine problems in africa that they're *way* over their carrying capacity. The UK certainly doesn't produce enough food in and of itself to support it's population - without imports there would be mass starvation here too. Not only that, but certainly in the South East we're suffering more and more often from water shortages because there's barely enough water here to meet the demands of the current population, let alone taking any growth into account.

 

Some parts of the world *have* reached, and exceeded, their carrying capacity. It's only exports from, and intervention by, places that haven't (the US being a prime example - 90% of the worlds grain imports come form the US) that's keeping the populations from stabalising themselves. And what are we doing in response to the famine and death problems in other parts of the world? Crying about how we need to save them, rather than asking ourselves wether or not that part of the world can actualy continue to support a rapidly growing population.

 

So... If you saw a person, dying in the street, it's perfectly fine to just walk past him without batting an eye? By calling an ambulance, you'd be helping that person. Not doing so is a contributing factor to their death. Having the ability to help is one thing, not being able to do anything even if you tried is another.

 

You'd be surprised by the number of people in the world that actualy do precisely that. I've never yet seen one of them accused of murder. Which means, yes, there is a distinct difference.

 

"voluntary human extinction movement"...? Er... I don't want to go extinct. 3x

 

My personal opinion is that the decision to have children or not isn't one that should be decided based only on the fact that we have a high population and that our numbers need to drop. 

I mean, there's nothing wrong thinking that way, but many people have children for the basic want of having a family and leaving a legacy behind.

 

And it's because most of the world insists on thinking like that that we have this population issue in the first place. If everyone would take a step back, think beyond their own selfish desires, and look at how our expanding populations are negatively effecting the world around us then perhaps we could begin to curb the problem. Heck if everyone would agree to have just the *one* child that would still result in negative population growth. But no. Everyone wants to have a family, everyone seems to want to have more than one kid, some people seem to think they should be having masses of them... and voila - unsustainable population growth.

 

Really a cancer is about the only thing that behaves the way humans are. With the current "It's not my problem" kind of attitude we'll just keep on growing until we destroy ourselves and our planet in the process.

Share this post


Link to post


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.