Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IMPORTANT NOTE: THE LAST PARAGRAPH, THE SECOND ONE SPOKEN BY THE SUPPOSED FUTURE ANIMAL RIGHTS ADVOCATE, GETS KIND OF GRAPHIC. YOU MAY NOT WANT TO READ IT IF YOU GET DEPRESSED EASILY
I'm going to make a series of threads over the next few days, or weeks, or months, detailing some thoughts I've had, and, more importantly, been able to find ways to phrase clearly. The first of which was this thread: http://www.city-data.com/forum/54864538-post1.html or "Why the Borg are quite possibly the tragic heroes of Star Trek." I think that first one gets across some important points and provides a good example of a scenario in which "playing God" is not only possibly acceptable, but the most desirable and humane strategy, despite our instincts likely reeling in horror. Here's another such instance like that, one more rooted in reality - something that could genuinely happen in the future. Note I'm leading up to two other threads that are yet to be created. One of those future threads will be on why kindhearted aliens, at least in their minds, might genuinely want to destroy Earth for humanitarian reasons. The more important of those future threads, which I think which will come sometime after that one, will be about how abortion can be a kindness. Now, moving on to the actual topic.
I think it's quite plausible that someday humanity will have left Earth and, afterwards, destroy it, and all life on it, and harvest the minerals within its interior for resources...but that's not why I think future animal rights activists might one day demand the destruction of all nonhuman animal life except our pets. That's merely a side-benefit.
I think one of the most important things for our society, at large, to grasp, if we are to adapt as quickly and safely as possible to future challenges, particularly those that will hit is in the next few centuries, is that if there is a god, that god either doesn't care what happens to us, outright dislikes us, or is pleased when we solve our own problems. I could list reasons why this appears to be the case, but I think just reading pretty much anything about the wider world around us should do a pretty good job of illustrating that point.
We evolved into a Darwinian maelstrom - an Earth-wide gladiatorial arena in which the fighting has been continuing for billions of years. Human intelligence, culture, language, and ingenuity, have enabled us to emerge from that gladiatorial arena, more or less. We can afford to have pets for reasons of comfort, oftentimes. We can afford to, at least under certain circumstances, live peacefully with our fellow life forms.
Most species on Earth can't. They don't have the awareness to comprehend the concept of engaging in activities that benefit life aside from themselves or organisms they have emotional bonds with, much less understand the benefits of that. Compared to humans, they basically wander through their existence blinded to the world around them, in many ways. Yes, they'll have their own unique perspectives and see things we cannot see, but we humans will understand many, many important things that are totally beyond most nonhuman life's comprehension. That is why, except for specific instances like understanding which food they find tastiest, or which beings they have emotional bonds to, or what they like or dislike, they basically lack free will. They don't have enough understanding of the world around them to have true free will, in most ways.
I like to comment on misconceptions most people seem to have. My prior thread was about the Borg because most people appear to perceive the Borg as pure evil, rather than the society with benevolent motivations they might be, if the Star Trek reality were real. I'm making this thread because most people appear to perceive that which is "natural" as something pure, and healthy, and far superior to the corruptive force that is human culture and behavior.
On the contrary, I see no plausible way in which human culture is not superior to nonhuman culture in the vast majority of ways, and I challenge everyone who believes otherwise to state their reasoning, because I'm confident you're all wrong.
Generally speaking, human lives are more valuable than nonhuman lives, because the most ignorant of us understands the world around us, in most important ways, vastly better than the most clever of nonhuman species, including animals like dolphins, ravens, and nonhuman primates. This knowledge gives our species the ability to improve itself, and the world around it, which all other life basically lacks. All nonhuman life, basically, is forced into the path set for it by its impulses. It can't choose to cease procreating to decrease overpopulation. Most, or perhaps even all of it, couldn't even comprehend the concept of the benefits of ceasing procreating to reduce overpopulation. Humans not only possess the self-awareness to change ourselves, and the worldly knowledge to understand reasons to change ourselves, but if we can't resist our ancient impulses, we can invent technologies that help us overcome those basic impulses. We've invented contraception to sate our drives to procreate, without constantly having new offspring. We've invented videogames to sate our urge for violence or exploration. Particularly since the invention of the computer, we've been inventing all sorts of wonderful technologies that help us to circumvent our natures. We've been re-building what it means to be human.
It could be, however, that perhaps the lack of awareness of the wider world is a blessing for most nonhuman animals. Perhaps it results in less stress. Perhaps human life is, due to our intelligence, even if our increased safety and stability is taken into account, is less pleasant than that of most animals, despite them fighting for their very survival on a daily basis, and most humans fighting for little more than the next paycheck, which, if not received, is still probably of less concern than potentially being eaten, even for the most impoverished of us. Perhaps our enhanced awareness mostly just gives us more to worry about, and our enhanced technology mostly just removes us further from the world we were evolved to live within, and in that way, makes our lives less pleasant.
If that is the case though, and it may not be, only humans, because of our intelligence, have the ability to discover that and remedy that.
However, if humans do not use their intelligence to optimally change themselves, then I could easily imagine us living in the worst of all scenarios. Unlike the potentially blissful ignorance of a dolphin, we'd be able to watch the destruction we create as we build it. It'd be able to depress us. Human beings, far more than other species, depend on personal choices to avert catastrophe. We're the closest species to being gods on this planet, and when we don't understand that, then the result is gods who control the Earth not realizing they do, and the results will probably be less than ideal.
So, if humanity reaches some point in the future where we no longer depend on other animals for our survival, and given how much more resources livestock-raising tends to require than the farming of vegetation I wouldn't be surprised if that state inevitably occurs if we're around for long enough, I could easily imagine future animal rights advocates having something like the following discussion with general members of society who do not share their views:
future animal rights advocate: "Vote to destroy the wilderness preserve called Earth! No humans live there anymore! Space stations are safer, more secure, and don't include Earth's enormous and costly-to-travel through gravity well. Space stations, most importantly, don't attract dangerous clouds of space debris into their orbit. Space stations aren't big enough for that."
future member of the general public: "How you be so cruel! Nature is a beautiful thing! What did the animals of Earth do to you? We just need to leave them alone!"
future animal rights advocate(now getting angry): Our species has cured all known disease not invented by terrorists through genetic engineering. Neither you, nor I, have ever known thirst, or severe hunger, or severe cold, except by our choosing to experience those states. You and I, when we tire of existence, can choose to take a pill after informing our loved ones of our decision. We then gently fade away in our sleep. Today, I played a virtual reality game that allowed me to simulate myself soaring through the winds of Jupiter. Tomorrow I plan on diving into a black hole. If I tire of my lifestyle, I can have my brain augmented so that I am no longer tired of it, or I can simply choose a new lifestyle. Perhaps I'll dedicate my near future to the pursuit of a new career. I have children, which I didn't choose to have until I and my husband were sure we could provide good homes for them. Now, every other species, down on Earth, has no concept of waiting to have children until the time is right. They're just driven to procreate by instinct, but when they give birth to offspring when the time is wrong, many of those species down there feel much of the same sorts of suffering humans would feel. Our species has long ago rid our gene pool of its capability to create offspring with severely low I.Q.s. We've done this for humanitarian reasons. It's not that people with severely low I.Q.s can't lead good lives, it's just that it's generally better for them if they are not born like that. However, what's happening down on Earth, if we're to think about it accurately, is much less like some beautiful, eloquent, dance of Nature, and oftentimes closer to a planet filled with people with severe mental problems tossed into the wild, where they procreate whenever they feel like it and frequently eat each other...and the reason you can't see that is because you're so focused on how amusing you find that freak show. You don't care about the actual animals. You only care about your own, fairly greedy, desires for a diverse universe that appeals aesthetically to you. The truly sad thing is that we can give you that diverse wild universe through our virtual reality programs, but that's not good enough for you. Only real life suffering is sufficient amusement for you people. We need to destroy Earth. Death is a vastly overrated insofar as negativity is concerned. Death is seldom something to fear. It's merely the transferring from being to unbeing. Suffering is something to fear, particularly if prolonged, particularly if there is no end in sight to that suffering if we don't stop it.
future animal rights advocate(now getting angry): Our species has cured all known disease not invented by terrorists through genetic engineering. Neither you, nor I, have ever known thirst, or severe hunger, or severe cold, except by our choosing to experience those states. You and I, when we tire of existence, can choose to take a pill after informing our loved ones of our decision. We then gently fade away in our sleep. You don't care about the actual animals. You only care about your own, fairly greedy, desires for a diverse universe that appeals aesthetically to you. .
everything the "future animal rights activist" has said in the above is WRONG!
I'd say he/she is too angry to be an advocate for anything.
The ignorance in the above paragraph is astounding, and I wouldn't waste my time trying to make someone like that understand how wrong they really are.
I wouldn't fear an animal rights activist demanding that non-human life be destroyed...it's happening already anyways...slowly, but surely.
I'd just tell him/her to be patient and if not for them, for future generations his/her pathetic desires could very well come true.
It's possible to advocate for animals without advocating against humans. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
The last paragraph is absurd. No rational animal advocate would ever say anything like that. Are there nut cases out there? Sure but they're a tiny minority on the fringe.
I don't think you need to worry about non human life forms surviving. If man destroys himself (which we have a good chance of doing) the animals and insects will thrive, not all species, especially big mammals, but certainly most insects and bacteria have a great chance of predominating.
Also you say "I think future animal rights activists might one day demand the destruction of all nonhuman animal life except our pets". No one who understands ecology and the planet would say such a stupid thing. Animals and insects are a necessary part of the life cycle of the planet.
Also, the Borg were supposed to represent an unthinking insect/hive society echoing pure totalitarianism and communism. It involved the obliteration of the individual. How many humans today want that form of government? They were hardly "tragic heroes".
I don't think you need to worry about non human life forms surviving. If man destroys himself (which we have a good chance of doing) the animals and insects will thrive, not all species, especially big mammals, but certainly most insects and bacteria have a great chance of predominating.
Also you say "I think future animal rights activists might one day demand the destruction of all nonhuman animal life except our pets". No one who understands ecology and the planet would say such a stupid thing. Animals and insects are a necessary part of the life cycle of the planet.
Also, the Borg were supposed to represent an unthinking insect/hive society echoing pure totalitarianism and communism. It involved the obliteration of the individual. How many humans today want that form of government? They were hardly "tragic heroes".
I don’t think you read what he wrote. He’s talking about if nobody lives on earth anymore, humanity has gone elsewhere, then the only defense of leaving the animals alive “down there” is for human amusement of the old times, the wild, OR the idea of non-interference. But someone might well argue that it’s cruel not to interfere because animals are so vastly inferior, so lacking in free will and any modicum of choice, that to allow the cycle to continue - the cycle of suffering - is inhumane and cruel and serves no purpose.
I’m not saying I agree or don’t agree, I’m just saying I understand the argument.
I do agree animals are inferior in every way, though. I really find it annoying when someone tries to put animals on the same plane as humans. I love my cat but cats as a whole aren’t as valuable of life as human beings, in that an especially great and valuable human is worth more than an especially great and valuable cat. Apples to apples, in other words. Of course it goes without saying I’d rather save my cat from death than most random people because I don’t know them, their lives aren’t important to me except in the abstract, but my cats is because it’s my cat. Beyond that I just think most people are terminally mediocre and I can’t be bothered to care about mediocre people in general. They just kind of exist and meander throughout life, never really doing anything of note or contributing anything either to themselves or society. My cat at least is a great example of a cat, whereas they’re poor examples of the god-like potential of humans.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 1 day ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,599,675 times
Reputation: 5697
Hypothetically, we can move that argument up to the next level - highly improbably this actually is the case in the real cosmos.
As Neil DeGrase Tyson said, imagine an alien species that's as far beyond us as we are beyond chimpanzees. Quantum mechanics would be intuitive to their toddlers. Would this species greater comprehensive abilities and generally greater self-awareness make this species more valuable than humans? Shifting down one level, is an evil genius really more valuable than a kind significantly autistic person or of very low intelligence? Wouldn't helping to relieve the burdens of existence be a more reliable measure of one's worth?
I don’t think you read what he wrote. He’s talking about if nobody lives on earth anymore, humanity has gone elsewhere, then the only defense of leaving the animals alive “down there” is for human amusement of the old times, the wild, OR the idea of non-interference. But someone might well argue that it’s cruel not to interfere because animals are so vastly inferior, so lacking in free will and any modicum of choice, that to allow the cycle to continue - the cycle of suffering - is inhumane and cruel and serves no purpose.
I’m not saying I agree or don’t agree, I’m just saying I understand the argument.
I do agree animals are inferior in every way, though. I really find it annoying when someone tries to put animals on the same plane as humans. I love my cat but cats as a whole aren’t as valuable of life as human beings, in that an especially great and valuable human is worth more than an especially great and valuable cat. Apples to apples, in other words. Of course it goes without saying I’d rather save my cat from death than most random people because I don’t know them, their lives aren’t important to me except in the abstract, but my cats is because it’s my cat. Beyond that I just think most people are terminally mediocre and I can’t be bothered to care about mediocre people in general. They just kind of exist and meander throughout life, never really doing anything of note or contributing anything either to themselves or society. My cat at least is a great example of a cat, whereas they’re poor examples of the god-like potential of humans.
Hypothetically, we can move that argument up to the next level - highly improbably this actually is the case in the real cosmos.
As Neil DeGrase Tyson said, imagine an alien species that's as far beyond us as we are beyond chimpanzees. Quantum mechanics would be intuitive to their toddlers. Would this species greater comprehensive abilities and generally greater self-awareness make this species more valuable than humans? Shifting down one level, is an evil genius really more valuable than a kind significantly autistic person or of very low intelligence? Wouldn't helping to relieve the burdens of existence be a more reliable measure of one's worth?
My thoughts exactly.
I could imagine aliens extinguishing Earthlings for similar reasons as future humans might want to extinguish animal life.
One difference I see though, is that humans, unlike other animals, at least have the capacity to understand matters on a global scale and the idea of benefitting all life, or at least their own species, so unlike nonhumans on Earth we at least have a chance to improve ourselves.
However, I could imagine aliens, possibly, still perceiving things like, "Well...humans all going extinct simultaneously won't be a negative thing. They won't even know what happened to them. It will end all this chaos they have to deal with though."
That would depend on the aliens though. I don't see a reason to believe they'd all see things that way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
