The original point was wiping out humans, entirely or in part.The logistical issues and science are secondary to the abhorrent ethics in your question, yet you refuse to discuss that part. Ethics aside, Lausten brought up some very good objective issues which you failed to address. If you really want to discuss objective issues with your question then address Lausten's points.
The original point was wiping out humans, entirely or in part.The logistical issues and science are secondary to the abhorrent ethics in your question, yet you refuse to discuss that part. Ethics aside, Lausten brought up some very good objective issues which you failed to address. If you really want to discuss objective issues with your question then address Lausten's points. Because ethics isn't a talking point, such a subjective issue is best left out. I'm talking about just outright wiping out people since they do more harm than good to the planet. As listed in the arguments for section: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement
So you come in here and ask a question, whine about people not answering it the way you want it answered, then when someone does address it the way you wanted you link to an article on the rational wiki site. Let me drop you a hint: this is discussion forum. If you don’t want to discuss things go away and stop wasting our time. I’m fed up with people posting links instead of thinking, and it is past time for the moderators to start enforcing the rules around here.
I'm talking about just outright wiping out people since they do more harm than good to the planet.So, you're making a moral argument then? What is "good" to the planet? Why is the planet better off without an Anthropocene era? Was it good that the dinosaurs got wiped out? Are asteroids "good" for the planet? How so? The planet has had 5 extinction events, we may be experiencing the 6th. Are those good for the planet? Was one of them good and others not? Why? All these questions are relevant to your question.
So you come in here and ask a question, shine about people not answering it the way you want it answered, then when someone does address it the way you wanted you link to an article on the rational wiki site. Let me drop you a hint: this is discussion forum. If you don't want to discuss things go away and stop wasting our time. I'm far up with people posting kinks instead of thinking, and it is past time for the moderators to start enforcing the rules around here.Because you fail to take emotion out of it.
I'm talking about just outright wiping out people since they do more harm than good to the planet.So, you're making a moral argument then? What is "good" to the planet? Why is the planet better off without an Anthropocene era? Was it good that the dinosaurs got wiped out? Are asteroids "good" for the planet? How so? The planet has had 5 extinction events, we may be experiencing the 6th. Are those good for the planet? Was one of them good and others not? Why? All these questions are relevant to your question. I'm trying to find a hole in the reasoning of such extremists who feel so self assured that humanity is a virus to be wiped out. They feel that our behavior is similar to it and like a virus must be wiped out. Going on about the earth being a living creature and needing new antibodies to rid itself of the blight
If you were new here I'd write you off as a troll. Because you've been around a while and shown flashes of intelligence I'm taking you seriously, and seriously you are one sick person. As I said earlier, you would have made a good Nazi. A kick in the balls is too good for the likes of you.You can't make an argument outside morality, so I what you say has little value. Morality can be an excuse to justify anything. Perhaps you need an example. Humans are just performing the basic functions of life, survive and reproduce. Like any organism that does that very well it's continued existence would be at the expense of everything. That's not bad though, that's just the consequence of a highly successful organism. They frequently refer to humans like a virus, but viruses are also highly successful at what organisms do. Same with bacteria. Survive and reproduce. They don't care if it's at the expense of their host. I don't believe anything else in nature has any regard for others or their surroundings. They just focus on survival and reproduction. They just happen to have checks in place to limit their numbers. To punish humans for "crimes" would be the equivalent of life punishing itself for doing what it does. Illogical to say the least. One could say our limiting factor is our brain and "morality". But what's to say in our absence a similarly successful organism without those inhibiting factors wouldn't extinguish all life in its own operation of surivival? Which is clearly wrong. http://www.dolphins-world.com/dolphins-rescuing-humans/
Several years ago, in the Gulf of Akaba, a British tourist was rescued by three dolphins from sharks. Near the Sinai Peninsula, a ship captain had stopped his boat so several passengers could watch dolphins playing. Three of the passengers decided to swim with them, and one stayed a little longer than the others. To his horror, he was bitten by a shark – and more were coming. Suddenly, three dolphins placed themselves between the tourist and the sharks, smacking the water with tails and flippers, and drove the sharks off so the man could be rescued. In 2004, a group of swimmers were confronted by a ten-foot great white shark off the northern coast of new Zealand. A pod of dolphins “herded" them together, circling them until the great white fled. There are several other examples from the area of Australia of similar incidences. In another case in the Red Sea, twelve divers who were lost for thirteen and a half hours were surrounded by dolphins for the entire time, repelling the many sharks that live in the area. When a rescue boat showed up, it appeared that the dolphin pod were showing them where the divers were; they leaped up in the air in front of the rescuers, jumping toward the lost people as if to lead the boat onward – as, according to old stories, they often did with endangered ships in treacherous water.Why should we pay the slightest bit of attention to someone who has less regard for his own species as members of another species do. I think the fact that you're so willing to commit murder on a vast scale is due to your fundamental lack of ability to understand what life is let alone how much value it has. There are many other steps and measures that can be taken to address current challenges, but you're prepared to go straight to genocide to enact your own Final Solution, which would be far worse than the last one. I'd say you refuse to accept the role of morality because you lack any, otherwise you wouldn't still be trying to defend genocide.
I'm talking about just outright wiping out people since they do more harm than good to the planet.So, you're making a moral argument then? What is "good" to the planet? Why is the planet better off without an Anthropocene era? Was it good that the dinosaurs got wiped out? Are asteroids "good" for the planet? How so? The planet has had 5 extinction events, we may be experiencing the 6th. Are those good for the planet? Was one of them good and others not? Why? All these questions are relevant to your question. I'm trying to find a hole in the reasoning of such extremists who feel so self assured that humanity is a virus to be wiped out. They feel that our behavior is similar to it and like a virus must be wiped out. Going on about the earth being a living creature and needing new antibodies to rid itself of the blight I gave you those holes. The article you linked to gave those and more. I don't understand your 2nd and 3rd sentences. Do you disagree with the VHEM people? So far you have only given the "good for the planet" argument, which is easily dealt with. I can't tell what you want now, other than to hang around on this forum and tell people they are wrong and don't get you.
I just want ammunition to use against these people so I won’t be forced to accept that killing everyone is the only way to save the planet and the remaining species.
What did you mean by good for the planet?
Anyone who suggests culling has no sense of morality. Religion won’t help you. You are a hopeless case.
Lois
I just want ammunition to use against these people so I won't be forced to accept that killing everyone is the only way to save the planet and the remaining species. What did you mean by good for the planet?Seriously? Here's your OP:
The recurring proposal of culling a great amount of the human population for the survival of the planet and our species, or even wiping ourselves out to save it. In short I would like to know, why not?I've asked you 3 different ways what you meant by this. You changed it to include wiping out humans, which is the opposite "survival of our species", but you haven't said anything about survival of the planet. You've been given answers and just blew them off. I'm not answering a question from you about your question. I put a real question in the Philosophy section. Why don't you answer that one first, then I'll considering helping you here.
Because you fail to take emotion out of it.That's because emotion is an essential part of the human experience and anyone who is completely detached from any emotional connection to our species has no place at all making value judgements about us. They certainly don't have any relevance in deciding our ultimate fate.
I just want ammunition to use against these people so I won't be forced to accept that killing everyone is the only way to save the planet and the remaining species.Why didn't you say that at the beginning instead of wasting two-plus pages arguing that morality is irrelevant? Here's a clue: we cannot read your mind.
Because you fail to take emotion out of it.That's because emotion is an essential part of the human experience and anyone who is completely detached from any emotional connection to our species has no place at all making value judgements about us. They certainly don't have any relevance in deciding our ultimate fate. I would think the opposite would be true as any emotional connection would color your judgment.
I just want ammunition to use against these people so I won't be forced to accept that killing everyone is the only way to save the planet and the remaining species. What did you mean by good for the planet?Seriously? Here's your OP:
The recurring proposal of culling a great amount of the human population for the survival of the planet and our species, or even wiping ourselves out to save it. In short I would like to know, why not?I've asked you 3 different ways what you meant by this. You changed it to include wiping out humans, which is the opposite "survival of our species", but you haven't said anything about survival of the planet. You've been given answers and just blew them off. I'm not answering a question from you about your question. I put a real question in the Philosophy section. Why don't you answer that one first, then I'll considering helping you here. I don't see how the question could be any clearer. I referred to either one as some lean towards a cull while others want humans to go extinct (by whatever means). They claim it's to help the planet to survive, that the extinction rate has risen because of us, that humans are a disease to the planet.
I just want ammunition to use against these people so I won't be forced to accept that killing everyone is the only way to save the planet and the remaining species. What did you mean by good for the planet?Seriously? Here's your OP:
The recurring proposal of culling a great amount of the human population for the survival of the planet and our species, or even wiping ourselves out to save it. In short I would like to know, why not?I've asked you 3 different ways what you meant by this. You changed it to include wiping out humans, which is the opposite "survival of our species", but you haven't said anything about survival of the planet. You've been given answers and just blew them off. I'm not answering a question from you about your question. I put a real question in the Philosophy section. Why don't you answer that one first, then I'll considering helping you here. I don't see how the question could be any clearer. Writing in complete sentences would help. And context. Give us context up front, do not wait until post# 45. Those of us in the business call such writing "piss-poor communication."
I referred to either one as some lean towards a cull while others want humans to go extinct (by whatever means). They claim it's to help the planet to survive, that the extinction rate has risen because of us, that humans are a disease to the planet.They may have some valid points, but I cannot judge their arguments without seeing them.
This is the bulk of it, also of course viewing humans as a disease and a virus to be wiped out.
Related
I just want ammunition to use against these people so I won't be forced to accept that killing everyone is the only way to save the planet and the remaining species. What did you mean by good for the planet?Seriously? Here's your OP:
The recurring proposal of culling a great amount of the human population for the survival of the planet and our species, or even wiping ourselves out to save it. In short I would like to know, why not?I've asked you 3 different ways what you meant by this. You changed it to include wiping out humans, which is the opposite "survival of our species", but you haven't said anything about survival of the planet. You've been given answers and just blew them off. I'm not answering a question from you about your question. I put a real question in the Philosophy section. Why don't you answer that one first, then I'll considering helping you here. I don't see how the question could be any clearer. I referred to either one as some lean towards a cull while others want humans to go extinct (by whatever means). They claim it's to help the planet to survive, that the extinction rate has risen because of us, that humans are a disease to the planet. I didn't say the question wasn't clear. It's very clear. I said it is a question about the question that you asked. It's a question that I asked you more than once. You should clarify your question, not expect others to know that you want ammunition against the question you asked. And if you want something from somebody, don't argue with them when they try to give it to you. Unless you are considering a career in management.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement This is the bulk of it, also of course viewing humans as a disease and a virus to be wiped out. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hard_green RelatedYou have to be joking. Why all the angst? The first article does a good job pointing out some flaws in the argument, and the second rightly calls the extremists movements irrelevant in today's world. Edit: Besides, we've already screwed the pooch, and it is too late to prevent us humans from infecting the planet with excess CO2. We are past the point of no return. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36133-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-concentration-has-passed-the-point-of-no-return
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement This is the bulk of it, also of course viewing humans as a disease and a virus to be wiped out. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hard_green RelatedYou have to be joking. Why all the angst? The first article does a good job pointing out some flaws in the argument, and the second rightly calls the extremists movements irrelevant in today's world. Edit: Besides, we've already screwed the pooch, and it is too late to prevent us humans from infecting the planet with excess CO2. We are past the point of no return. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36133-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-concentration-has-passed-the-point-of-no-return So pretty much a cull or wipeout wouldn't change anything then?