If for any reason you’ve recently been feeling complacent about global security, international relations and oh, you know, little things like the continued existence of the species, here to h…
You’re making a bit of a strawman out of me. I never stated that we didn’t have responsibilities to be a custodian. I addressed your statement about us deserving to die because of our indiscretions. You stated very clearly “I honestly think that the best thing that could happen, overall, is humanity killing ourselves off.” That is a judgment and strangely a “belief” you have self-proclaimed and are now obfuscating. The whale and Krill analogy was hyperbolic. If that led you to jump the shark and assess that I condone pollution it was simply used to imply that we are not unique in respect to interspecies genocide, but are unique in that we have the ability to overcome it. A whale would eat every krill in the world without a second thought. The balance is only temporal. We see it as balanced because it is what it is now.
As a concession to your last statement, I agree that “now we reign above it (all other life on earth), and we’re ruining it for everything else.”
But based on our trajectory are a species, the evidence shows that we will overcome this period and move forward with the preservation of other species and our own. The homeostatic balance you see for the whales affects us as well and unless a person with the belief that we should all die presses the red button of nuclear annihilation, then all should be well, so the big issue is stopping people from engaging in that line of reasoning. The belief that humanity should end is the issue… exactly what the religious people in the article are gunning for.
You stated very clearly “I honestly think that the best thing that could happen, overall, is humanity killing ourselves off.” That is a judgment and strangely a “belief” you have self-proclaimed and are now obfuscating.
The two statements that I made, both of which I stand behind, are:
I am not religious, but I honestly think that the best thing that could happen, overall, is humanity killing ourselves off. We’re a net negative for almost everything else on this planet.
[…]I feel that as far as the rest of the planet is concerned, the harm we’re causing out-weigh the positives we bring. That’s all my view is stating - there’s no ‘judging’ or claims that we deserve extinction.
I believe that, from the perspective of the rest of the planet, or the planet’s population as a whole, the best thing that could happen would be us killing ourselves off, yes. That makes no claim that we ‘deserve’ extinction, or that we do not. It’s merely a statement that, as a whole, we cause more problems than we fix. They’d almost all be better off without us.
You’re making a bit of a strawman out of me. I never stated that we didn’t have responsibilities to be a custodian.
I was perhaps misinterpreting your comment that
Our “comfort” does matter most beacasue we are the only ones who know enough to possibly change that.
And if so, then I apologize.
But based on our trajectory are a species, the evidence shows that we will overcome this period and move forward with the preservation of other species and our own.
Are you making this statement based on the fact that we’re still around, and therefore have overcome every other period of hardship we’ve faced (as a species)? With the state of climate change and global warming where it is, we’re moving into unprecedented territory; if we’re basing this statement on our trajectory as a species, I would argue that evidence shows that we’ll continue doing too little until it’s too late. I hope that proves incorrect.
[…]unless a person with the belief that we should all die presses the red button of nuclear annihilation […] The belief that humanity should end is the issue… exactly what the religious people in the article are gunning for.
Yes, and I think I very clearly stated that I disagree with their stance:
The difference is that I, and all - or at least, the vast majority - of the folks you refer to aren’t actively trying to make it happen.
Believing the world would be better off if something were to happen is not the same as actively hoping it does happen or working to make it happen. (Since we’re throwing around logical fallacies, that would be a false equivalence).
You’ve gotten me to the point of writing out logical equations to try to make sense of your changing argument qualifications.
first statement:
Best thing = Killing self (humanity) off ∵ pollution
Last statement:
Best thing = something (extinction of humans) were to happen ∵ pollution
But if
something were to happen ≠ Making it happen/hoping it would happen
and
Making it happen = killing self off
then
Best thing ≠ killing self off
(Z = K) ∵ P
(Z = S) ∵ P
S ≠ M
S ≠ H
K = M
It seems that you have made two incompatible statements, which amounts to an erroneous argument.
I’m willing to say that the first statement was hyperbolic and your second statement is more aligned with what you really think, but you say you stand by both, which doesn’t track.
That would be true, except for the simple fact that, just because I think it would be the best outcome for the planet as a whole, doesn’t mean I have to be working towards it. From the perspective of everything else living here, it would be best if we all died. If we don’t, it’s increasingly likely that we take some or all of them with us when we do.
You’re making a bit of a strawman out of me. I never stated that we didn’t have responsibilities to be a custodian. I addressed your statement about us deserving to die because of our indiscretions. You stated very clearly “I honestly think that the best thing that could happen, overall, is humanity killing ourselves off.” That is a judgment and strangely a “belief” you have self-proclaimed and are now obfuscating. The whale and Krill analogy was hyperbolic. If that led you to jump the shark and assess that I condone pollution it was simply used to imply that we are not unique in respect to interspecies genocide, but are unique in that we have the ability to overcome it. A whale would eat every krill in the world without a second thought. The balance is only temporal. We see it as balanced because it is what it is now.
As a concession to your last statement, I agree that “now we reign above it (all other life on earth), and we’re ruining it for everything else.”
But based on our trajectory are a species, the evidence shows that we will overcome this period and move forward with the preservation of other species and our own. The homeostatic balance you see for the whales affects us as well and unless a person with the belief that we should all die presses the red button of nuclear annihilation, then all should be well, so the big issue is stopping people from engaging in that line of reasoning. The belief that humanity should end is the issue… exactly what the religious people in the article are gunning for.
The two statements that I made, both of which I stand behind, are:
I believe that, from the perspective of the rest of the planet, or the planet’s population as a whole, the best thing that could happen would be us killing ourselves off, yes. That makes no claim that we ‘deserve’ extinction, or that we do not. It’s merely a statement that, as a whole, we cause more problems than we fix. They’d almost all be better off without us.
I was perhaps misinterpreting your comment that
And if so, then I apologize.
Are you making this statement based on the fact that we’re still around, and therefore have overcome every other period of hardship we’ve faced (as a species)? With the state of climate change and global warming where it is, we’re moving into unprecedented territory; if we’re basing this statement on our trajectory as a species, I would argue that evidence shows that we’ll continue doing too little until it’s too late. I hope that proves incorrect.
Yes, and I think I very clearly stated that I disagree with their stance:
Believing the world would be better off if something were to happen is not the same as actively hoping it does happen or working to make it happen. (Since we’re throwing around logical fallacies, that would be a false equivalence).
You’ve gotten me to the point of writing out logical equations to try to make sense of your changing argument qualifications.
first statement:
Best thing = Killing self (humanity) off ∵ pollution
Last statement: Best thing = something (extinction of humans) were to happen ∵ pollution
But if
something were to happen ≠ Making it happen/hoping it would happen
and
Making it happen = killing self off
then
Best thing ≠ killing self off
(Z = K) ∵ P (Z = S) ∵ P S ≠ M S ≠ H K = M
It seems that you have made two incompatible statements, which amounts to an erroneous argument.
I’m willing to say that the first statement was hyperbolic and your second statement is more aligned with what you really think, but you say you stand by both, which doesn’t track.
That would be true, except for the simple fact that, just because I think it would be the best outcome for the planet as a whole, doesn’t mean I have to be working towards it. From the perspective of everything else living here, it would be best if we all died. If we don’t, it’s increasingly likely that we take some or all of them with us when we do.