GameBanshee Forums

Your writing style is confusing to me.

Jopperm2] I never sadi I would exploit animals to extiction.[/quote] No wrote: Only until we find a way to synthesize them properly, then we can cull them like the rest of the dead weight.

Was this the statement that was intended as a joke? If so, I'll leave it. However, this second statement:

Jopperm2]I don't really care bout animal behaviour besides how we can use it to benefit us. [/quote] implicates an instrumental view on other species wrote: And I don't believe most of the end of the world stuff. I don't claim to have all the answers like some people, I just don't see the need to kiss up to animals. I don't think there are any animals that are about to be extinct that would cause a huge impact on the earth. And I firmly belive that humans come first.

I don't know what you mean with "end of the world"-stuff, but scientific studies of climatology and ecology predicts great problems within the next 50-100 years. Cancer and other dangerous diseases have increased in many regions already due to thinning of the ozone layer and pollution. Global warming is making weather conditions that increase human and finacial disasters. The great whales and the great apes are highly threatned species and will probably not survive for the next 50 years with current tempo of fishing and rain forest exploitation. Since green algae and rain forests are the main sources of oxygen for us, marine life and rain forest habitats are crucial for our survivial.

Here is some basic information about the scientific evidence for problems at earth:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3686106.stm

Some of it is related to other species, some not, but if you wish I can dig out references to the very urgent problem of marine life.

What makes you believe there are no animals close to extinction that will cause a big impact also for human life? Do you have any references?

Also, you seem to polarise whale-hugging and human rights to exploit. What about a neutral view that allow all species to exist in their natural habitat, keeping the ecosystems in balance and keeping the earth inhabitable for us and for other species? Humans come first to me as well, but that does not contradict that other species also have the right to exist.

jopperm2 wrote:I don't see what the second 2 links had to do with this..

That is strange, since they contain exactly what you asked for; Its two examples of one species acting altrustic towards another species.

Also, about the first 2 links.. This represents a very minute amount of animals, one lioness does not prove anything at all.

One lioness proves one lioness behaves altrustic. Wich you said they could not do.

BTW has anyone considered how accurate a testimony from a guy who just spent 2 days bobbing in the ocean is? I doubt a court would accept it. I'm not inclined to just take it as it is.

Its not the case of one guy who spent two days in the ocean, the type of event have been reported from many different sources. You have already been given two, not one. There are many more if you would care to make a search though.

For a study instead of single incidents look here: http://www.kluweronline.com/article.asp ... 8970&PDF=1
Or do a search here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

Plus these animals are acting out of misplaced insticts it seems, maybe I'm incorrect there..

Yes, you are incorrect. "Misplaced" in this case is your judgment. Their behaviour can be due to instinct, emotions, cognition or whatever you want to call it, what matters is they act altrustic in helping another animal.

It doesn't seem that they are really interested in promoting the wellbeing of all living things though.

No one have said they were Hindu, just that they acted altrustic in some cases, wich they do.

First, that was intended as a joke.

What was the intention of it then? Or was it just spam?

Third, I don't really care if it's moral and it differs a great deal that it's another species.

How does it differ, and why do you not care about moral? You voiced opinions in another thread about how imoral it was for a goverment to tax you, why is moral only important at certain times?

Just so that no one is waiting around by their keyboard I'll let you know that I'm leaving for the night. I don't have time to reply to the last 2 posts but I will tomorrow. Please try not to flame me too badly in my sleep, I have nice sheets and I don't like to sleep in warm temperatures.

Thanks for the debate, I'm glad there are intelligent people here will ing to voice there opinions. Hopefully I haven't hurt anyone's fellings too much that they'll hate me forever.

Until tomorrow.

@Jopperm: No hurry, there is no pressure to reply quickly. As for me, I never take personal offense or feel hurt because people have opinions that oppose my own. On the contrary, I love debating and I strongly dislike when people take discussion about topics personally.

PS: have you disabled the PM function so that other users are not allowed to send PMs to you? I would like to reply to your PM but I can't.

See you later, good night!

[QUOTE=Dottie]That is strange, since they contain exactly what you asked for; Its two examples of one species acting altrustic towards another species.
[/QUOTE]
They are examples of humans helping animals which I don't think counts, unless I'm missing something here.

[QUOTE=Dottie]
One lioness proves one lioness behaves altrustic. Wich you said they could not do.[/QUOTE]
What I said is that no species helps another species, which I know is an oversimplification of the matter, there are lionfish and other examples, but what I meant by it is that in the natural world it is uncommon for animals to care much about the overall survival of any species but their own. The survival of one's species is a driving motivation for many animals IIRC. Humans are, I think, the only species that does this on a broad range. Now I admit that as CE has brought up, we are the only species that likely understands how other species fit into the ecology in a macro sense. Examples of one animal helping another of a different species is an exception on a micro sense, not the full trend that I'm looking for. All these links prove is that sometimes, individual animals will take care of other animals as if they were the young of that animal. These may even be examples of animals that have lost their own young and are trying to fill some sort of emotional void. We don't know all the information there. So, yes, it is possible that animals can help each other, but it is unlikely you will see any lions at the Save the Whales rally. (Please note that I do recognize that some species live in symbioses and help other species, but these animals depend on those others for their own direct survival.)

[QUOTE=Dottie]
Its not the case of one guy who spent two days in the ocean, the type of event have been reported from many different sources. You have already been given two, not one. There are many more if you would care to make a search though.

For a study instead of single incidents look here: http://www.kluweronline.com/article.asp ... 8970&PDF=1
Or do a search here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi[/QUOTE]
I'm quite proficient in web serches, I've been doing them for many years, thank you. I apologize, I was confused and thought that both dolphin events were the same one, I post these in a hurry between phone calls at work so I'm not always completely paying attention. Please see my above point for my opinion on the content of these stories.

[QUOTE=Dottie]
Yes, you are incorrect. "Misplaced" in this case is your judgment. Their behaviour can be due to instinct, emotions, cognition or whatever you want to call it, what matters is they act altrustic in helping another animal. [/QUOTE]
Misplaced is my opinion but the fact is that we don't really know what they are thinking when they are doing this. BTW Yes, you are incorrect makes no sense.
[QUOTE=Dottie]
No one have said they were Hindu, just that they acted altrustic in some cases, wich they do.[/QUOTE]
See above about my original post and how a species doesn't do this on a whole.
[QUOTE=Dottie]
What was the intention of it then? Or was it just spam?[/QUOTE]
It was meant to be a sarcastic agreement with the previous poster becasue I thought he went a little too far.
[QUOTE=Dottie]
How does it differ, and why do you not care about moral? You voiced opinions in another thread about how imoral it was for a goverment to tax you, why is moral only important at certain times?[/QUOTE]
A> It was a joke.. Most moral jokes are boring.
B> This is an intellectual discussion not an emotional/moral one, I don't mix business and pleasure.
C> See above comment on how a species will generally act towards same-species survival. Humans do the same thing and in some circumstances do it more than other animals. I don't pretend that I care about animals as much as people. I know some people do, Greenpeace, PETA, etc.. These people are loons.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]@Jopperm: No hurry, there is no pressure to reply quickly. As for me, I never take personal offense or feel hurt because people have opinions that oppose my own. On the contrary, I love debating and I strongly dislike when people take discussion about topics personally.

PS: have you disabled the PM function so that other users are not allowed to send PMs to you? I would like to reply to your PM but I can't.

See you later, good night![/QUOTE]

Thanks, one opinion we do share.
PS> My PMs are enable, just checked. I dunno what the problem is. Try it again I guess..

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Your writing style is confusing to me. [/QUOTE]


Sorry, I was really tired.. I work 10-hour days and have a 1-year-old daughter. Hopefully I'll be more coherent today.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]No, you didn't say exactly that, but the consequences of your reasoning is that exploitation to extinction is ok if it is useful to you. [/QUOTE]


I'm very much into cost effectiveness. I apologize that this was a little misleading. By usefeul to me I mean 2 different things:
1> That exploitation provides something useful to me, profit, saves lives, whatever it might be.
2> Whatever benefit it provides must be worth more than the costs of implementation and the indirect consequential costs. (This is going to bar pretty much any exploitation that results in extinction unless large-scale terraforming and whatnot becomes really cheap, though I would like to see mosquitos and raccoons go regardless of whether it causes the end of the world )

[QUOTE=C Elegans]
Was this the statement that was intended as a joke? If so, I'll leave it. <snip>[/QUOTE]


Yes, see above, sorry it was not as clear as intended.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]
implicates an instrumental view on other species, since you say you don't care about animal behaviour beside how it can be useful to you. The consequence of this reasoning would be that if animals and humans interacted (behaved) in a way that led to extinction for the other species, or if understanding of animal behaviour was necessary to avoid their extinction (but not necessary for you personally), you would not care since this species was not useful to you personally. So for instance, a species whos existance is neutral for human (your) existance, can be allowed to be extinct. [/QUOTE]


Only if that extinction would not significantly and negatively affect humans. Since we have determined that most extictions would do this, they are not included.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]I don't know what you mean with "end of the world"-stuff, but scientific studies of climatology and ecology predicts great problems within the next 50-100 years. Cancer and other dangerous diseases have increased in many regions already due to thinning of the ozone layer and pollution. Global warming is making weather conditions that increase human and finacial disasters. The great whales and the great apes are highly threatned species and will probably not survive for the next 50 years with current tempo of fishing and rain forest exploitation. Since green algae and rain forests are the main sources of oxygen for us, marine life and rain forest habitats are crucial for our survivial.

Here is some basic information about the scientific evidence for problems at earth:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3686106.stm

Some of it is related to other species, some not, but if you wish I can dig out references to the very urgent problem of marine life. [/QUOTE]


I don't doubt that marine life is in danger, I just am inclined to believe that many so-called environmental problems are not really problems. Extreme environmentalist, even some scientists, like to use scare tactics to get funding and legislation. I'm looking for some examples and I'll post them shortly, but I'm just very skeptical about anything environmentalists say. We all know the saying about lies and statistics. (I do agree that we need to slow down on the rainforest devastation though. But it's not primarily us that is doing that one if I understand correctly.)

[QUOTE=C Elegans]What makes you believe there are no animals close to extinction that will cause a big impact also for human life? Do you have any references? [/QUOTE]


This admittedly I don't have any proof of. What I'm wondering is that if an animal is close to extiction, whatever niche they fill, wouldn't they be producing at minimum capacity already? So therefore wouldn't extinction be just slightly less capacity? I'm not really sure about this one. If you know please tell.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Also, you seem to polarise whale-hugging and human rights to exploit. What about a neutral view that allow all species to exist in their natural habitat, keeping the ecosystems in balance and keeping the earth inhabitable for us and for other species? Humans come first to me as well, but that does not contradict that other species also have the right to exist. [/QUOTE]

I agree with your last statement in that a neutral view is not bad, but the problem I have with many Environmental and Human Rights activists is that they are basing a lot of their argument on emotion instead of logic and fact. (not you of course ) All they care about is saving the world; I just want to make sure that it is worth saving first. The two types of people I hate most are people that want hand-outs and people that think they can save the world. Unfortunatly for the left end of the political spectrum they both usually fall under liberal. (please note, I don't hate all liberals, just these 2 types. I think there is a time and place for liberalism just as much as conservativism)

I promised some sort of support so here goes.

In an article for the Washington Post Boyce Rensberger says:

"While there is evidence that the ozone damage is happening, it has proven impossible so far to detect any resulting increase in [ultraviolet light] reaching the ground... 'The amount of increase that the theory says we could be getting from ozone depletion is smaller that the error of our best measuring instruments,' says John E. Frederick at the University of Chicago. 'People get all excited about a few-percent change in UV, but it's nothing to get a 20 percent increase naturally,' Frederick said. 'If and increase of 20 percent were going to be so damaging, there should be no life in Florida...'" I'm still here.

In 50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save the Earth, a liberal environmentalist scare-tactic propaganda book that is widely regarded by environmentalists as true is this little gem.

"Every year in the U.S. we lose 7 billion tons of topsoil -- an area the size of Connecticut." Considerinf CT's landmass of 5544 sq mi This is impossible or irrelevant. Farming in the US has been going on over most of the country for about 150 years, that's 831600 sq miles of land destroyed. Enough to make the midwest unfarmable.. I remember my home in Iowa having about 9 miles of the best cornfields in the world behind it.

This is just some of it, but I doubt anything that comes from an environmentalist source immediately. I'm not saying it's all bunk, but a lot of it is.

[QUOTE=dragon wench]and the belief that we may well poison ourselves, and everything else along with us, within the next 100 years or so (if not sooner). [/QUOTE]

you mean we havent already poisioned ourselves? and others for that matter..

PS: sry i havent been posting, x-giving weekend and all. i'll write soon.

[QUOTE=Repent]you mean we havent already poisioned ourselves? and others for that matter.. [/QUOTE]

lol! true What I meant was poisoning ourselves to the point that there is so much toxicity on the planet that it is essentially uninhabitable. We don't seem to have quite reached that point.... yet....

Part I

jopperm2 wrote:Sorry, I was really tired.. I work 10-hour days and have a 1-year-old daughter. Hopefully I'll be more coherent today.

Yes, significantly more I think - at least I believe I understand your last post better than the previous ones.

By usefeul to me I mean 2 different things:
1> That exploitation provides something useful to me, profit, saves lives, whatever it might be.
2> Whatever benefit it provides must be worth more than the costs of implementation and the indirect consequential costs. (This is going to bar pretty much any exploitation that results in extinction unless large-scale terraforming and whatnot becomes really cheap, though I would like to see mosquitos and raccoons go regardless of whether it causes the end of the world )

I see what you mean, but currently it is more cost efficient for us to keep the species than to make them extinct. Even from a totally humanocentric perspective - we simply lack knowledge and technology to a level where we can safely start killing off other species for good. (And yes, I hate mosquitos too, I am even allergic to them. It's a pity they are more important for maintaining the eco system than I am )

Only if that extinction would not significantly and negatively affect humans. Since we have determined that most extictions would do this, they are not included.
<snip>
This admittedly I don't have any proof of. What I'm wondering is that if an animal is close to extiction, whatever niche they fill, wouldn't they be producing at minimum capacity already? So therefore wouldn't extinction be just slightly less capacity? I'm not really sure about this one. If you know please tell.

We can roughly divide extinction problems into two groups, we can call one local and one global.

At a local level, there are big mammals like whales and the polar bear and key rainforest plants that are very threatened, and if they go extinct it will affect the life of all the people who are dependent on these species for survival. Natives of Arctic and Amazon regions will have to move and start a new life style elsewhere - it may not be a disaster to you personally, but it is a disaster to them since it means death of their culture.

At a global level, I don't think there is any single species whos extinction would lead to immediate global disaster, but eco-systems are complex interdependent systems where one change often lead to chain reaction that cause delayed effects. For instance, biologists have estimated that every plant that die out will take 30 other species with it, including both other plants and animals.

In North America, the natural rate of extinction of species was about 3 in 100 years during the Ice age. Since 1620, over 500 species of plants and animals have gone extinct due to human activities. Today, 1.5 million species are endangered (see this list, IUCN is not a gang of tree-huggers, it's an international organisation with 10 000 internationally recognised scientists)
http://www.redlist.org/info/tables/table1.html

Firstly, even if you don't think it has a value in itself that a certain species exists, biodiversity has an evolutionary value. A larger variability in the gene pool has beneficial effects for the entire ecosystem, any ecosystem, since the flexibilitiy allows the system to adapt to changed conditions. If we kill off a lot of large mammals for instance, we will dramatically decrease our chances to survive the next Ice age when agriculture will not be able to support us. Second, biodiversity has an economic value to us currently in agriculture, since crossings between plants is used to make crops with certain features. Instead of using pesticides that toxicate everything living, a plants can be crossed with a plant from a different region in order to survive the local insects. Third, every organism that lives today have evolved over many million of years. This means many organisms hold "survival strategies" that are useful for man in terms of fighting disease. About 25% of all modern pharmaca contains substances that originally were discovered in plants and animals. From the fungi that penicillin is made of to the present search for viral vectors suitable for gene therapy, cancer and Alzheimer treatment, the natural world holds many useful mechanims that can be used, many are certainly still to be discovered. Forth, maybe not so important for you personally, but by studing other animals we learn a lot about ourselves. The great apes share our genome to 98-99%, and now biologists have estimated they will all be gone in 30-50 years with current speed of exploitation of their habitat. This is very bad from a scientific point of view, because we still have big gaps in our knowledge about human behaviour and human life. For instance, most medical sciences need apes to study in order to develop treatments for a variety of very destructive diseases such as HIV, schizophrenia or malaria. Experimental testing can be done in labs, but epidemiology must be studied at field (in the wild) just like with humans. Also, strains of lab animals get inbred if new specimen are not incorporated.
Lastly, some species are "monitor species" for toxins and other health risks for humans. Certain frogs, birds and fish will start to die off from levels of toxins that are not yet catastrophic to man. Thus they work as an alarm function - the fish death in the Baltic sea for instance, has prevented humans here from being exposed to hazardous amounts of kadmium, mercury and other toxins.

(Personally I also think biodiversity has an intrinsic value just in being nice, interesting, beautiful and entertaining. The pleasant feeling of watching a fin whale shrub against your boat, the thrill of spotting a polar bear walking the pack ice, or just the everyday sounds of birds shrieking as I go home from the lab at dawn in the spring - I would like the next generation to be able to experience this too, just because it's nice, but this is nothing moral. )

This is an article published in the world's finest scientific journal. It is the largest ever collaboration between climatologists and biologists (each of the authors represent a lab), and their conclusions are that with current rate, about 1 million species will be extinct the year 2050. That will have profound effect on human life.
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage. ... 21_fs.html

Part II

I don't doubt that marine life is in danger, I just am inclined to believe that many so-called environmental problems are not really problems. Extreme environmentalist, even some scientists, like to use scare tactics to get funding and legislation.
<snip>
I agree with your last statement in that a neutral view is not bad, but the problem I have with many Environmental and Human Rights activists is that they are basing a lot of their argument on emotion instead of logic and fact. (not you of course )

I don't know what media and environmental organisations report where you live, but this problem is easily solved by checking original sources and the international scientific scene, instead of listening to unserious media, single scientists who may want to draw attention to themselves, or extremist groups that are looking for a way to profile themselves. For some environmental issues, the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is the largest international scientific organisation for climatology. They were the ones who performed the famous study of global warming that the Bush administration rejected - only to find their own panel of US-only scientists reached exactly the same results!
http://www.ipcc.ch/index.html
The National Academy of Sciences is another scientific organisation for all sciences, including climatology and biology. They have plenty of objective information including this web-leaflet for laymen:
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309068916/html/
Another scientific institution:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Regarding some activists, I think it is a personality type, rather than connected to a certain political view. Some people take on ideologies or religion as part of their identity, and that's when it becomes emotional and personal instead of fact-based. I have seen many political groups in the US claiming global warming does not exists, which is as rational as saying evolution does not exist (which I have also seen in the US). In Europe, we have Animal rights-groups and Militant Vegans who for instance claim that medical research on animals is useless because nothing is gained from it. There is also a strong tendency to wanting to protect cute, fluffy animals like rabbits (which there is an abundance of on earth), but they don't care about the extinction-threat of key predators such as great sharks or rattle snakes, because those animals are not as cute. We also have right-wing racists and left-wing protectionists, who claims immigration and free trade must be stopped because for various irrational reasons. Political groups are mostly irrational, that's why I prefer to stay away from them.

Regarding global environmental issues though, I have more often found those who deny human induced global warming and pollution stray further from objective data than the environmentalists, perhaps because in in countries like the US and Australia there is strong political and commercial interest to claim environmental issues are "socialist" and will harm national financial development.

In an article for the Washington Post Boyce Rensberger says:

"While there is evidence that the ozone damage is happening, it has proven impossible so far to detect any resulting increase in [ultraviolet light] reaching the ground... 'The amount of increase that the theory says we could be getting from ozone depletion is smaller that the error of our best measuring instruments,' says John E. Frederick at the University of Chicago. 'People get all excited about a few-percent change in UV, but it's nothing to get a 20 percent increase naturally,' Frederick said. 'If and increase of 20 percent were going to be so damaging, there should be no life in Florida...'" I'm still here.

Rensberger is a journalist, not a scientist. He is a science journalist though, so I am surprised he appears to reason with such basic flaws. Measurements of skin cancer and the ozone layer has been done for about 30 years now. It has been estimated that a 1% thinning of the ozone layer corresponds to a 3% increase of skin cancer in the population. Using the numbers from a recent epidemiological study*, a 20% increase of UV-B radiation would correspond to a 32% increase in melanoma. Firstly, everybody don't get melanoma, for instance white skinned people have 15 times higher risk to get it than black skinned people. Second, everybody who get melanoma will not die from it, only about 1/6 affected will die from it, so it's ignorant to say there would be no life in Florida. Third, the risk is measured at group level, so it's stupid of Rensberger to say that "I'm still here" as if it demonstrated anything of validity for the issue.

Take it from scientific observations instead:

*the study I quoted from was this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... ds=9027516

Some other studies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... ds=8041809
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... ds=1390182

You can only read the abstracts (summaries) since you don't have an institutional subscription to these scientific journals, but if you want to see the whole articles you can PM me or I can try to copy and paste parts of them. (Can't post whole articles for copyright reasons Many scientists who have websites have their articles published there for free though )

Basic facts about the ozone depletion and associated health risks can also be found in the Montreal Protocol.

This is just some of it, but I doubt anything that comes from an environmentalist source immediately. I'm not saying it's all bunk, but a lot of it is.

I haven't read the particular book you quoted from, but in general I think the only safe way to collect reliable information is to use primary literature, ie original reports of scientific data published in peer-reviewed journals, or secondary literature that use references from primary literature. I am sure many environmentalists spread very reliable data, but I am also sure some of them spread total nonsense as a political and ideological tool. In serious, professional debates, only quotes from primary literature is usually allowed.

jopperm2 wrote:They are examples of humans helping animals which I don't think counts, unless I'm missing something here.

You stated that No species looks out for anything but itself. I replied that many species do, among them humans, and when you asked for facts I posted links. Im sorry if you dont mean what you write, but I can only reply to what you write, not what you think.

What I said is that no species helps another species, which I know is an oversimplification of the matter, there are lionfish and other examples, but what I meant by it is that in the natural world it is uncommon for animals to care much about the overall survival of any species but their own. The survival of one's species is a driving motivation for many animals IIRC. Humans are, I think, the only species that does this on a broad range.

If you are looking for a species where every individual consistantly helps another species then humans wont do either. Infact, humans have most likely extinguished most other life forms of all living species. The human species have become very powerfull, when we help others it is on a grand scale, and when we kill others it is on a grand scale. Aside from that there is not much difference.

(Please note that I do recognize that some species live in symbioses and help other species, but these animals depend on those others for their own direct survival.)

Here we agree, I am not talking about symbiotic relations either, its a different thing.

I'm quite proficient in web serches, I've been doing them for many years, thank you. I apologize, I was confused and thought that both dolphin events were the same one, I post these in a hurry between phone calls at work so I'm not always completely paying attention. Please see my above point for my opinion on the content of these stories.

I was not insulting your ability to do web searches, I posted a link to a database of medical reaserch in case you wanted to find studies of animals helping each other rather than individual incidents. I also posted one study to show you that they did exist.

Misplaced is my opinion but the fact is that we don't really know what they are thinking when they are doing this. BTW Yes, you are incorrect makes no sense.

We know that they are interested in another animals survival. Did you read the story about the lioness? That she allowed the mother to feed the calf every now and then speaks about both her interest in the calf survival and understanding of basic needs for the calf. Now, if her altruism was due to instinct, emotions or intellect is really quite beside the point. There are many things that control animal behaviour. What are you asking for? An altrusitic behaviour that is not created by any of the mechanisms that control behaviour? That is impossible as I am sure you understand, even in humans.

A> It was a joke.. Most moral jokes are boring.
B> This is an intellectual discussion not an emotional/moral one, I don't mix business and pleasure.

Then can you please tell your opinion about the subject instead of making jokes. It makes it more easy for me to reply with any relevance as I am completely humorless in these threads.

I agree that discussions should not be emotional. Moral however is something entirely different. If we discuss how humans should treat other life then ofcourse we have to apply moral judgment, otherwise it would not be much of of a discussion, just do what you feel like.

C> See above comment on how a species will generally act towards same-species survival. Humans do the same thing and in some circumstances do it more than other animals. I don't pretend that I care about animals as much as people. I know some people do, Greenpeace, PETA, etc.. These people are loons.

I too value most human life over animals, that has never been in question. That does not mean that I value a humans opportunity to kill stuff for pleasure higher than an animals opportunity to live though.

Greenpeace claims to be an organisation to preserve wildlife btw, wich is quite different from giving humans and other animals the same value.

if you realy think mankind is so evil and a drain on the enviornment, why not blow yourself away? You stop taking precious air from animals and give the worms something to eat. If you are so right about your belief on humans everyone else will do the same. Start the trend, dont complain if you wont try to stop it.

[QUOTE=CopperWater]if you realy think mankind is so evil and a drain on the enviornment, why not blow yourself away? You stop taking precious air from animals and give the worms something to eat. If you are so right about your belief on humans everyone else will do the same. Start the trend, dont complain if you wont try to stop it.[/QUOTE]

To whom and to what questions is this directed towards? Is it supposed to be a joke? Why do you suddenly start talking about mankind being evil and suggest people should kill themselves? Nobody in this thread has posted anything that is in connection with your statements, so your posts appears to be quite confused and concern a different topic than what is discussed here. Are you reading the posts or are you answering to your own thoughts or feelings?

If this is supposed to be an answer to my questions to you, I recommend you to reread my post. I asked you the following above, I repeat it here for convenience:

1. What do you mean with "feelings" and "understanding it's feelings"?

2. What do you mean with man being ""top of the food chain?" Define please and state by which variables you judge humans to be "the best" species.

3. Do humans have special rights to exploit other species, and if so, why? Explain.

4. What do you mean with "we didn't get there eating carrot sticks"? Do you mean humankind did something special to deserve to exploit other species? Do you view evolution as intentional? Please explain.

[QUOTE=CopperWater]if you realy think mankind is so evil and a drain on the enviornment, why not blow yourself away? You stop taking precious air from animals and give the worms something to eat. If you are so right about your belief on humans everyone else will do the same. Start the trend, dont complain if you wont try to stop it.[/QUOTE]

You make a good point. But just because i could be right does not mean people know that. Most people are stupid (present company excluded of course) how will they know what is right an wrong? I view my spreading of opinion as a more memorable moment than a suicide article in the paper. If everyone in the world commited suicide, i would. so in short, my existance, will do more good than my death.
oh yah, and the referance to the worms and the animals, im no treehugger, more like a... humanstrangler.

I do believe that evolution is intentional. We dont just evolve because it is convient, there must be a major problem for our species and evolution is the answer. Though it takes generations, evolution is supposed to be necessary. I see the human race at the top of the food chain because if you name one animal in the whole world, chances are a human can kill it and eat it in some way. My last post was directed to the person who first created the thread, speaking of how bloodthirsty and how humans only drain the environment and if he/she had the choice they would exterminate the humanrace. And yes i know, my opinions are very stubborn and ignorant.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]To whom and to what questions is this directed towards? Is it supposed to be a joke? Why do you suddenly start talking about mankind being evil and suggest people should kill themselves? Nobody in this thread has posted anything that is in connection with your statements, so your posts appears to be quite confused and concern a different topic than what is discussed here. Are you reading the posts or are you answering to your own thoughts or feelings?



.[/QUOTE]
that would be directed to my first post, heh. The subject sure has changed since the begining.

@CopperWater: To avoid confusion and misunderstanding, people at this forum usually tell who they are adressing their posts to either by quoting and replying, or by addressing them as I did here, with @NN.

CopperWater]I do believe that evolution is intentional. We dont just evolve because it is convient wrote:
Evolution is adaptation to changes in the environment, and such accumulated changes exist in all species.

I see the human race at the top of the food chain because if you name one animal in the whole world, chances are a human can kill it and eat it in some way.

Ok, so "top of the food chain" according to you is a matter of the power to kill and eat another species. Is that also equal to "best"? Is a human who can kill and eat another human better than that other human? Does this give human No1 special rights to kill other humans?

And yes i know, my opinions are very stubborn and ignorant.

Just out of curiosity, can you tell us how you come to the conclusion you draw regarding a certain topic, when you are aware of being very ignorant about that particular topic? Also, what is the meaning, value and point with having opinions when they are founded on ignorace?

[QUOTE=C Elegans]

Just out of curiosity, can you tell us how you come to the conclusion to draw regarding a certain topic, when you are aware of being very ignorant about that particular topic? Also, what is the meaning, value and point with having opinions when they are founded on ignorace?[/QUOTE]

I think this is a common trait among the average man/woman. Its called self-doubt. I dont mean to single him out but water was doubting himself. Just like someone claiming they cant paint well, that way they wont be dissapointed, or hurt. This sounds all sappy, though is most likely subconcious for water.