Are we worth saving?

[Delta4Embassy]

Human beings are the first and only species this planet has created capable of destroying the planet or at least killing everything on it ensuring no new species come about. When invasive animal species invade an area (Australia say) they're called invasive species and designated a 'killable.' The local area has no natural predators to deal with the invasive species, no natural resistance to venoms or other things, and basicly the invasive species dominates and destroys everything else.

Are humans an invasive species for the Earth? We've created nuclear weapons, are dabbling in genetic engineering, and the most violent and murderous animal this planet has ever seen.

Is working to ensure the continuation of the human species morally right or wrong?

 

[midcan5]

Not too long ago I was re-reading some of Kurt Vonnegut's non-fiction writing and he mentions in 'A Man without a Country' how people today appear not to think about the world they will leave their grandchildren. Found that thought interesting, did they ever I wonder? During brief periods of progress maybe, but on the whole people live in the present and the present includes personal comfort. If humans become extinct some future conscious being will study us as we study the dinosaurs, what will they think happened. Millions of years from now is too deep a thought for a creature who is lucky to live a hundred.

"Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them." Tony Judt 'Ill Fares the Land'

"It is not enough to ask, Will my act harm other people? Even if the answer is No, my act may still be wrong, because of its effects on other people. I should ask, Will my act be one of a set of acts that will together harm other people? The answer may be Yes. And the harm to others may be great." Derek Parfit 'Reasons and Persons (1984)

 

[G.T.]

Are we worth saving? What a piece ofnshit question.

Humans are if more value than an inanimate rock. Thanks.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers." - Babylon 5

 

[G.T.]

Not too long ago I was re-reading some of Kurt Vonnegut's non-fiction writing and he mentions in 'A Man without a Country' how people today appear not to think about the world they will leave their grandchildren. Found that thought interesting, did they ever I wonder? During brief periods of progress maybe, but on the whole people live in the present and the present includes personal comfort. If humans become extinct some future conscious being will study us as we study the dinosaurs, what will they think happened. Millions of years from now is too deep a thought for a creature who is lucky to live a hundred.

"Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them." Tony Judt 'Ill Fares the Land'

"It is not enough to ask, Will my act harm other people? Even if the answer is No, my act may still be wrong, because of its effects on other people. I should ask, Will my act be one of a set of acts that will together harm other people? The answer may be Yes. And the harm to others may be great." Derek Parfit 'Reasons and Persons (1984)

I wholly disagree wth that tony quote.

I dunno who he pals around with, but all my friends and family are good people, precious creatures.

Humanity-hating nihilists rest their entire philosophy on a projection from their narcissistic minds, and lack of real world adventure. - g.t. genius tracks

 

[G.T.]

Dont worry delta, ill never let you ill found adolescent theories stand without being destroyed so very easily by the logic they lack.

 

[AVG-JOE]

What if everything from the systematic annannihilation of our Neanderthal cousins to the development of nuclear weapons is perfectly natural in the course of the Evolution of Sentience?

Baby steps to the Stars, Baby!

 

[there4eyeM]

"Worth" is a human concept. There is no "worth" 'out there', in the universe. It's inside humans.
Humans are the source of all worth and value.
Humans decide if humans are worth saving. If even one person says yes, it's true.

 

[G.T.]

What if everything from the systematic annannihilation of our Neanderthal cousins to the development of nuclear weapons is perfectly natural in the course of the Evolution of Sentience?

Baby steps to the Stars, Baby!

Exactly. These self defeating nihilists must run in brutal circles.

When i go outside, i see vibrant smiles. My children playing, caring for animals, caring for each other.

When i see the summer camps in the adirondaks where teens volunteer to help give the disabled fun summers...

The heart surgeon who cant sleep for weeks if he loses a life....



I think to myself: all these nihilists need to do, is go ahead and take in lifes experiences to see.....but they just sit in their musty assed hotel like apartments with stretch necked shirts just pretending to know something about everything, meanwhile blind to their own dunce cap level ignorance.


Are we worth saving? If you dont think so, go ahead and off yourself and get our extinction started, tool.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

What if everything from the systematic annannihilation of our Neanderthal cousins to the development of nuclear weapons is perfectly natural in the course of the Evolution of Sentience?

Baby steps to the Stars, Baby!

Part of the Drake equation if not mistaken. Time. Time a species exists before it destroys itself. For a species to develop technology and space travel, they probably develop nuclear weapons along the way and other things.

 

[amrchaos]

"Is that which nature creates a part of nature or "unnatural"
Is What man creates a part of nature or "unnatural"
Is man a creation of nature?"

simple stuff, we humans are so arrogant that we forget what we are.

Maybe we humans are not suppose to think about the future generation?

Maybe we humans are just a temporary tool of nature that will self-destruct after serving our 'purpose'.

Maybe we humans do not have any actual value, all the value we think we have are just delusional concepts we happily deceive ourselves with.

Maybe this thread is not as bad as I thought because I am able to form some crazy and disturbing questions from it?

 

[G.T.]

"Is that which nature creates a part of nature or "unnatural"
Is What man creates a part of nature or "unnatural"
Is man a creation of nature?"

simple stuff, we humans are so arrogant that we forget what we are.

Maybe we humans are not suppose to think about the future generation?

Maybe we humans are just a temporary tool of nature that will self-destruct after serving our 'purpose'.

Maybe we humans do not have any actual value, all the value we think we have are just delusional concepts we happily deceive ourselves with.

Maybe this thread is not as bad as I thought because I am able to form some crazy and disturbing questions from it?

Your questions all assume a sentient Universe employing a purpose to "nature," as opposed to nature being an aimless, not conscious force.

And value, itself, is an animalistic concept. Value is determined by the observor, and its/his/her opinion.........so to say humans do or dont have value is a matter of opinion - the opinion of thinking creatures, not of the non thinking processes of nature or the Universe.

 

[amrchaos]

"Is that which nature creates a part of nature or "unnatural"
Is What man creates a part of nature or "unnatural"
Is man a creation of nature?"

simple stuff, we humans are so arrogant that we forget what we are.

Maybe we humans are not suppose to think about the future generation?

Maybe we humans are just a temporary tool of nature that will self-destruct after serving our 'purpose'.

Maybe we humans do not have any actual value, all the value we think we have are just delusional concepts we happily deceive ourselves with.

Maybe this thread is not as bad as I thought because I am able to form some crazy and disturbing questions from it?

Your questions all assume a sentient Universe employing a purpose to "nature," as opposed to nature being an aimless, not conscious force.

And value, itself, is an animalistic concept. Value is determined by the observor, and its/his/her opinion.........so to say humans do or dont have value is a matter of opinion - the opinion of thinking creatures, not of the non thinking processes of nature or the Universe.

I guess you do have a point in the "assuming natures/Universes sentient" part

So let us try to phrase it differently--Are we just part of a natural process that is only to serve a temporary function and later phased out like the appendix?
(I may need to rephrase it)

I'll leave the last question as is. Trying to get a human not to entertain animalistic concepts is like telling a human not to act like an animal.

Uhmm--that did not sound right?

 

[amrchaos]

"Is that which nature creates a part of nature or "unnatural"
Is What man creates a part of nature or "unnatural"
Is man a creation of nature?"

simple stuff, we humans are so arrogant that we forget what we are.

Maybe we humans are not suppose to think about the future generation?

Maybe we humans are just a temporary tool of nature that will self-destruct after serving our 'purpose'.

Maybe we humans do not have any actual value, all the value we think we have are just delusional concepts we happily deceive ourselves with.

Maybe this thread is not as bad as I thought because I am able to form some crazy and disturbing questions from it?

Your questions all assume a sentient Universe employing a purpose to "nature," as opposed to nature being an aimless, not conscious force.

And value, itself, is an animalistic concept. Value is determined by the observor, and its/his/her opinion.........so to say humans do or dont have value is a matter of opinion - the opinion of thinking creatures, not of the non thinking processes of nature or the Universe.

I guess you do have a point in the "assuming natures/Universes sentient" part

So let us try to phrase it differently--Are we just part of a natural process that is only to serve a temporary function and later phased out like the appendix?
(I may need to rephrase it)

I'll leave the last question as is. Trying to get a human not to entertain animalistic concepts is like telling a human not to act like an animal.

Uhmm--that did not sound right?

Edit--

I forgot the first three questions!!

create to produce, bring forth, damn--comes about in nature.

OK--I really need to clean that up. All to get to the point that man is a product of nature and what we do is "natural"--Be it detrimental to other species, environment or not.

 

[Avatar4321]

God obviously thinks so. He believed it enough that He suffered so much that He bled at every pore.

 

[BluePhantom]

Human beings are the first and only species this planet has created capable of destroying the planet or at least killing everything on it ensuring no new species come about. When invasive animal species invade an area (Australia say) they're called invasive species and designated a 'killable.' The local area has no natural predators to deal with the invasive species, no natural resistance to venoms or other things, and basicly the invasive species dominates and destroys everything else.

Are humans an invasive species for the Earth? We've created nuclear weapons, are dabbling in genetic engineering, and the most violent and murderous animal this planet has ever seen.

Is working to ensure the continuation of the human species morally right or wrong?

You might want to have a better look at nature. Cheetahs kill gazelles, a lioness steals the gazelle from the cheetah, a pack of hyenas steal the gazelle from the lioness. Lions kill leopards, but do not eat them. They do so to eliminate another predator and reduce the competition in its territory. Primates fight each other in packs to take territory from another family. Orcas sometimes kill for absolutely no reason at all (orcas can really be dicks). Killing, theft, and war are all over the place in nature. We are no more violent and murderous than any other predatory species. We are just better at it.

 

[there4eyeM]

Humans are the only violent or murderous species. Those terms are subjective adjectives applying strictly to human determination. We see something as violent. That something is only what it is, an event in the universe to be perceived and interpreted in the mind of man. Animals don't murder, though they may kill.

 

[amrchaos]

What are we being saved from anyway?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

What are we being saved from anyway?

One wonders looking at this thread. Salvation from nihilistic apocalypse and the ultimate salvation of one's soul are two very different topics. Being as this thread seems to discuss the former, not the latter, it's in the wrong section.

 

[BluePhantom]

Humans are the only violent or murderous species. Those terms are subjective adjectives applying strictly to human determination. We see something as violent. That something is only what it is, an event in the universe to be perceived and interpreted in the mind of man. Animals don't murder, though they may kill.

Have you ever seen nature programs where orcas are shown killing calves from other whale species? They really like to kill humpbacks even though they are not in competition for food. The orcas drown them and sometimes throw their dead bodies through the air like a cat playing with a mouse. Sometimes the play games with the corpse and throw it back and forth between them. Then they tear them up and then leave them. If they eat them at all (which they usually don't) it's one or two bites and they leave the calf to sink to the bottom of the ocean. So they are not killing for food (because they don't eat it), they are not killing to eliminate a competitor for food (orcas and humpbacks eat totally different things), they are not killing in self-defense (because the humpbacks don't do anything to the orcas that would be aggressive)....they're killing for fun. They are doing it for shits and giggles. Now I don't know any other way to characterize that, but among humans we call that "murder".