I would use the words humanist or humanitarian but they both mean something else.
Human supremacist means exactly that, people whose primary loyalties lie with the survival of our species. If necessary to the expense of everything else. People often try to serve a cause greater than themselves. Whether it is guerrillas fighting for freedom, missionaries converting infidels, doctors without frontiers or good cops trying to take a bite out of crime, we glorify personal sacrifices for the greater good. Just like an ant might sacrifice itself for the greater good of the colony.
My question is: is there a movement that is solely dedicated to the survival of our species without any moral, ideological strings attached. Something like : THE HUMAN RACE SHALL PREVAIL! BOW BEFORE MANKIND OR BE DESTROYED!
This list shall be useful to me and my Cetacean brethren. Yes, foolish primates, reveal yourselves! You shall be first up against the coral when the revolution comes…
Yep. Count me as one of those “people-first” nutters. As much as possible, protect other life-forms. But when it comes to the crunch, monkey-boys first.
Well, I don’t think it’s quite what you mean, but I think human beings have responsibilities towards other humans that supercede other ethical considerations towards other species.
For example, I support the use of animals in medical research. The possibility of curing human diseases trumps the ethical obligation to not cause suffering.
Well, don’t most people agree with that statement? I mean, I don’t think there are many people who think that animals are better than people or that you should put animals’ well being over peoples.
I thought the OP was referring to a more extreme position that advocates sacrificing everything else - certainly nature, if necessary some number of individual humans - as long as it is seen as beneficial for the survival of humanity, even if it could be avoided without immediate problems.
I’m one of them. See this article by Hugo de Garis. I didn’t get my ideas from him, but mine and his mesh up quite nicely. I’m a Terran, though – it would be a shame to have to try to assassinate him if his research into AI ever got seriously moving.
I would not put myself in that camp. If it came down to humanity v. Earth, I would choose Earth. I don’t know if I could place a solid reason behind it for doing so, but that’s the choice I’d make.
Plus I’ve lived with enough cats to know human ain’t that supreme.
Old bumbersticker: Save the whales … collect the whole set.
I’m another of those humanist nutters, as silenus says.
I seriously have never gotten this attitude. Granted, I hope its never a choice between either having humans or the earth but…if it WERE a choice I’d choose humans any day (and twice on sunday). YMMV.
But…it’s not like we live in a vacuum, which just happens to have a few plants and animals hanging around. Earth is a complex eco-system, so, in the end preserving our environment and trying not to make other species extinct will help us not to become extinct.
I mean, worrying about melting ice-caps and de-forestation isn’t just about aving penguins and amazonian birds, it’s about realising that we are bettter off if we can live above sea-level and breathe the air!
So yes, I’m all for animal testing (if it’s humane as possible) and have no problem eating meat (but not battery-farmed eggs), but I think that sometimes you need to look at the big picture, which means putting human need for a new shopping mall or oil-drilling platform second to the human need to still be around in a few millenia.
Part of being the at the top of the tree, and sentient means that we have a responsibility to look after the planet and preserve our environment. I don’t want to live in a wasteland devoid of everyother non-human life-form, just because we could (which, BTW we can’t).
But, if you automatically choose humans over the earth, no matter the specifics of the argument, aren’t you either actually or, if not that, maybe more importantly, eventually condemning the humans as well?
Do you never see any eventuality whatsoever that might force the question? Or is it just so unlikely to have to be answered in our lifetime, the question is rather irrelevant? Even so, do you see it entirely outside the realm of possibilities our descendants will never have to answer that question?
(Note: I’m more than willing to be told I’m way off base, I’d like to hear the arguments. I had a couple thoughts I almost posted, but I’d almost rather wait to be told I’m way off base to elaborate. I’ve been in a weird, fatalistic mood this last week or two, and I worry it might be clouding my arguments/thought processes. Also note I’ve not decided where I ultimately stand on that question. I just think there’s quite alot of variables that preclude siding with either “side” as a foregone conclusion. Or possibly, it’s the “attempting to quit smoking and turning 34 in the same weekend” that’s turned me off humanity in general. I’ll let you know in a week or two )
Also, because the good old Earth is such an ecosystem and everything depends on everything in some way, shape or form (food cycles, for example), isn’t it possible that humans are no more important than any other bit of life? Of course, we can argue that we are, you know, because we’re biased towards wanting to life. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that. What would be wrong is to guarantee our survival over every other living thing. A world in which there is ONLY humans is no world in which i want to live.
We can get another planet but not another human race. In a pinch, I officially cast my vote against the mudball circling the sun and its untrustworthy non-human inhabitants.
