Any human supremacists out there?

Cool. You go first. :stuck_out_tongue:

I’m a “people first” person. And I disagree totally that this goes hand in hand with the destruction of earth’s ecosystems. If mankind chooses to ignore the death of earth’s ecosystems, eventually we’ll find ourselves against the wall. We’ll either drop to a fraction of our former population level, or be wiped out altogether. Therefore, I do not consider that to be a “people first” strategy. That’s more of a “ME first” strategy (insert wry political joke here.)
However, this does not mean I support the nutters who think we should all revert to subsistence living and caveman technologies. The earth is amazing resilient. Innumerable ice ages, meteor hits, “warm ages”, earthquakes and several major human empires have barely managed to kill off major numbers of species, let alone destroy life on earth itself. I think Earth can take very good care of herself, personally. Humans aren’t going to be the last species on earth, and whatever’s left will adapt, multiply, evolve and thrive.

Not really…its an unlikely scenerio in the extreme. But, for the sake of arguement I’ll just say that at least we’d be the last to go. :stuck_out_tongue: To be honest, any other choice seems a bit nuts to me. If its a choice between humans (and note I’m talking about the human SPECIES here, not individual members of the species) and anything else, what would be the point (to our species) of any other choice?

You figure the Labrador Puppies or our Cetacean overlords, if given the choice, would opt for extinction to allow us nice humans to carry on? :wink:

Its unlikely to ever OCCUR. Even if humans push our environment over the cliff and end up wiping ourselves out (something I find highly unlikely…YMMV)…well, the earth has been in worse straights before and eventually life will recover. There have been extinction events that run into the high 90 percentile…and all without our help in doing the deed.

And in the long run, what difference does it make unless HUMANS do something? Because guess what? Even if we all become species sacrificing tree huggers, putting the needs of the labradors and spotted tree frogs and grey squirels above our own, eventually THIS PLANET WILL DIE…with or without our input. The only hope for terrestrial species is human kind my friend. Its only if HUMANS, those nasty hominids who have expanded like a plague throughout the earth, its only if THEY with their large brains and curious nature push out beyond the bounds of this rock and manage to somehow beat the odds and colonize other planets…its only then that earths version of life has any chance at all in continueing. So yeah…I’m kind of a homo sapient fanatic when it comes to us vs them. :stuck_out_tongue:
To be serious for just a moment (I’ll try anyway), we are talking about extremes here…humans vs everything else. Its just not likely to come to that. Humans as a species value other life forms on this planet…and not JUST for food. So, anyone talking about such an extreme and extremely unlikely scenerio as its either humans or everything else is being a bit ridiculous IMHO. However, if we WERE in that situation where it was humans or everything else I’d certainly choose humans. If I didn’t I’d be a bit of a extremely wacked out human…one who is an evolutionary anomoly. After all, species survival IS our primary programming in the end…no?

My loyalty would be to life first, Humanity second. So if Humanity could keep going for another century, but the cost was the distruction of all life then I would rather see Humanity die out and life remain. I would also be for seeding other planets with DNA based bacterial lifeforms if interstellar travel was not possible for more complex life forms like Humans. (if for instance it took >1000 years to get to a star system it would make little sense for Humanity to go there in person). But to value any individual or group of lifeforms, then Humanity is of the highest value in my view. Even should another inteligent lifeform be discovered/created I think as Humans we should support Humans above that life form as a genetic perogative to support our own species.

I’m not sure “missionaries converting infidels” are really concerend with the survival of the species.

False dichotomy. Unless you have access to

(a) Terraforming equipment capable to making Venus and/or Mars suitable for human life, or

(b) an FTL drive capable of moving an ark to an Earthlike planet in another star system (along with the location of such a planet), or
(c) genetic engineering tech that could make humans capable of surviving on Venus or Mars

you can’t choose between Earth and humanity. This is, after all, where we keep all our stuff. (Like oxygen.)

What does it mean when you only have extreme feelings for people you know and love?

If by some chance, I had to choose for my child to die or for all of China to get annihilated by nukes, I wouldn’t hesitate pushing the button myself. I would probably say that for my cousins as well and would really be tempted to choose my 10 year old dog over 1 billion people that I don’t know but I would feel guilty enough not too (I would guess).

I have a special attraction towards certain people but no real bond with those that I don’t know.

Um…no its not. Unless you have access to either a crystal ball or a time machine that lets you read the future. Humans have orders of magnitude more chance of getting off this rock to other planets than, say, the average grey squirel population…no?

Yes? And? Because we don’t have it today it will never exist? And you know this…how?

Well, FTL is probably impossible (though there are perhaps some ‘short cut’ technology that could pan out a few centuries down the line). However, we don’t NEED FTL in order to get to other solar systems you know…just some method of hybernation/suspended animation. Not exactly an impossible technology. As to the location of other ‘earth like’ planets I fully expect to live long enough to see some…and I’m quite old. :wink:

Again not exactly beyond the realms of possibility…no? We certainly have a better chance than any OTHER life form we are aware of of perserving terrestrial life by transplanting it elsewhere.

As I said, its ridiculous to even ask the question…there is no NEED to choose as humans aren’t bent on total ecological destruction of all other life forms on the planet. I agree that humans can’t exist in a vaccume. When talking of a choice between humans and every other life form I should have used the tongue in cheek smiley…but I can’t seem to find it.


[Moderator Underoos On]Please try to remember that this is a poll and not a debate. Thank you.[/Moderator Underoos On]

Oh… :smack: ‘Remember’ is the wrong word in my case unfortunately. Apologies…


Hard to put the toothpaste back in that tube, sir. The question as asked just cries unto the heavens for qualification, caveats, disclaimers and accusations of being the wrong question.

And the OP text asks if a human-supremacist movement exists as such.

Answer: IMO, I don’t think there’s a specific cohesive “movement” alomg those lines, not as described in the OP and in the further clarification by the author. However there are many who surely believe in human comfort and benefit as A-1 priority; and some who believe that the human has been entrusted with unrestricted dominion, rather than accountable stewardship, over the rest of Creation; and some who feel survival of the species is a no-brainer evolutionary imperative – The difference is that I don’t think there is any “movement” where these become the primary reason-for-being, more like they are held collaterally to some other “greater” belief/ideology.

Thank you all for your participation. This thread has garnered a lot more responses than I anticipated.

I ought to clarify why I am asking about human supremacy or whatever you want to call it. My faith wavers. I have always been a rational, logical person. Some people just…flow with everything, accept their lack of control over things and enjoy the ride. This description might be inadequate because we all do this in one way or another.

I’m talking…emotionally, some people just act without concerning themselves with what other people might think of them, their reactions to their actions, etc. Some of them get away with it, some of them don’t. Yet some people worry a bit more about such things. Whether they want to be loved, admired, noticed, respected, accepted or some other thing, sometimes, things can be a bit frightening. It can range from an almost imperceptible and diffuse sense of worry to a full blow panic.

I’m fortunately closer to the “imperceptible and diffuse” side. Probably not far from average. So anyways, I guess I’m a bit of a natural philosopher (I am certainly not worthy of being called a scientist)and I guess the order brought by such things can be comforting. So different from the ultimate chaos that is life. That is why I’m a sucker for logic (just got a 103 out of 100 in my discrete math exam. Not that I’m claiming to be good in math. God no. I’m struggling with Calc 3). So anyways, what I’m getting at is that I am a rational, skeptical man and I question everything. Which is why I’ve been having a long faith-crisis. This prompted me to ask myself: If I stopped beleiving in God, what would be the most important cause that I could see myself serving. I can think of a few but they are all derivated from the most important of all : The survival of humanity.

And then I wondered if such people existed. Of course, most of us do in a fashion or another, but we do it indirectly, sometimes inadvertently. But what about people who would “cut straight to the chase” so to speak? I mean, it has got to be the cause that most of us resonate with, seeing as we’re living things and living things that live nowadays are, to quote Neal Stephenson “Stupendous badasses”. So, it seems to follow that most people who are looking for the greatest cause of all would come to the conclusion that they ought to be “human supremacists”.

PS: let’s not dwell on my faith crisis and keep this on topic.

I vacillate between being compassionate towards Homo sapiens above all, then being pissed off that sapiens might not be the proper descriptive term at all.

I truly love the multiple expression of The Real World, Nature, and have had a wonderful time of trying to understand plants and animals; it never ceases to amaze me in observation. Those intricacies can keep a mind occupied infinitely, yet go on their own course, just fine apart from our species.

At the same time, I love the mind that can appreciate that, and try to understand that, too: the best part of being human is our consciousness; our ability to reason, discern, appreciate, and create. I think that we human beings are a beautiful and complex expression of life on Earth.

I can’t be human supremacist, though, because it just does not make sense at all. We are welded to our biology, and that evolved in the Earth environment, with all it’s multiplicity of systems and creatures, so should preserve what has always allowed us to survive. To my mind, it seems very crazy to not have a healthy appreciation and understanding of that system: to learn it well, and to have a priority of cultivating, and not destroying it.

I’m probably as guilty as the next monkey, with my damned grasping opposable mental thumb , but trying to see other lifeforms as important as myself.

Well, I didn’t saying anything about destroying the world. Of course it’s in our interest not to. And what’s the point of living without kittens? Anyways, we would only destroy threats to our survival of course. Most if not all animals and plants are no threat. They have , for all intents and purposes, “bowed to us or been destroyed”. On the other hand, maybe we’d be better off if we eradicate aids or the flu. Or maybe that would leave us less able to deal with the next threat. That can all be debated and is not the focus of the core idea.

Care to refine your question into something else now? Maybe your findings on this thread have opened up a new avenue.
Either way, or another way, it’s probably just best to restate it for clarity’s sake.

It seems despite the Mods firm warning we are back to elaboration and, dare I say, debate? :wink:

/on the soap box, tongue in cheek

I’ve never really understood this attitude…despite the fact that my sister, her husband and many of her friends share it. Its like some folks (and perhaps this doesn’t include you elelle…I’m in venting mode atm :)) feel the need to belittle or put down mankind. Like it or not (and for some odd reason many of the more radical eco types don’t) we ARE the dominant life form on this planet. In addition we are (afawk anyway) the ONLY sentient species. That tends to make us special.

Throughout this history of our planet species have risen to become THE dominant species for their era. As we are today. However, none of THOSE species gave two shits (literally) for the environment, for other species, etc. They were driven solely by the need to survive, to breed…to propagate THEIR species. And through much of our history, sentient or not, we were the same. The difference is WE can appreciate this earth. We can understand our impact on it. We can forsee problems that may arise. We can appreciate other species as more than ‘competition’, ‘non-threat’ or ‘food’. Afawk we are the ONLY such species. Perhaps there are others out there in the great beyond…perhaps not. To date we don’t even know if there is other LIFE out there…let alone complex life, let alone highly complex life forms, let alone highly complex SENTIENT life forms.

That tends to make us special…as I said, perhaps unique. Certainly in this solar system. Perhaps in this galaxy. Who knows…maybe in the universe at this time…maybe for all time. We may never know one way or the other.

XT’s philosophy (FWIW) on this subject is: ALL life is special. Its rare and therefore precious. Complex life forms are even rarer (again, afawk at this time), and highly complex life forms rarer still. And sentience…well, to date thats unique to our species (with a few debatable exceptions) and to our species historical line. That makes us THE most special, precious thing we know of in the universe…a species alive and able to appreciate the universe. And to be guardians not only of THIS planet but of the universe itself (even if we never leave our solar system). It means (IMHO) that this special unique thing is THE most important thing in the universe…and thus should be protected and nurtured at all costs. We are criminally derilect if we DON’T do everything we can to preserve the human species…preserve and propagate and expand beyond this world.

This isn’t to say I advocate humans going forth and wrecking the planet…far from it. As I said, we are its gardians. However, the earth is OURS to use and preserve as we see fit. To save what can be saved, to cherish what is here to cherish…but always with the goal that human kind is THE most valuable thing that needs to be preserved.

I’m XT and I’m proud to be a human supremacist! :stuck_out_tongue: !!

/off the soap box and tongue firmly out of cheek


clap clap clap. Human power! :wink:

Hm, no. I just re-read the OP and it still stands. I am not opposed to the discussion of human supremacy’s validity, merit and whatnot though. Know yourself out!

I have read your post above mine carefully, and, then response: I’ll give you a bit of background, which I’ve posted previously here, hope it’s not tiring to others. I do think it pertinent to the topic.

I was raised by biologists, out in the field, observing the natural world, and taught scientific approach to understanding that world, taught the Latin names and classification, taught anatomy and physiology by my good professor stepfather: I am very grateful for that education; what it taught me was a very non-human centric approach to living. By that I mean not Homo Sapiens, and that’s what I thought you meant in your OP., so responded to that.
“And then I wondered if such people existed. Of course, most of us do in a fashion or another, but we do it indirectly, sometimes inadvertently. But what about people who would “cut straight to the chase” so to speak? I mean, it has got to be the cause that most of us resonate with, seeing as we’re living things and living things that live nowadays are, to quote Neal Stephenson “Stupendous badasses”. So, it seems to follow that most people who are looking for the greatest cause of all would come to the conclusion that they ought to be “human supremacists””

Well, yes, I love people as intricate, immeasurable , beautiful sorts. I love animals, and would go the extra mile to save them, but would go beyond that still for another person. If I saw a person in danger from an oncoming truck, I would honestly try to save them.

I don’t really understrand your “Human Supremacist” thought. Please help me get it.

I’ve tried to be as clear as possible. I think it might be the word “supremacist” that can warp the meaning I have in mind. all I mean by supremacist is that the supreme goal of a H.S to work towards human survival with all that it entails. This needs not conflict with ecological principles. It might even be better for the long term to exterminate 90% of the human population to save some species of mosquito which will have some future use and help the human species last longer.