The whole human race - if it's our extinction or theirs, I'd rather it be ours

[Czarcasm]

@What Exit?

You know what people like you trouble me. A completely useless junkie, that is probably more likely to kill another human than a tiger is worth more than all the Tigers left on Earth and you think featherlou has a problem. You scare me in your callousness. You scare me in your easy cruelty to animals.

Jim

Have you ever seen a tiger hunt?

[What_Exit]

@Czarcasm

Have you ever seen a tiger hunt?

Why do you ask? Do you mean in person or on TV? Do you mean people hunting tigers or tigers hunting prey that could include humans?

I have never seen a tiger hunt in person. Either type.

Jim

[RaftPeople]

@Max Torque

I would kill every remaining tiger on the planet by clubbing them to death with a pillowcase full of batteries to save the life of one junkie with AIDS.

I know all about people like you. Willing to waste perfectly good batteries.

[stretch]

@Max Torque

I would kill every remaining tiger on the planet by clubbing them to death with a pillowcase full of batteries to save the life of one junkie with AIDS.

People like you don’t trouble me; they scare the shit out of me.

IMO, human beings are not inherently valuable. We are just another animal on this rock and we are far more destructive than any beaver or ant colony or other animal that changes it’s environment to suit it’s own needs with no regard to others. If people think they are better than other animals, they should fucking well act like it.

[Czarcasm]

@stretch

People like you don’t trouble me; they scare the shit out of me.

IMO, human beings are not inherently valuable. We are just another animal on this rock and we are far more destructive than any beaver or ant colony or other animal that changes it’s environment to suit it’s own needs with no regard to others. If people think they are better than other animals, they should fucking well act like it.

IMHO, human beings are not inherently valueless. We are the equal of every other animal on this rock, but we are as destructive as some other species would be if they reached our state, but not half as destructive as other species would be if they were left unchecked. Our superiority lies in the fact that we are aware, at least partially, of our effect on this planet, and we try, sometimes, to act for the good of the planet. Which species would you rather be the superior? Which would you trust more than Mankind?

[Contrapuntal]

@featherlou

But no other species is engaging in mass extinctions of other species, either. We’re the only ones that can, and we’re the only ones that are.

This has me puzzled. What does “mass extinctions” mean? Extinction, by definition, means the death all of the species. Are you suggesting that humans are responsible for the extinction of a massive amount of species? Or that we kill species en masse?
It is worth noting that 99% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. It is the nature of the beast, so to speak.

[What_Exit]

@Contrapuntal

This has me puzzled. What does “mass extinctions” mean? Extinction, by definition, means the death all of the species. Are you suggesting that humans are responsible for the extinction of a massive amount of species? Or that we kill species en masse?
It is worth noting that 99% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. It is the nature of the beast, so to speak.

In the current 5000-10000 years or so of human civilization, the Earth has seen one of its larger mass extinctions of larger animals. Many species are gone or endangered. We have been the equivalent of a large impact or super volcano.

I am guessing strongly that this is what featherlou meant. Of course I read Green Peace and Sierra Club Magazines and newsletters, so feel free to take it with a grain of salt. Of course if you do some search of Science magazines like Scientific America, The New Scientist and Wired, you will probably find support for my statement.

Jim

[Alessan]

@What Exit?

You know what people like you trouble me. A completely useless junkie, that is probably more likely to kill another human than a tiger is worth more than all the Tigers left on Earth and you think featherlou has a problem. You scare me in your callousness. You scare me in your easy cruelty to animals.

Jim

People like you trouble me - people who assign value to others based upon their “use”. I’m pretty sure the junkie’s life is useful to himself. And tell me, what “use” is a tiger? Tigers are solitary creatures, so beyond breeding purposes, tigers are useless even to other tigers.

Besides, “use” is a human soncept. As are “good”, “bad”, “right” and “wrong”. You say we’re messing up this planet. Sure, we’re altering it, but who’s to say it’s for better or for worse? Only humans can make that distinction. We could completely eradicate life on the world and no-one would care - because caring is something only humans do.

Why is “life” better than any other form of matter? It’s all just atoms bumping into each other, anyway. The universe has no real “meaning” beyond what we sentient beings give it.

(For the record, let me add that I love nature, love most forms of wild animals, and strongly support preservation efforts. I don’t even pick wildflowers, for Gaia’s sake. We own this planet, and we should take good care of our property)

[straight_man]

The underlying question: what makes any given organism worth saving?

Should we base value on species survival? That seems like a warped misinterpretation of Darwinism – there is no inherent reason for a species’ survival to matter. (Feel free to name one, if you can think of one, but diversity isn’t a good answer.)

Should we base value on cuteness? Actually, I could get on board with that.

Should we base value on sentience? I am fairly certain a human is sentient. A tiger? Maybe.

Should we base value on life itself? Better not cough up them bacteria, then – it might kill them.

And I think it’s worth repeating – unless you would be willing to sacrifice your family to save that one tiger, you clearly do not believe what you claim to believe. Which is probably a good thing. Meanwhile, hand me the pillowcase and the batteries.

[Contrapuntal]

@What Exit?

In the current 5000-10000 years or so of human civilization, the Earth has seen one of its larger mass extinctions of larger animals. Many species are gone or endangered. We have been the equivalent of a large impact or super volcano.

I am guessing strongly that this is what featherlou meant. Of course I read Green Peace and Sierra Club Magazines and newsletters, so feel free to take it with a grain of salt. Of course if you do some search of Science magazines like Scientific America, The New Scientist and Wired, you will probably find support for my statement.

Jim

This was her opening statement, so I am unsure where you get the part about larger animals.  Bolding mine.

I was watching a show on conservation, extinctions, etc., and they raised an interesting point - do we, as a human race, put ourselves above every other organism on the planet, collectively? Is that how we look at things deep down in our guts - it’s us or them, and we have no intention of letting them win? We feel bad about killing off other species, but not bad enough to put their welfare above our own comforts.

I’m still not sure what mass extinction means. Does it refer to how many species are involved, or how many individuals constitute the species?

You’re in NJ, right? What are you doing awake?

[What_Exit]

@Alessan

People like you trouble me - people who assign value to others based upon their “use”. I’m pretty sure the junkie’s life is useful to himself. And tell me, what “use” is a tiger? Tigers are solitary creatures, so beyond breeding purposes, tigers are useless even to other tigers.

Besides, “use” is a human soncept. As are “good”, “bad”, “right” and “wrong”. You say we’re messing up this planet. Sure, we’re altering it, but who’s to say it’s for better or for worse? Only humans can make that distinction. We could completely eradicate life on the world and no-one would care - because caring is something only humans do.

Why is “life” better than any other form of matter? It’s all just atoms bumping into each other, anyway. The universe has no real “meaning” beyond what we sentient beings give it.
(For the record, let me add that I love nature, love most forms of wild animals, and strongly support preservation efforts. I don’t even pick wildflowers, for Gaia’s sake. We own this planet, and we should take good care of our property)

Wouldn’t it be rather nice and kind of us to leave some few natural treasures like Tigers for future generations? Seriously, do you ever think how sad it is that Europeans encountered the Steller’s Sea Cow in the Bering Straight in 1741 and hunted them to extinction by 1768.

This is what it comes down to for me. I do not know if you can agree with me, but maybe you can at least understand me.

Jim

[What_Exit]

@Contrapuntal

This was her opening statement, so I am unsure where you get the part about larger animals. Bolding mine.
I’m still not sure what mass extinction means. Does it refer to how many species are involved, or how many individuals constitute the species?

You’re in NJ, right? What are you doing awake?

I *think * she is repeating a commonly seen bit in environmental literature. Humans have caused a very large extinction of many different large vertebrates.

Yes, I am in NJ and I am an idiot for being awake.
I will go crash for a few hours soon and pay for this dearly in the morning.

Jim

[Uzi]

@What Exit?

Wouldn’t it be rather nice and kind of us to leave some few natural treasures like Tigers for future generations?

That’s why we have a zoo.

[Contrapuntal]

@What Exit?

I *think * she is repeating a commonly seen bit in environmental literature. Humans have caused a very large extinction of many different large vertebrates.

Well, she clearly refers to* every other species*. That seems to include the small as well as the large, and all the ones in between.

[Alessan]

@What Exit?

Wouldn’t it be rather nice and kind of us to leave some few natural treasures like Tigers for future generations? Seriously, do you ever think how sad it is that Europeans encountered the Steller’s Sea Cow in the Bering Straight in 1741 and hunted them to extinction by 1768.

This is what it comes down to for me. I do not know if you can agree with me, but maybe you can at least understand me.

Jim

Did you read my footnote? I agree with you. I think destroying species makes the world much less interesting and beautiful. However, I also believe that the terms “interesting” and “beautiful” are human inventions, and have no meaning without us being here to assign them.

[crowmanyclouds]

@Max Torque

“Important” in what sense? I can’t say I’ve ever read a learned philosophical treatise written by a tiger. …

[

It is an important and popular fact that things are not always what they seem.
For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much – the wheel, New York, wars and so on –
whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time.
But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man – for precisely the same reasons.

](http://www.phnet.fi/public/mamaa1/adams.htm)CMC fnord!

[straight_man]

@crowmanyclouds

Quote:
It is an important and popular fact that things are not always what they seem.
For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much – the wheel, New York, wars and so on –
whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time.
But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man – for precisely the same reasons.

You realize that’s satire, not a serious proposition. Satire.

[Mellivora_capensis]

@Q.E.D.

Not if I got to you first, you wouldn’t.

Stand in line, sunshine.

[Euthanasiast]

@Max Torque

“Important” in what sense? I can’t say I’ve ever read a learned philosophical treatise written by a tiger. Tigers may be important if you have spare hoofed mammals to kill off or if you want to watch something lick its own ass, but beyond that, they’re pretty useless. They eat, they shit, they make more tigers, and that’s it.

I would kill every remaining tiger on the planet by clubbing them to death with a pillowcase full of batteries to save the life of one junkie with AIDS.

People like you trouble me. Where’s this arbitrary line of what we’re supposed to save and what we’re supposed to not care about? Do we need to save the life of every chicken? How about jellyfish? Let’s say it comes down to the lives of an African village versus one endangered stinkbug, who wins?

What is it about tigers that makes them more deserving of life? Cuteness? Majesty? That’s about the most shallow reason imaginable to save another living thing. Hey, I have an idea! Let’s kill all the ugly people, since they’re using up too many resources, and then the pretty people can just stare at each other all day and enjoy their aesthetic specialness!

Since you seem to want to know how others feel about these things, here’s my take: we run the show. Humanely killing an animal is not in itself a morally wrong act. That being said, I believe that the needless killing of animals ought to be avoided, being that it is by definition “needless”. Still, even the lowliest human deserves more consideration than the brightest dolphin.

I’m tired, and I’m going to bed. I’ll take this on again tomorrow.

Max, just to let you know that I am with you 100%, aside from the paraphrase of Penn & Teller. I wouldn’t go out of my way to hurt or kill an animal, but if the choice is between a human and a chimp, then sorry Cocoa, it’s been fun signing with you.

That’s where some members of this board derail in their collective intelligence with Amtrak-like regularity. The animals that they are so hell bent on projecting cuteness and morality into are, in the end, just animals. And if you’ve ever seen a cat toying with a mouse before killing it, you’d understand that it’s best that humans are the dominant species on the planet as we are the only species capable of compassion for other species.

If you value your cat or your dog more than you value a human life, I think that indicates that you are either socially inept to the point that it has crippled your thinking and you are left projecting a false love you think your pets have for you in substitution of the lack of love from mom and dad, or you simply just missed a few too many hugs growing up. Yeah, it’s a broad brush stroke, to be sure, but sometimes you have to spotlight absurdity by being a little absurd.

I guarantee you that there are members on this board that would see their infant child slaughtered to save five hundred house cats. That’s fucked up.

[Epimetheus]

I wouldn’t say I am for Homo Sapiens specifically, but I am all for Sapient creatures over a bunch of animals and plants. If I had to kill a bunch of owls to save some humans, or hell, even make some humans lives better or more comfortable, I would sacrifice those owls in a heartbeat.

I like animals, think they are cute and server a purpose. I don’t put their purpose over my fellow human beings though.

Mind you, I don’t recommend going around indiscriminately killing non-sapient creatures for no reason, and working to not wipe out a species is usually a good idea, but when it comes down to it, I pick the human over the toadstool.