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

The BBQ Pit
101

[QUOTE=featherlou]

I think the “fucking psychopath” is the guy/guys who decide that profits are more important than clean air and rivers. That to me is truly psychopathic (actually, it’s more sociopathic - doing as you please with no concern for consequences for anybody else).
[/QUOTE]

I fully agree these people need to be fined, jailed, thrown out of business, whatever, but tortured and killed? Uh, anybody that advocates that extreme sort of action is psychotic. Just as Psychotic as those that go around torturing and killing squirrels.

102

[QUOTE=foolsguinea]
The problems with your position, col_10022, are threefold:
[/QUOTE]

I was responding to the idea that Humans are no more special than any other species and deserve no more consideration that housecats. We are an amazing species.

You sound like you’ve read Mote in God’s Eye one too many times.

At some point there was only one multcellular organism, at some point there was only one species of mammal, there was only one species of primate. Things evolve to fill ecological niches.

Matter cannot be created or destroyed, so at the very least you will be jetting across the universe in the form of pure energy.

Otters only claim to have cool lives and only the psyocotic fucks actually believe them; everyone knows that the life of an otter is no better than that of any other animal that can lick its own genitals (you wonder how these species ever propogate (or why they ever leave the house)) but otters try to convince you that their broad tails and large bucked teeth make their genital licking more pleasurable the gential licking of others. You sick fuck. :cool:

103

Wow, I have so many questions. Here are some of them.

First, why is this in the Pit? This is a serious question. I’m still pretty new here and I don’t understand why some issues go here and others don’t. So far, there hasn’t been an enormous amount of swearing or contention. So it kinda seems like a debate. But since it’s in the Pit, it doesn’t seem like people are required to cite their assertions, which just makes this more like a discussion of differing opinions with neither side having more persuasive power. Kinda like a discussion about which kind of ice cream one likes better. But then that could be in IMHO. So anyway, I’m confused why this is here.

Then on to the OP, it’s not really clear to me what you’re trying to protect. Are you only concerned about endangered species? And if you classify something as endangered, how many does that require? Why is it important to protect these species? Is it about species diversification? If we diversified by breeding more kinds of species, would that be helpful?

Or are you talking about the sanctity of life? Is every ant and mosquito’s life worth a human baby’s life? And these are real life questions. With West Nile virus, should we stop killing mosquitoes while increasing the chance that humans can get West Nile virus? If there was an red ant hill in your baby’s play area, would you leave these ants alone even if your baby could die from too many red ant bites?

Does the preservation of animal life extend to animals that are bred for consumption like cows and chickens? Are you advocating that all people should become vegans?

If you’re talking about ALL life, does that include plant life as well? And others have talked about algae and bacteria and the like. Are these included in the mix? If humans can’t eat plants or animals (even those bred for consumption), how would we have the possibility of survival?

Why is there an emphasis on living things? How about resources like sunshine, bodies of water, mountains, etc? Are they on the list of things to be preserved? If it came down to a choice between animals and a natural resource, which one would win out? (You may point out that this is a false dichotomy; I would point out that so is your thread title)

And then after all that, this totally threw me for a loop:

How could we be concerned with the extinction of humanity when you said that you’d rather the animals survive instead of us? If we’re keeping the animals alive for our purposes rather than solely for the sake of the animals themselves living, that’s a whole different question.

104

No, that’s beavers. :smiley:

Hey, I have a bit of the “Death of a Thousand Cuts” theory of lawmaking in me yet. Seeing what environmental damage looks like brings that out.

And I’m amused that when people want to justify their short-term comfort, they leap to ultimate-long-term nothing-really-matters bullshit as if there were no intermediate scales.

105

[QUOTE=Heffalump and Roo]
Why is there an emphasis on living things? How about resources like sunshine, bodies of water, mountains, etc? Are they on the list of things to be preserved? If it came down to a choice between animals and a natural resource, which one would win out? (You may point out that this is a false dichotomy; I would point out that so is your thread title)
[/quote]
I can’t speak for other conservationists. We’re an incoherent bunch.

For me, it’s not the living things as individuals. That’s the fallacy of Jainism.

It really is the places, including living & nonliving elements both.

106

Many of these points are discussed on the website of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

To forestall some knee-jerk reactions, note the first word in the name. They aren’t endorsing murder or mass suicide, but rather a voluntary cessation of human reproduction.

107

[QUOTE=foolsguinea]
I can’t speak for other conservationists. We’re an incoherent bunch.

For me, it’s not the living things as individuals. That’s the fallacy of Jainism.

It really is the places, including living & nonliving elements both.
[/QUOTE]

OK, but then wouldn’t that seem to contra-indicate the OP’s solution? (I don’t remember if you were in favor of the OP’s solution which I’m going to make extreme as the extinction of human life to continue the point.) If both living and non-living things are valued, and since humans are the only beings to be able to think about the future, wouldn’t it be more advantageous to have humans around to at least try to forestall potential imbalances in nature that could destroy both the living and non-living elements?

Or are you saying that without humans, nature would become in total balance and the extinction of further species would not happen? What is the evidence for this? I seem to remember a couple cases where one type of animal or insect was destroying crops or something and then scientists unleashed another animal that reduced the harmful animal or insect. If left unchecked, wouldn’t it be more likely that whole crops or resources could be destroyed by these imbalances?

From my quick perusal, the points seem less discussed than assertions given. Perhaps you can find the answers that I was unable to find.

Here’s one:

[

They’re saying that the good is the same good as before humans existed. And what “good” is that? I couldn’t find that answered.

Here’s another:

[

And what is the point of this diversity? What’s the “good”?

What’s the evidence that there would be a “massive die-off”? Are they extrapolating from an animal population boom to a human one?

108

[QUOTE=Heffalump and Roo]
Or are you saying that without humans, nature would become in total balance and the extinction of further species would not happen? What is the evidence for this? I seem to remember a couple cases where one type of animal or insect was destroying crops or something and then scientists unleashed another animal that reduced the harmful animal or insect. If left unchecked, wouldn’t it be more likely that whole crops or resources could be destroyed by these imbalances?
[/QUOTE]
What? No, of course not. I thought that when I was 14. I’ve learned a lot since then. Now I argue with people who think man has no responsibility of stewardship.

109

[QUOTE=foolsguinea]
What? No, of course not. I thought that when I was 14. I’ve learned a lot since then. Now I argue with people who think man has no responsibility of stewardship.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure which question you’re answering here, but you seem to be saying that you disagree with the OP that human extinction would be preferable to animal extinction with the words you linked to since humans need to be around to provide the stewardship:

110

Well, yeah. But I sympathize with the OP. As I said, I thought that way for a long time. I still feel that way, to an extent, but I realize that it just won’t work.

111

Oneday not far from now when the Earth is only host to humans, cows, sheep, pigs, camels, oxen, dogs, cats, chickens, ducks (and assorted pets) we will smile smugly and believe all is well.

BUT we still have our constant companions BUGS. We can cheerfully not give a shit about every other mammilian, reptilian, fishy species on the planet. We can eat them all…devour the last cow, sheep and pig but at the end of the day we will lose to the ulitimate survivou…the insect.

They were here before us and they (alone) seem to be not affected by us. Oneday the Earth will be bug central. They may not be more intelligent but they definitley have better survivor skills…will they mourn our loss?

112

I debated about putting this in IMHO or Great Debates, and decided on putting it here, because I was aware that my opinions would not be popular, and I wanted people to be able to express fully how disgusted they were by them. Also, Great Debates sucks, and I didn’t want to post this there and have the life drained out of it by the anal-retentive life-suckers there.

I’m not trying to protect anything, or offer any solutions. I’m just saying that if humans beings manage to make every other living thing on the planet go extinct, then we’re the ones who truly deserve to be extinct.

113

[QUOTE=Uzi]
Unless you are willing to sacrifice your family members, or other people you care about vs. some unknown Indian village then why should they die for your warped priorities?
[/QUOTE]

But the point is, we are already quite willing to kill off said Indian village.

We’ll do it for a few percentage points of corporate profit: Bhopal.

We’ll do it for political control of territory: Kashmir

We’ll do it to religious enemies: Anti-Sikh Riots

We’ll do it rather than share our own wealth and comfort: famine in India

So you see, collectively and individually, we are already quite used to killing that unknown Indian village. We do it all the time, for fairly minor reasons.

Surely you’re not claiming from some moral high ground that you/your society would never kill said unknown Indian village – that human life is sacred in some special way – because if you are, you’re either willfully ignoring how we actually behave, or just not thinking it through.

In that light, are tigers – their mystery and power, their beauty and danger, their irreplaceable genetic uniqueness – worth so much less than, let’s say, a few hundred bags of grain, that you’d let the village starve (as we have already done) but still not lift a finger to save the tigers?

Sailboat

114

[QUOTE=Sailboat]
But the point is, we are already quite willing to kill off said Indian village.
[/QUOTE]

So, in addition to the reasons you’ve posted we should add ‘killed to save the tigers’ to the list? Sure, why not. Just another reason why we need to get off this planet and leave it to the likes of you (and those who kill for religious, territorial, business, and all the other assorted other insane reasons).

115

It’s fun that we sit here using our high speed internet access and talk about over population in the world. I’m stealing this argument from P.J. O’Rourke, not because I agree with all he says, but because I think he has a valid point: Why do we always talk about over population and we are always talking baout those [del]brown[/del] people in the developing world, never about people in Monaco, Holland or New Jersey.

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
I agree, but most of us seem to be suggesting that we reduce or at least slow our population growth, not sacrifice those already alive. I know that is what I said.
[/QUOTE]

Since the U.S. with about 5 per cent of the world’s population, consumes about half the world’s energy, maybe the first step is not to reduce population growth, but look for a way to lessen our impact on the world. The best way to start would be the U.S. closely followed by Japan, the EU, India and China. It’s simply not the number of people, it’s what those people do.
As for the “animals are equal to humans”… That whole thing disturbs me in a serious way. I like a lot (but not all) animals and love my pooch, but wouldn’t mourn one bit if the malaria mosquito went extinct tomorrow, seeing how it kills 1 - 3 million people a year.

But mostly, I think it’s anti humanistic to place animals as equals to humans, and with the risk of Godwinizing this thread, I want to point out that Nazi Germany was the first country in the world to legislate animal rights in our modern sense of the words:
[QUOTE=R.O.Schmidt, Die Weisse Fahne 14 (1933)]
Among all civilized nations, Germany is thus the first to put an end to the cultural shame of vivisection! The New Germany not only frees man from the curse of materialism, sadism, and cultural Bolshevism, but gives the cruelly persecuted, tortured, and until now, wholly defenseless animals their rights { Recht }. Animal friends and anti-vivisectionists of all states will joyfully welcome this action of the National Socialist government of the New Germany!
[/QUOTE]

Link to the law.

[QUOTE=wikipedia]
In Nazi Germany, one of the first acts of the new regime was to enact animal protection laws
[/QUOTE]
Link.

Another cite.

I’m **not ** saying that the animal lovers of this thread are Nazis.

116

[QUOTE=Charlie Tan]
It’s fun that we sit here using our high speed internet access and talk about over population in the world. I’m stealing this argument from P.J. O’Rourke, not because I agree with all he says, but because I think he has a valid point: Why do we always talk about over population and we are always talking baout those [del]brown[/del] people in the developing world, never about people in Monaco, Holland or New Jersey.<snip>
[/QUOTE]

This sounds kind of disingenuous to me - we talk about overpopulation in developing worlds rather than New Jersey because that’s where the overpopulation (and its resulting poverty and disease) are the worst.

Don’t think for a minute that I don’t see the irony of me, a nice healthy, wealthy Canadian, talking about what Indian and African villagers should do, and then hopping in my car and driving to Safeway to pick up dinner. This is a really tangled knot, with no obvious easy answers. Poor people in overpopulated countries need to look after their issues like overpopulation, starvation, birth control, and driving living organisms to extinction in their ways. People in developed countries like Canada and the U.S. need to look after our own issues, like over-consumption and habitat destruction, and the organisms that we are driving to extinction in our own ways. I can still have opinions on what other areas of the world should do with regard to things that affect us all, though.

117

See, this is one of the things that make me hate arguments like this.

Scratch an environmentalist, reveal a genocidier.

Fuckers.

How about we save the tigers without killing millions of people, you stupid fucking assholes? Why is it with some types the only solution that really gets them interested is the solution where lots and lots of people get brutally murdered?

For the fuckhead who thought the solution to poaching was torturing poachers to death, well, there are plenty of countries that have the death penalty for drug trafficking. It sure works well, doesn’t it? Yep, that solved the whole drug problem right there. Just kill enough people, problem solved.

If humans are so bad, please, put a bullet in your brain right now. OK, how about now? OK, now? Why the fuck aren’t you dead yet? Seriously, please kill yourself.

118

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
See, this is one of the things that make me hate arguments like this.

Scratch an environmentalist, reveal a genocidier.

Fuckers.

How about we save the tigers without killing millions of people, you stupid fucking assholes? Why is it with some types the only solution that really gets them interested is the solution where lots and lots of people get brutally murdered?

For the fuckhead who thought the solution to poaching was torturing poachers to death, well, there are plenty of countries that have the death penalty for drug trafficking. It sure works well, doesn’t it? Yep, that solved the whole drug problem right there. Just kill enough people, problem solved.

If humans are so bad, please, put a bullet in your brain right now. OK, how about now? OK, now? Why the fuck aren’t you dead yet? Seriously, please kill yourself.
[/QUOTE]

Who are you addressing your specific post to you broad brush waving jerk?

I am an environmentalist, I am far from a “genocidier”. I have said many times in this thread and a few others that it is strongly desirable to reduce the growth of human population via birth control. At the same time, I am very much in favor of cleaning up the Air and Water for all humans. Getting better medicines made available to all humans. Decreasing the poverty in the world, so that hopefully poachers will not need to poach to live and habitat will not need to be destroyed.

So thank you for the broad-brush attack on all environmentalists. I really appreciate the fuck out of it, you stupid illiterate moron who did not even bother to read the thread and made gigantic sweeping generalizations about a large and varied group of people that are all trying to make the world a better place.

I did not think you were this stupid, maybe you should try to stop posting while on crack.

Jim

119

[QUOTE=featherlou]
This sounds kind of disingenuous to me - we talk about overpopulation in developing worlds rather than New Jersey because that’s where the overpopulation (and its resulting poverty and disease) are the worst.

[/QUOTE]

But - and this is the point - they’re not overpopulated.

List of some places and pop/sq mi.

Haiti - 758
Holland - 1023
Connecticut - 703
Germany - 598
Rhode Island - 1003
Tanzania - 106
Pakistan - 534
Africa - 28
Florida - 309
Thailand - 326
Japan - 873

“But overpopulation is not defined by the population density, but if there are too many people in an area, which can’t support them”, says you (?).
Well, Holland, Rhode Island and Japan can hardly be totally selfsufficient in feeding their respective populations, while maintaining the standard of living they have. The possibility to live well in a densely populated area comes down to money and who has it. China is polluting a large part of Asia, and its leaders let it happen, because it creates jobs and wealth for the country. It also lets us pick up disposable cell phones for 20 bucks.
In many cases, the poverty, pollution, deforrestation in these poor countries can be attributed to one of two factors: We, the rich, are exploiting them. Or their own corrupt leaders are exploiting them.

Saying that they should take care of overpopulation so that there might be tigers left in the world, is exactly why I’m saying these arguments are anti-humanistic. We can afford to worship nature and adore animals, precisely because we don’t have to live in it (just visit, with cheap camping gear from China), and not live directly off it.

The global economy will increase the level of wealth in the developing countries, and at one point, they too will be well off and can start worshipping nature. That’s a good thing.
Telling them to stop breeding, so that we, in our climate controlled homes, can know that there be still tigers, is arrogant and not a good thing.

120

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Who are you addressing your specific post to you broad brush waving jerk?

[/QUOTE]

You didn’t read the posts advocating torturing polluters to death?