# Western Black Rhino officially extinct.



## Sofos (Nov 22, 2011)

Western Black Rhino declared extinct - World news - World environment - msnbc.com


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 22, 2011)

Sad. Though, it's part of nature.


----------



## renzoip (Nov 22, 2011)

Agree, that's sad new


----------



## jymellis (Nov 22, 2011)

human filth


----------



## jymellis (Nov 22, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Sad. Though, it's part of nature.



not for the last of a species to be killed by poachers  thats human greed.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 22, 2011)

Well, I agree there. Bastards.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 22, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Sad. Though, it's part of nature.



Pandas dying out is nature, this is human greed. Shame. Another failure on the part of mankind.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 22, 2011)

I'd say it's more stupidity than greed, but I agree.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 22, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I'd say it's more stupidity than greed, but I agree.



The two often overlap.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 22, 2011)

brutalwizard said:


> well there is like this thing called cloning........
> 
> it works for sheep pretty well


 
Let's not get that one started.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 22, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> Pandas dying out is nature, this is human greed. Shame. Another failure on the part of mankind.


 
Yea... Not really doing the world a service by killing everything we touch.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 22, 2011)

I believe it's around 500 species that have become extinct as a result of humans. The extinction rate is at the highest it's ever been.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 22, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> I believe it's around 500 species that have become extinct as a result of humans. The extinction rate is at the highest it's ever been.


 
Perhaps Joe Rogan was right... We're a disease. 

He described our cities as "growths" on the planet.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 22, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> Perhaps Joe Rogan was right... We're a disease.
> 
> He described our cities as "growths" on the planet.



Ian Malcolm's character in Jurassic Park or The Lost World (Can't remember which book) came up with the idea that we're an evolutionary clean-up crew. We're designed to evolve quickly, consume, destroy, burn out, allowing life to start fresh in our passing.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 22, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> Ian Malcolm's character in Jurassic Park or The Lost World (Can't remember which book) came up with the idea that we're an evolutionary clean-up crew. We're designed to evolve quickly, consume, destroy, burn out, allowing life to start fresh in our passing.


 
That almost makes what we do sound noble despite some of our clear and apparent intentions. 

I always liked to think of it like a natural unspoken system of checks and balances and we've used technology to overstep our boundaries when and where we please.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Nov 22, 2011)

Sucks, which is why in some cases I like animals more than people.


----------



## Dvaienat (Nov 22, 2011)

Very sad. Our existence is perhaps the worst thing to happen to this planet.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 22, 2011)

Well if you look at it like the Jurassic Park dude, it's a necessary evil.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Nov 22, 2011)

One day fellas, one days nature will get back at us.
Or we'll eliminate ourselves over time. Oh well.


----------



## Watty (Nov 22, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> Perhaps Joe Rogan was right... We're a disease.
> 
> He described our cities as "growths" on the planet.



Whenever I hear something like this, I too am reminded of something akin to this statement. Mine, however, always seems to harken back to Smith talking to a drugged up Morpheus, but to each his own.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Nov 22, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> I believe it's around 500 species that have become extinct as a result of humans. The extinction rate is at the highest it's ever been.



Extinction event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nature kills itself way more than we could ever hope to.


----------



## SirMyghin (Nov 23, 2011)

Should have made a fitter rhino, that is all really.


----------



## ivancic1al (Nov 23, 2011)

brutalwizard said:


> well there is like this thing called cloning........
> 
> it works for sheep pretty well



Not sure is serious...... 


All I'm going to add is that cloning only works if you have a surviving animal to clone and a surrogate mother. 
Not to mention the clones are genetically weak, expensive to produce, sometimes not viable... etc etc


----------



## flint757 (Nov 23, 2011)

One of our extinct brethren


----------



## Explorer (Nov 23, 2011)

Once again, I'm struck with how an organization which claims to care about animals isn't on the front lines protecting them... at least if such protection requires them to actually do anything real.

PETA, why didn't you act, and show Greenpeace how it's done? If you're going to talk the talk and ask for money, then walk the walk!


----------



## ST3MOCON (Nov 23, 2011)

We are part of nature! This is just part of life. If nature desides to eliminate us or reduce our numbers she will. We do what we can to protect other species from extinction but you can't have your cake and eat it. I think we have a long road ahead of ourselves. Instead of bashing the human race for all it's wrongs you should appreciate that you are part of a race that has remarkable adaptation abilities. Were a god damn miracle of a species. That being said I like dogs


----------



## flint757 (Nov 23, 2011)

ST3MOCON said:


> We are part of nature! This is just part of life. If nature desides to eliminate us or reduce our numbers she will. We do what we can to protect other species from extinction but you can't have your cake and eat it. I think we have a long road ahead of ourselves. Instead of bashing the human race for all it's wrongs you should appreciate that you are part of a race that has remarkable adaptation abilities. Were a god damn miracle of a species. That being said I like dogs



Ya I don't get the human bashing either. Many people do things that help the world, some do nothing at all. So to top it off its the assholes of the world we wish to eliminate not humans.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 23, 2011)

ST3MOCON said:


> We are part of nature! This is just part of life. If nature desides to eliminate us or reduce our numbers she will. We do what we can to protect other species from extinction but you can't have your cake and eat it. I think we have a long road ahead of ourselves. Instead of bashing the human race for all it's wrongs you should appreciate that you are part of a race that has remarkable adaptation abilities. Were a god damn miracle of a species. That being said I like dogs



Killing an entire species off because they have pretty horns that make nice ornaments or medicine is not fair and in my opinion, not natural. While I agree we are part of nature, there is also a thing called 'human nature' which sets us apart and in my opinion gives us a responsibility to use that brain we evolved with higher reasoning power.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 23, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> Killing an entire species off because they have pretty horns that make nice ornaments or medicine is not fair and in my opinion, not natural. While I agree we are part of nature, there is also a thing called 'human nature' which sets us apart and in my opinion gives us a responsibility to use that brain we evolved with higher reasoning power.



Agree with your point, but here's the thing you and I and many others do try to nurture nature rather than destroy it. We need ot fix the problem with the greed and idiots who do the things "they" do.

A lion could become a man killer it does not mean all lions are blood thirsty. I think the same can apply to humans IMO.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 23, 2011)

flint757 said:


> Agree with your point, but here's the thing you and I and many others do try to nurture nature rather than destroy it. We need ot fix the problem with the greed and idiots who do the things "they" do.
> 
> A lion could become a man killer it does not mean all lions are blood thirsty. I think the same can apply to humans IMO.



I know what you mean, and I agree to an extent. My reasons for hating humanity in general stretch beyond this though.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Nov 23, 2011)

Tasted like chicken. Ill send you a sample tomorrow Rossy.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 23, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> I know what you mean, and I agree to an extent. My reasons for hating humanity in general stretch beyond this though.



fair enough


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Nov 23, 2011)

ivancic1al said:


> Not sure is serious......
> 
> 
> All I'm going to add is that cloning only works if you have a surviving animal to clone and a surrogate mother.
> Not to mention the clones are genetically weak, expensive to produce, sometimes not viable... etc etc




Tell that to the japanese dudes that are cloning woolly mammoths.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/17/scientists-trying-to-clone-resurrect-extinct-mammoth/?hpt=T2


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 23, 2011)

The japanese made burgers out of human shit... That's not a good idea either...


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 23, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> Killing an entire species off because they have pretty horns that make nice ornaments or medicine is not fair and in my opinion, not natural. While I agree we are part of nature, there is also a thing called 'human nature' which sets us apart and in my opinion gives us a responsibility to use that brain we evolved with higher reasoning power.



I'm not sure we consciously killed them off. It's more a side effect of our relationship w them and their apparent inability to adapt/procreate enough. I find it hard to believe that man is the sole reason species die out but it seems it always gets brought up that we have a responsibility to save the world bc we're "so smart." Who made that decision?


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 24, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> I'm not sure we consciously killed them off. It's more a side effect of our relationship w them and their apparent inability to adapt/procreate enough. I find it hard to believe that man is the sole reason species die out but it seems it always gets brought up that we have a responsibility to save the world bc we're "so smart." Who made that decision?



I never said we're the sole reason species die out, just sometimes that is the case. Some animals just die off because they're poorly adapted, and some are hunted to extinction by man or lose their habitats because we want to plant our crops. 

The panda for instance, is dying out because it is poorly evolved. They have a limited habitat range, a limited diet, a flawed reproduction cycle (a female panda is only fertile a couple of days a year) and just generally aren't successful. They're hard to breed and instead of wasting conservation efforts on them we should use them on animals which have more of a fighting chance.

Rhinos have been hunted to near extinction not just as a sport, but for their horns which fetch a great price either to collectors or on the Chinese medicine market (Responsible for endangering many other animal species particularly tigers). Rhinos do just fine if they're left alone. There are huge preserves across Africa where they can be free, unfortunately poachers still get in and kill them. That's not an evolutionary flaw on their part, that's simply human greed and ignorance.

As for the 'because we're so smart' argument, human's have a higher understanding of feelings and effects on the world around us. We can see what an animal is going through, and choose to stop it because we understand pain. We can see forests getting destroyed and choose to stop that because we understand how vital those are to the environment. Our higher intelligence allows us to see issues and solve them in ways animals can't. However, the other side of human nature is the ability to see and make use of a resource, which can often be taken too far. Our responsibility is that we use this higher thinking to make use of nature, but also be respectful and preserve it in every way we can, simply because we have that ability to do so. It is our world and if we want to rule it as the dominant species, I think that puts a responsibility on us to look after it wherever possible. 

Like I said, around 500 species have become extinct as a result of mankind. Maybe that was concious, or maybe it was ignorance, but either way I think we should strive to do better and look after life on earth as for all we know, this could be all the life in the universe and should be treated preciously. Sure, if an animal such as the panda is just not evolved 'positively' then let it go, but if we can save a species we owe it to ourselves to try.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 24, 2011)

vampiregenocide, I think the question being asked is, what is the basis of your assertion that humans have an obligation to not exploit things, even to the point where such things are ruined?

In other words, I think your stating that humans are obligated to do something is just your personal belief, in the same way that others can say that humans must "accept Christ." 

I'm not saying that I don't think conservation and sustainability are good ideas, I just don't think there's any obligation to adopt them, regardless of how intelligent members of the human species might be.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 24, 2011)

Explorer said:


> vampiregenocide, I think the question being asked is, what is the basis of your assertion that humans have an obligation to not exploit things, even to the point where such things are ruined?
> 
> In other words, I think your stating that humans are obligated to do something is just your personal belief, in the same way that others can say that humans must "accept Christ."
> 
> I'm not saying that I don't think conservation and sustainability are good ideas, I just don't think there's any obligation to adopt them, regardless of how intelligent members of the human species might be.



Of course it's my belief, there's no law that says it's true. I used the words 'I think' many times in my last post, implying it is opinion. I just think there is enough to show how much we benefit from nature and how precious it is in that our higher reasoning and the ability to see that, gives us an obligation to care for it. In my opinion.


I will say though that I don't think it's really valid to comparing to accepting Jesus.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 24, 2011)

Accepting Jesus, accepting responsibility for others, those things are fine if one chooses, but my point was that it's a choice and not an obligation. Your talking about it being a "responsibility" sounded like other assumed responsibilities to me, like original sin.

And again, I'm not hostile to lowering one's footprint, preserving other species, etc. Those have been my personal choices.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 24, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Accepting Jesus, accepting responsibility for others, those things are fine if one chooses, but my point was that it's a choice and not an obligation. Your talking about it being a "responsibility" sounded like other assumed responsibilities to me, like original sin.
> 
> And again, I'm not hostile to lowering one's footprint, preserving other species, etc. Those have been my personal choices.



You can choose whether to be responsible or fulfil and obligation. I do believe we are responsible ultimately, but it's got a bit more foundation to it than accepting Christ and that sin business. If we choose not to be responsible, and do as we wish, nature suffers which ultimately causes us to suffer. 

I'm not going to debate it too much though, because at the end of the day this is purely my perspective and I can certainly see why you may disagree.


----------



## Alberto7 (Nov 24, 2011)

*sigh*... Yet another issue that will not be resolved any time soon. Too many opinions to reach a universal 'truth', if such a thing even exists concerning these kinds of topics.

Shame that that specific species of rhino disappeared though... Let's see if some sort of breeding program brings them back into the wild.

EDIT: I liked the idea of mankind being just another means of nature to cleanse itself. Almost like the asteroid that wiped the dinosaurs out, and the other several events that have triggered mass extinctions over the course of evolution. It's a rather pessimistic theory with a very negative outlook, but I find it interesting nonetheless.


----------



## Edika (Nov 24, 2011)

The discussion seems to be heating up. My opinion on the subject is that humankind is a force of evolution either we accept it or not. Is it a positive or negative aspect of evolution? Time will tell. If we end up killing most animals and destroy our natural environment and become extinct then at some point another species will evolve. I don't know if it will reach the level of intelligence we have or surpass us (or we become even more intelligent if we survive). 

So far though we behave more as our animal instincts dictates us than our intelligence, that is exploit every natural resource for our well being, comfort and survival. Does that include whipping out species just for decoration? If we take into account that intelligence has given us a more elaborate way to express our instincts yes. Is it right? There is not exactly something that is right or wrong in this world, these are notions created by humans. If our intelligence and intellect did not evolve and we stayed in a state of let's say early homo sapiens then we would be prey for larger predators and I don't think the black rhino would respect our right to exist if we claimed the same territory.

The positive aspect of all of these is that life is full of changes and what we consider as a constant and reality might rapidly change.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 24, 2011)

We're all a force of what we perceive to be evolution. Our interactions w other species and/or the elements are THE driving force.

Furthermore we've been known to kill each other for next to no reason. Far be it for me to believe cognitive thought has inadvertantly caused us to put ourselves on an undeserved pedestal.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 24, 2011)

I disagree with both of you but see where you're coming from.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Nov 24, 2011)

Fuck you, humans!


----------



## Explorer (Nov 24, 2011)

You know, there was a species which wound up releasing a gas so toxic that it killed off almost all of the life on Earth which already existed. Today, descendants of that lifeform remain, as well as other lifeforms which evolved after that extinction event. 

So, if humans wind up killing off almost everything (including themselves), I'm fairly certain that life will go on. It just won't include us. Other lifeforms have done the same things, consuming so many resources that their progress was unsustainable, and dying off later. So, like bubonic plague, we might burn through our resources and then die off, or we might survive in tiny numbers in a vastly altered form.

(And, for those who haven't learned yet what I was referring to in that first bit, do some reading on cyanobacteria.)


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 24, 2011)

I do think live will survive after us or whatever, like is pretty hardy. That said I don't want to test it.


----------



## Xaios (Nov 24, 2011)

That should please the White Rhino Supremacists.


----------



## Jontain (Nov 25, 2011)

Such as shame, I hate how alot of humans seem to feel they have more right to life than all the other beings on the planet so when we dramatically alter a habitat of an animal to the point it cannot be sustained it is just accepted.

Shame on us all imo.


----------



## The Somberlain (Nov 26, 2011)

Lame, we lost a potentially divine steak


----------



## Nimgoble (Nov 28, 2011)

Jontain said:


> Such as shame, I hate how alot of humans seem to feel they have more right to life than all the other beings on the planet so when we dramatically alter a habitat of an animal to the point it cannot be sustained it is just accepted.
> 
> Shame on us all imo.



Well, if we're going by how nature operates, "The Survival of the Fittest", then we DO have more of a "right" to life in the sense that we are more fit to survive than the species that fall victim to us.

Also: It's always kind of sad to see the end of something, but that's the nature of things.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 28, 2011)

Nimgoble said:


> Well, if we're going by how nature operates, "The Survival of the Fittest", then we DO have more of a "right" to life in the sense that we are more fit to survive than the species that fall victim to us.
> 
> Also: It's always kind of sad to see the end of something, but that's the nature of things.


 
Furthermore, who's to say all species don't feel that way? Some just lack the ability to voice it in a way that WE--the so-called smart ones--can understand.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 28, 2011)

Nimgoble said:


> Well, if we're going by how nature operates, "The Survival of the Fittest", then we DO have more of a "right" to life in the sense that we are more fit to survive than the species that fall victim to us.
> 
> Also: It's always kind of sad to see the end of something, but that's the nature of things.



I consider humanity a separate entity to 'nature' now. Human nature has taken on it's own meaning, and our capacity of higher reasoning puts us on a different plane to other organisms. We don't kill for the same reasons a lion or a shark does anymore. It's no longer a simple game of survival.

So I don't accept the 'survival of the fittest' argument when relating humans to other animals. It may have applied thousands of years ago, but not now to me. That implies it's just the way of things and I don't think we should accept it as that.

Yeah, everything is interconnected but we're too different to the rest of nature to ignore.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 28, 2011)

Human nature takes on whatever meaning we give it. We're the only ones that ever decide what anything "means." I think it's a by-product of cognitive thought. You know that "one-up" we have on the rest of nature...


----------



## Nimgoble (Nov 28, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> I consider humanity a separate entity to 'nature' now. Human nature has taken on it's own meaning, and our capacity of higher reasoning puts us on a different plane to other organisms. We don't kill for the same reasons a lion or a shark does anymore. It's no longer a simple game of survival.
> 
> So I don't accept the 'survival of the fittest' argument when relating humans to other animals. It may have applied thousands of years ago, but not now to me. That implies it's just the way of things and I don't think we should accept it as that.
> 
> Yeah, everything is interconnected but we're too different to the rest of nature to ignore.



Well, then that's your mistake. Humanity is very much a part of nature. Everything that exists is a part of nature, including our intellectual advantage over other animals. Are we on a different "plane", so to speak, when it comes to that advantage? Sure. We have a capacity for reasoning that no other animal on this planet can match. As such, we're sitting high on the food chain. High enough that second place is just a speck below. So, you're right in saying that we no longer kill for the same reasons lions and sharks do. Or, rather: We don't kill for JUST those reasons anymore. We kill for fun. We kill for profit. Etc.

You see, what you're doing is automatically equating our intellect with a sense of compassion, or some sort of desire to make things "fair" again. You're also making the claim that we have some responsibility to this concept. Our intellect does not have any intrinsic responsibility with it. Our reasoning abilities are a means to ends. The ends are subjective.

With all that being said, it is still a game of survival. One that we are kicking ASS at. Every species is playing. It's how nature works. The strong survive off the weak. You can hate that as much as you want, but you're not going to change it.

Also, I wonder if you qualify a cheetah as too different from nature to ignore because of it's tremendous speed?


----------



## flint757 (Nov 28, 2011)

Nimgoble said:


> Well, then that's your mistake. Humanity is very much a part of nature. Everything that exists is a part of nature, including our intellectual advantage over other animals. Are we on a different "plane", so to speak, when it comes to that advantage? Sure. We have a capacity for reasoning that no other animal on this planet can match. As such, we're sitting high on the food chain. High enough that second place is just a speck below. So, you're right in saying that we no longer kill for the same reasons lions and sharks do. Or, rather: We don't kill for JUST those reasons anymore. We kill for fun. We kill for profit. Etc.
> 
> You see, what you're doing is automatically equating our intellect with a sense of compassion, or some sort of desire to make things "fair" again. You're also making the claim that we have some responsibility to this concept. Our intellect does not have any intrinsic responsibility with it. Our reasoning abilities are a means to ends. The ends are subjective.
> 
> ...



The argument here is pretty old it is similar to the one about abortion and the one referring to aliens. First, people have to look at why they feel we are "better" than other species, second if it is intelligence the does that mean it is okay to kill someone because they are dumber than a dog. I can make the same reference to both alien life and abortion. You have to have a reason to want to kill something and a reason to justify it. The only argument perpetuating here is intelligence. Now, if you disagree because you just feel humans are more important, then hate to break it to you because lots of other things perpetuate the ecosystem while we just destroy. Maybe not now, maybe millions of years from now we will be the end to our own existence. Now how smart is that. Always ask why and if you can't come up with a good answer then your argument is not objective.


----------



## hereticemir (Nov 28, 2011)

Darwin orgin of spicies the weak die out the strong florish. That rhino should have evoled if didn't want to become extinct i shed no tears. look at the ak47 weilding chimpanzees in africaApe With AK-47 - YouTube


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 28, 2011)

Nimgoble said:


> Well, then that's your mistake. Humanity is very much a part of nature. Everything that exists is a part of nature, including our intellectual advantage over other animals. Are we on a different "plane", so to speak, when it comes to that advantage? Sure. We have a capacity for reasoning that no other animal on this planet can match. As such, we're sitting high on the food chain. High enough that second place is just a speck below. So, you're right in saying that we no longer kill for the same reasons lions and sharks do. Or, rather: We don't kill for JUST those reasons anymore. We kill for fun. We kill for profit. Etc.
> 
> You see, what you're doing is automatically equating our intellect with a sense of compassion, or some sort of desire to make things "fair" again. You're also making the claim that we have some responsibility to this concept. Our intellect does not have any intrinsic responsibility with it. Our reasoning abilities are a means to ends. The ends are subjective.
> 
> ...



This is a matter of perspective, so I'm not going to argue with you on it as I have done with other's and it hasn't achieved anything other than made me frustrated. Your last point however...really? That's not even comparable. The cheetah's speed hasn't made it the most successful animal on the planet. 



hereticemir said:


> Darwin orgin of spicies the weak die out the strong florish. That rhino should have evoled if didn't want to become extinct i shed no tears. look at the ak47 weilding chimpanzees in africaApe With AK-47 - YouTube



Not only is that comment somewhat silly, but you've referenced a video made to promote Rise of the Planet of the Apes.




Konfyouzd said:


> Human nature takes on whatever meaning we give it. We're the only ones that ever decide what anything "means." I think it's a by-product of cognitive thought. You know that "one-up" we have on the rest of nature...



But my argument is that our very ability to give anything meaning puts us on a separate plane of nature. We have a completely different way of working compared to all other life.


----------



## Nimgoble (Nov 28, 2011)

flint757 said:


> The argument here is pretty old it is similar to the one about abortion and the one referring to aliens. First, people have to look at why they feel we are "better" than other species, second if it is intelligence the does that mean it is okay to kill someone because they are dumber than a dog. I can make the same reference to both alien life and abortion. You have to have a reason to want to kill something and a reason to justify it. The only argument perpetuating here is intelligence. Now, if you disagree because you just feel humans are more important, then hate to break it to you because lots of other things perpetuate the ecosystem while we just destroy. Maybe not now, maybe millions of years from now we will be the end to our own existence. Now how smart is that. Always ask why and if you can't come up with a good answer then your argument is not objective.



...Was this an argument against mine? You quoted me, but I can't seem to connect any of this to my actual argument....




vampiregenocide said:


> This is a matter of perspective, so I'm not going to argue with you on it as I have done with other's and it hasn't achieved anything other than made me frustrated. Your last point however...really? That's not even comparable. The cheetah's speed hasn't made it the most successful animal on the planet.



No, it really ISN'T a matter of perspective. At least, not all of it. "Survival of the Fittest" is a principle of nature. Everything is playing, no matter how uneven the odds are. There are no intrinsic responsibilities or rights.

As for my last point: Yes, really. And yes, it IS comparable. The cheetah is by far the fastest land animal that exists. And, by your own logic, something that sets a species apart from the rest of nature by an (arbitrary) margin, makes them "special". So what if they aren't the most "successful"? They still surpass all of us in natural speed. So, my question stands: Is their speed unnatural? Or does the logic you used to talk yourself in to your current human-exceptionalism stance need some revising?


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 28, 2011)

Nimgoble said:


> No, it really ISN'T a matter of perspective. At least, not all of it. "Survival of the Fittest" is a principle of nature. Everything is playing, no matter how uneven the odds are. There are no intrinsic responsibilities or rights.
> 
> As for my last point: Yes, really. And yes, it IS comparable. The cheetah is by far the fastest land animal that exists. And, by your own logic, something that sets a species apart from the rest of nature by an (arbitrary) margin, makes them "special". So what if they aren't the most "successful"? They still surpass all of us in natural speed. So, my question stands: Is their speed unnatural? Or does the logic you used to talk yourself in to your current human-exceptionalism stance need some revising?



I don't question the fact that survival of the fittest is a principle of nature.

No it isn't comparable, not in the slightest. The speed of a cheetah relative to other animals is nothing compared to the intelligence of humans. I'm not going into a debate with anyone who is condescending though, I've done that too many times on this forum.


----------



## Dvaienat (Nov 28, 2011)

Nimgoble said:


> No, it really ISN'T a matter of perspective. At least, not all of it. "Survival of the Fittest" is a principle of nature. Everything is playing, no matter how uneven the odds are. There are no intrinsic responsibilities or rights.


 
Obviously 'survival of the fittest' is a principle of nature, but the point you appear to be missing is that humans have a choice in the manner they behave. We do not _have_ to hunt to the point of making animals extinct, yet we choose to do so. Thereby making us wrong when we choose to act in a manner harmful to other species, and our own in many cases.


----------



## Nimgoble (Nov 28, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> I don't question the fact that survival of the fittest is a principle of nature.



Alright. I wasn't sure which part you considered a matter of perspective. I guess it's the responsibility part, then, yes?



> No it isn't comparable, not in the slightest. The speed of a cheetah relative to other animals is nothing compared to the intelligence of humans. I'm not going into a debate with anyone who is condescending though, I've done that too many times on this forum.



My condescension doesn't negate my points. And I'm of the opinion that the condescension was warranted(obviously) in light of your arguments. You've taken one attribute(human intelligence) of a species that far surpasses that of other species and flat-out said it was in no way comparable to an attribute of another species(cheetahs) that far surpasses that of other species. Your original argument was that, in short: human exceptionalism is warranted because we're "so different" from any other animal on the planet because of our intelligence. I agreed that we are special in that regard. You, however, went further, saying that you no longer consider us a part of nature because of said intelligence. This means that there is a point that you will stop considering something that is natural to be so if it surpasses the abilities of any other species on the planet by some margin that you have arbitrarily chosen. You don't see the problem here?


----------



## Nimgoble (Nov 28, 2011)

NatG said:


> Obviously 'survival of the fittest' is a principle of nature, but the point you appear to be missing is that humans have a choice in the manner they behave. We do not _have_ to hunt to the point of making animals extinct, yet we choose to do so. Thereby making us wrong when we choose to act in a manner harmful to other species, and our own in many cases.



I'm not missing any point. I realize that we don't HAVE to and that we choose to. The point I made, that you clearly missed, is that us doing so isn't absolutely wrong. It's a subjective value.

An example of that would be the topic of this very thread. Someone clearly deemed the Black Rhino unimportant enough to keep around or, at least, unimportant enough to give them pause before killing it, and, as such, hunted it to extinction. Are they wrong? By your "save-everyone-and-everything" standards, sure. How about to a person who is only concerned with their own well-being? Not at all. The black rhino serves no inherit purpose and has no impact on their life. They will not miss it's existence, nor that of the untold number of animals that existed and went extinct before said person came in to being. The most these animals were good for, as far as they're concerned, was trophies and zoo exhibits.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 28, 2011)

If you have to resort to condescension in a debate then you're opinion has already lost a lot of respect from me. 

Yes I think the responsibility towards nature is perspective. 

The speed of a cheetah hasn't made it the dominant species. It hasn't enabled it to achieve global supremacy and advanced technology. No other single species has achieved that. Human intelligence is a unique trait because it has changed the world in ways no other animal has, and what's more is that it has allowed us to actually comprehend that change. 

I don't think we're 'special' in the sense that we're better than any other animals, I just think that to deny that we are drastically different to any other organism is flat out wrong. Look at human history and find me something comparable in nature. 

I would not say we're no longer a part of nature completely, if you believe that is what I meant then I perhaps worded myself wrong. I do however think we've distanced ourselves from the rest of nature and become our own 'branch'. That is why we have the phrase 'human nature', because it is an entity worthy of recognition by itself.


----------



## Dvaienat (Nov 28, 2011)

Nimgoble said:


> I'm not missing any point. I realize that we don't HAVE to and that we choose to. The point I made, that you clearly missed, is that us doing so isn't absolutely wrong. It's a subjective value.


 
Your post indicated to me that you condoned our extinction of other species, based upon your assertion that 'might makes right'. I am not of the belief that morality is subjective. We have _choice_ in the manner we behave. Once choice is established, we can either choose to harm or to not harm. If we choose to harm, it makes us wrong. We don't have to hunt animals to extinction, but clearly our greed gets the better of us.

I recognize the fact that different people have different opinions on what is 'right' and what is 'wrong', though that does not take away from the fact that certain actions harm and certain actions benefit.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 28, 2011)

Nimgoble said:


> ...Was this an argument against mine? You quoted me, but I can't seem to connect any of this to my actual argument....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Partially against your, but also a blanket towards the many other arguments that intelligence justifies the destruction we cause. You reference intelligence as a justified reason to kill everything else because this is a "natural advantage". 

We built ourselves into an incubator IMO. Put most people in the wild and animals prevail(unrelated point to my other post).


----------



## Nimgoble (Nov 28, 2011)

Whew. Okay! Here we go...



vampiregenocide said:


> If you have to resort to condescension in a debate then you're opinion has already lost a lot of respect from me.
> 
> Yes I think the responsibility towards nature is perspective.
> 
> ...



I admitted that the speed of a cheetah hasn't been as beneficial to cheetahs as our intelligence has been to us. But the benefit of said attribute didn't factor in to your original argument, or rather: it didn't seem to. Sure, we got lucky and developed in the place where it matters the most. As for us being "so far advanced" in relation to other species: I don't know that and neither do you. What change in the brain caused our progression to our current state? How big was the leap, intellectually? For all you know, our primate cousins could be right behind us. And what's more: They may still catch up. What scale are we using when determining how far ahead we are? You're trying to make measurements with undetermined units.



NatG said:


> Your post indicated to me that you condoned our extinction of other species, based upon your assertion that 'might makes right'. I am not of the belief that morality is subjective.



Well, then you're incorrect. There is no absolute morality. The spectrum of human values and priorities, which is what morality serves, is wide. Our individual morality reflects our subjective wants/needs and the priority thereof.



> We have _choice_ in the manner we behave. Once choice is established, we can either choose to harm or to not harm. If we choose to harm, it makes us wrong. We don't have to hunt animals to extinction, but clearly our greed gets the better of us.



Wrong. You're trying to pass off your own morals as some universal absolute. As I've said, the extinction of a species doesn't mean the same thing to all of us. 



> I recognize the fact that different people have different opinions on what is 'right' and what is 'wrong', though that does not take away from the fact that certain actions harm and certain actions benefit.



You've created a false dichotomy. It's possible for an action to harm and be beneficial.


----------



## hereticemir (Nov 28, 2011)

Sorry i was trolled thought the video was real. To addres survival of the fittest animals have been going extinct for a long time. So one of these speicies bites in tern to us i don't fill bad i mean we act like we are the only species on this planet to wipe out an entire animals species. But history show we aren't the only ones to do it prehistoric sharks destroyed eco systems in the ocean because they always need to eat. Where only crreatures on this planet the can consciously fill bad about my two cents


----------



## Nimgoble (Nov 28, 2011)

flint757 said:


> Partially against your, but also a blanket towards the many other arguments that intelligence justifies the destruction we cause. You reference intelligence as a justified reason to kill everything else because this is a "natural advantage".
> 
> We built ourselves into an incubator IMO. Put most people in the wild and animals prevail(unrelated point to my other post).



Well, it IS a justification. The rules are made by those strong enough to enforce them.

And we may have built ourselves in to an incubator. That's one of our strengths, as a species. Putting us about against wild animals without our "incubation" is like saying that a tiger wouldn't stand a chance if we were to knock its teeth our and de-claw it... I think it goes without saying that an animal will do poorly against it's adversaries if you take away it's advantages.


----------



## Dvaienat (Nov 28, 2011)

Nimgoble said:


> Well, then you're incorrect. There is no absolute morality. The spectrum of human values and priorities, which is what morality serves, is wide. Our individual morality reflects our subjective wants/needs and the priority thereof.


 
A sense of right and wrong is something built into human nature. Admittedly, some of us don't have this. Even if someone does not _care_ that a species is being eradicated, that doesn't take away from the fact the species is being harmed. The action is wrong, the perpetrator thinks it is right. 



> Wrong. You're trying to pass off your own morals as some universal absolute. As I've said, the extinction of a species doesn't mean the same thing to all of us.


 
Again, morality is subjective to the individual, but the outcome of the action is not. Acts of harm and acts of benefit cannot be argued.



> You've created a false dichotomy. It's possible for an action to harm and be beneficial.


 
Something harmful to one can benefit another, yes. But does that mean a rapist should rape because they benefit from it, for example? I think not.


----------



## Nimgoble (Nov 28, 2011)

NatG said:


> A sense of right and wrong is something built into human nature.



I'd like to see evidence of that. I think there's evidence that we have instincts, sure, but morals? No. Our morals may stem from our instincts, but we aren't born with morality, itself.



> Admittedly, some of us don't have this. Even if someone does not _care_ that a species is being eradicated, that doesn't take away from the fact the species is being harmed. The action is wrong, the perpetrator thinks it is right.



You still aren't understanding that right and wrong are subjective. I can say that the annihilation of the Black Rhinos by way of chainsaw shotguns is right. You can't PROVE me wrong. This value is mine.





> Again, morality is subjective to the individual, but the outcome of the action is not. Acts of harm and acts of benefit cannot be argued.



I think you'll find that they can... "Harm" and "benefit" aren't mutually exclusive, i.e. Masochism.



> Something harmful to one can benefit another, yes. But does that mean a rapist should rape because they benefit from it, for example? I think not.



It depends on the values of the rapist and if they deem their odds of getting caught worth the action. If you were to ask the rapist if they thought that they SHOULD rape someone if they have no chance of getting caught, they'd probably say yes. Unless there's some cognitive dissonance going on there.


----------



## Alberto7 (Nov 28, 2011)

Nimgoble said:


> Well, it IS a justification. The rules are made by those strong enough to enforce them.
> 
> And we may have built ourselves in to an incubator. That's one of our strengths, as a species. Putting us about against wild animals without our "incubation" is like saying that a tiger wouldn't stand a chance if we were to knock its teeth our and de-claw it... I think it goes without saying that an animal will do poorly against it's adversaries if you take away it's advantages.



I wholeheartedly agree with this.

As for the rest of the discussion... Again, I see no point in it. Good mental exercise, but nothing that will reach a conclusion any time soon. Both sides make perfect sense to me, and I can't seem to choose a side. I see it as purely a matter of personal opinion based on beliefs and moral codes.

Until someone actually finds what it is that makes humans self-conscious and introspective (if that ever happens), I'll probably never be able to take a side on this issue.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 28, 2011)

You know, if humanity didn't spend so much time bickering over insignificant things, a lot more animals (and people) would still be alive today.


----------



## K3V1N SHR3DZ (Nov 28, 2011)

[troll]You liberals are so full of shit. "Poachers" are just hunters engaging in God's pastime (Capitalism). Why blame them for something that is obviously laziness on the part of the Rhinos. If they would have just gone to business school (or church), they would have been able to provide for their young and wouldn't have gone extinct. 

Furthermore, why didn't those Rhinos EVOLVE guns to protect themselves from the "poachers"?? 
Answer: because God wanted them extinct.[/troll]

It makes me so sad to see shit go extinct due to our avarice.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 28, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> You know, if humanity didn't spend so much time bickering over insignificant things, a lot more animals (and people) would still be alive today.



It's all in good fun



Nimgoble said:


> Well, it IS a justification. The rules are made by those strong enough to enforce them.
> 
> And we may have built ourselves in to an incubator. That's one of our strengths, as a species. Putting us about against wild animals without our "incubation" is like saying that a tiger wouldn't stand a chance if we were to knock its teeth our and de-claw it... I think it goes without saying that an animal will do poorly against it's adversaries if you take away it's advantages.



Not even close to similar a better comparison would be to take a tiger from the brush and put him in an open field. Our intelligence is our supposed advantage not our habitat.

Under these idea perpetuating here I would like to give an example of something. What if I just walked up to someones mentally ill child and killed him because he wasn't as intelligent as me, thus felt like his existence is meaningless. To the mother their existence isn't meaningless which is why the act is wrong (or it least one of the reasons). So I shouldn't shoot someones dog for the same reason and for all I know those Rhino's could have been very important to someone. And yes I realize this is very general so you could include things consumed daily like cows and honestly I could see where they are right. Morality is subjective because we choose to make it so when someone disagrees with us. I would have to agree that the act that causes the less harm in the moment and/or on a more global(larger) scale is the more morally right action. Whether we choose to believe that is the only subjective thing.

That being said the prisoner dilemma could be applied here as well so I guess a better point to make is that morality is objective, but it is such a huge concept we don't even no where to begin to evaluate it.

More on point I don't think intelligence justifies poaching animals for furs and other nick nack's to make us look more "beautiful" especially when there are far less harmful options available to us.


----------



## Xaios (Nov 28, 2011)

I admit, I'm of two minds regarding the whole issue. As a Christian, I tend to agree that we should be good stewards of the planet that we've been given and that the loss of a species is a tragedy. Taking that out of the equation however and approaching the question from a more Darwinistic perspective, I agree with Nimgoble that everything is relative to the party that's measuring. When examing issues of such magnitude, we have a hard time objectively analysing our place in the grand scheme of things without using sliding scales and double standards.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 28, 2011)

Xaios said:


> I admit, I'm of two minds regarding the whole issue. As a Christian, I tend to agree that we should be good stewards of the planet that we've been given and that the loss of a species is a tragedy. Taking that out of the equation however and approaching the question from a more Darwinistic perspective, I agree with Nimgoble that everything is relative to the party that's measuring. When examing issues of such magnitude, we have a hard time objectively analysing our place in the grand scheme of things without using sliding scales and double standards.



Despite my obvious point of view I will have to agree that there is truth in this. Like I said its too broad to truly be 100% objective, but people can't deny that there are some obviously descent guidelines to follow. We all recognize that serial killers are bad, that rape isn't okay, and these things are fairly universal.


----------



## K3V1N SHR3DZ (Nov 28, 2011)

Nimgoble said:


> I'd like to see evidence of that. I think there's evidence that we have instincts, sure, but morals? No. Our morals may stem from our instincts, but we aren't born with morality, itself.



We are most certainly born with morals. Not the advanced morals we develop later with rational thought and compassion, though. Those are a byproduct of a mind thinking clearly.



Nimgoble said:


> It depends on the values of the rapist and if they deem their odds of getting caught worth the action. If you were to ask the rapist if they thought that they SHOULD rape someone if they have no chance of getting caught, they'd probably say yes. Unless there's some cognitive dissonance going on there.



Says the guy with a serial rapist/murderer for an avatar.


----------



## Nimgoble (Nov 28, 2011)

flint757 said:


> Not even close to similar a better comparison would be to take a tiger from the brush and put him in an open field. Our intelligence is our supposed advantage not our habitat.



Our habitat, the "incubator", as you referred to it as, IS a product of our intelligence. Our habitat is a defense against the wild. So yes, it is RATHER close to similar in that both are ways we overcome our predators.



> Under these idea perpetuating here I would like to give an example of something. What if I just walked up to someones mentally ill child and killed him because he wasn't as intelligent as me, thus felt like his existence is meaningless. To the mother their existence isn't meaningless which is why the act is wrong (or it least one of the reasons).



This act is right and wrong at the same time, assuming that the perpetrator cares nothing for the feelings of the mother.



> So I shouldn't shoot someones dog for the same reason and for all I know those Rhino's could have been very important to someone. And yes I realize this is very general so you could include things consumed daily like cows and honestly I could see where they are right. Morality is subjective because we choose to make it so when someone disagrees with us.



No, morality is subjective because we have differing values and no absolute by which to judge them.



> I would have to agree that the act that causes the less harm in the moment and/or on a more global(larger) scale is the more morally right action.



Great. That is YOUR subjective value.


> Whether we choose to believe that is the only subjective thing.



Wrong.



> That being said the prisoner dilemma could be applied here as well so I guess a better point to make is that morality is objective, but it is such a huge concept we don't even no where to begin to evaluate it.



No, it really ISN'T a hard concept to follow.



kgad0831 said:


> We are most certainly born with morals. Not the advanced morals we develop later with rational thought and compassion, though. Those are a byproduct of a mind thinking clearly.



Your evidence being? Also: A "mind thinking clearly" does not automatically lead to compassion.



> Says the guy with a serial rapist/murderer for an avatar.



I don't know if you're trying to bring some humor to this debate in an attempt to make it a little more light-hearted, or if this is a serious attempt at some sort of rebuttal... Either way: my avatar is irrelevant.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 29, 2011)

Nimgoble said:


> Our habitat, the "incubator", as you referred to it as, IS a product of our intelligence. Our habitat is a defense against the wild. So yes, it is RATHER close to similar in that both are ways we overcome our predators.



I'll give you that one, but when some warlord decides to make you his bitch I'll be the one saying he is not wrong to do so.  (light humor )



Nimgoble said:


> This act is right and wrong at the same time, assuming that the perpetrator cares nothing for the feelings of the mother.



no offense but that is dumb I can win any argument in existence with that notion. Every idea has to have a base otherwise everything is meaningless. It just goes back to what I said before the only reason there isn't a set in stone guideline for morality is because someone out there feels the need to trample on someone else's, much like politics.



Nimgoble said:


> No, morality is subjective because we have differing values and no absolute by which to judge them.



I will agree that differing cultures have obvious different values, but entirely disagree that it is impossible to specify absolute truths. The real problem is people skew morality with unsound and/or invalid arguments (not referring to you just in general) thus making things more confusing than necessary. Excluding babies, aliens or animals everyone can pretty much agree on the notion that we live in a society that relies on each other. I firmly believe that the social contract theory is the best representation of morality. We live in harmony because we don't steal or kill each other (theoretically obviously) when we do these things to people in our groups people begin to not trust us and eventually get cast out. It is a you don't kill me and I won't kill you type thing. That isn't something that can honestly be disputed because it is 100% rational and how we go about our daily lives on a shallow level.



Nimgoble said:


> No, it really ISN'T a hard concept to follow.



wasn't referring to the prisoner dilemma being a hard concept to follow I was referring to how much depth there is to our existence that even though there is an absolute there it is buried to the point where we'd be closer to finding the answer to life and reason for existence. 

I don't think it is anyones obligation to do things for others if they don't want to, but reciprocity is how we do our business daily so it in our benefit to do some things for others. 

Is it our obligation to save the planet no, but unless you believe that slavery is okay I don't think abusing, humiliating and destroying something animal or human is okay. (especially for such arbitrary items/tasks)


----------



## ElRay (Nov 29, 2011)

Xaios said:


> ... I agree with Nimgoble that everything is relative to the party that's measuring ...


Yup, that's why I support the Carbon Liberation Front. 

Millions of years ago, the was massively more free carbon that was able to form all kinds of three-somes with two oxygens (that were just as much into each other as they were into the studly carbons - wink-wink). Then Nature had to come along and create these evil nasty plants that went and sequestered the free range carbons in these sticky, cavity inducing sugars and calorically dense carbohydrates. Then, to add insult to injury, that mean old Nature comes along again and traps all those plants underground, squishes and heats them, converting all the yummy carbohydrates into inedible oil and gasses. Fortunately, for the carbons, Nature also produced humans. Unlike Nature's other creations, humans could think for themselves. They realized that they were made in Nature's image: cruel and destructive. So they became self loathing and planned to get revenge upon Nature by freeing all the trapped carbon through refineries and internal combustion engines. The only real blight on an otherwise great plan was that too many religious folks got involved and forced far too many of the free-love carbons to form toxic monogamous relations with a single oxygen instead of it's, more heart rate and respiration rate increasing, three-way coupling with those homozygous oxygens.

You can also do your part by smoking. Since smoking:
causes persistent increases in serum hemoglobin
increases lung volume
causes weight loss
all of which are beneficial to endurance athletes, you'll be improving your health as you help liberate those carbons that have been re-trapped by the modern ancestors of those prehistoric ferns that started this whole mess.

What I say is true. The observations are irrefutable. 

Ray


----------



## Dvaienat (Nov 29, 2011)

Nimgoble said:


> I'd like to see evidence of that. I think there's evidence that we have instincts, sure, but morals? No. Our morals may stem from our instincts, but we aren't born with morality, itself.


 
We are born with a sense of right and wrong, or morals if you will. Evident by the fact most of us are disgusted by acts such as murder, rape etc. It comes from empathy and compassion. 



> You still aren't understanding that right and wrong are subjective. I can say that the annihilation of the Black Rhinos by way of chainsaw shotguns is right. You can't PROVE me wrong. This value is mine.


 
Agreed, as I stated previously, that would be your belief. However, you can't say that it wouldn't have a negative impact upon the Black Rhinos.



> I think you'll find that they can... "Harm" and "benefit" aren't mutually exclusive, i.e. Masochism.


 
That is beside the point, since I wasn't talking about masochism. 



> It depends on the values of the rapist and if they deem their odds of getting caught worth the action. If you were to ask the rapist if they thought that they SHOULD rape someone if they have no chance of getting caught, they'd probably say yes. Unless there's some cognitive dissonance going on there.


 
By doing this, the rapist would be using someone else, unwillingly, to their advantage. A form of abuse. Most people can see this is wrong on the grounds of empathy. Since the rapist cannot they are a psychopath. As I stated previously, our inner sense of empathy is there for a reason. That reason being so people do not come to harm.


----------



## Nimgoble (Nov 29, 2011)

flint757 said:


> I'll give you that one, but when some warlord decides to make you his bitch I'll be the one saying he is not wrong to do so.  (light humor )



And you'd, technically, be right. 



> no offense but that is dumb I can win any argument in existence with that notion. Every idea has to have a base otherwise everything is meaningless. It just goes back to what I said before the only reason there isn't a set in stone guideline for morality is because someone out there feels the need to trample on someone else's, much like politics.



Well, you may find it dumb, but it's also true. You're making the mistake of thinking that just because something lacks a base, it's meaningless. As I've said, we assign our own meanings and values to things. The reason we don't have a "set-in-stone" guideline for morality is because we don't all value the same things.



> I will agree that differing cultures have obvious different values, but entirely disagree that it is impossible to specify absolute truths.



I don't see how you can think there is an absolute truth to morality given the fact that we don't all have a unifying set of values.



> The real problem is people skew morality with unsound and/or invalid arguments (not referring to you just in general) thus making things more confusing than necessary.



I disagree. What you're qualifying as unsound is simply a difference in values.



> Excluding babies, aliens or animals everyone can pretty much agree on the notion that we live in a society that relies on each other. I firmly believe that the social contract theory is the best representation of morality. We live in harmony because we don't steal or kill each other (theoretically obviously) when we do these things to people in our groups people begin to not trust us and eventually get cast out. It is a you don't kill me and I won't kill you type thing. That isn't something that can honestly be disputed because it is 100% rational and how we go about our daily lives on a shallow level.



You're making the assumption that EVERYONE wants to live in peace. I don't dispute that that is how MOST of us have the desire to live. But what you seem to be having a tough time with is the fact that not everyone has the same values that you have. Not even base values, like survival, peace, fairness, etc.



> wasn't referring to the prisoner dilemma being a hard concept to follow I was referring to how much depth there is to our existence that even though there is an absolute there it is buried to the point where we'd be closer to finding the answer to life and reason for existence.



I wasn't referring to the prisoner dilemma, either. I was referring to morality. It really is not a hard concept to grasp. The problem you're having is shaking the notion that there is an absolute right and wrong.



> I don't think it is anyones obligation to do things for others if they don't want to, but reciprocity is how we do our business daily so it in our benefit to do some things for others.
> 
> Is it our obligation to save the planet no, but unless you believe that slavery is okay I don't think abusing, humiliating and destroying something animal or human is okay. (especially for such arbitrary items/tasks)



And what if I do think it's okay? And, furthermore, what if I can either:
A. Get away with it or
B. Suffer the consequences without care?

It'd be entirely moral for me, according to my own morals, to enact everything you named.



NatG said:


> We are born with a sense of right and wrong, or morals if you will. Evident by the fact most of us are disgusted by acts such as murder, rape etc. It comes from empathy and compassion.



Your disgust with murder, rape, etc. at your current age are NOT evidence that we are BORN with MORALS. I don't know what children you've been observing, but the vast majority of children don't develop a sense of compassion or empathy until late adolescence, after social conditioning from their parents/authority figures/peers. 




> That is beside the point, since I wasn't talking about masochism.



It still qualifies, does it not? 



> By doing this, the rapist would be using someone else, unwillingly, to their advantage. A form of abuse. Most people can see this is wrong on the grounds of empathy.



First of all, empathy does not automatically give way to compassion. The rapist may very well be able to empathize with the position he has placed the person in. That does not, however, mean that he cares or considers his actions wrong. 



> Since the rapist cannot they are a psychopath.



And psychopaths/sociopaths are still humans, so they still qualify for this argument. And they are still capable of morals.



> As I stated previously, our inner sense of empathy is there for a reason. That reason being so people do not come to harm.



You are committing the Naturalistic Fallacy.


----------



## Dvaienat (Nov 29, 2011)

Nimgoble said:


> Your disgust with murder, rape, etc. at your current age are NOT evidence that we are BORN with MORALS. I don't know what children you've been observing, but the vast majority of children don't develop a sense of compassion or empathy until late adolescence, after social conditioning from their parents/authority figures/peers.


 
Not just my disgust, around 99% of people's disgust infact. I turned vegetarian at age 7, due to compassion for animals. At the time I had not gone through adolescence or had social conditioning from elders. Are you trying to imply that without our elders' teaching we'd have no sense of right and wrong? If so, that is a complete misconception. _Most_ people are naturally concerned when they see suffering, regardless of age. 



> It still qualifies, does it not?


 
It still qualifies, but I'm talking of nonconsensual/unwanted acts of harm. 



> First of all, empathy does not automatically give way to compassion. The rapist may very well be able to empathize with the position he has placed the person in. That does not, however, mean that he cares or considers his actions wrong.


 
Empathy is the ability to put yourself in the shoes of the person on the recieving end of suffering. I agree, whilst the rapist may be able do this, doesn't mean they have compassion. Likewise, they may consider the action right, but it still has a negative impact upon the one being raped. 



> And psychopaths/sociopaths are still humans, so they still qualify for this argument. And they are still capable of morals.


 
A psychopath is an individual lacking empathy and compassion. They're capable of their own morals, but not ones taking others into consideration. 



> You are committing the Naturalistic Fallacy.


 
Why else would empathy and compassion come naturally? Please explain. I believe it is there so we can support each other.


----------



## Nimgoble (Nov 29, 2011)

NatG said:


> Not just my disgust, around 99% of people's disgust infact. I turned vegetarian at age 7, due to compassion for animals. At the time I had not gone through adolescence or had social conditioning from elders. Are you trying to imply that without our elders' teaching we'd have no sense of right and wrong? If so, that is a complete misconception. _Most_ people are naturally concerned when they see suffering, regardless of age.



I was mistaken in using the term "adolescence". I meant to refer to toddlers. And I highly doubt you lacked social conditioning from your parents and elders by the age of 7. Especially in regards to how you should treat other children, etc. My point being that empathy may have been in your nature, but it isn't nurtured the same way for everyone, resulting in a difference in morals.



> It still qualifies, but I'm talking of nonconsensual/unwanted acts of harm.



Fair enough. 



> Empathy is the ability to put yourself in the shoes of the person on the recieving end of suffering. I agree, whilst the rapist may be able do this, doesn't mean they have compassion. Likewise, they may consider the action right, but it still has a negative impact upon the one being raped.



Right, but the negative impact on the victim is only a negative to the victim and those who feel compassion for them. The rapist doesn't fit in to either category, so the action isn't "negative" to the rapist. It's solely beneficial, assuming they don't get caught or care about getting caught. 



> A psychopath is an individual lacking empathy and compassion. They're capable of their own morals, but not ones taking others into consideration.



This simply isn't true for all psychopaths. It's entirely possible for "psychopath" to empathize and feel compassion. That does not, however, mean that they employ either. That is what, technically, makes them a psychopath, by the loosest sense of the categorization. There seems to be some debate on what, exactly, a psychopath is and what causes said behavior. Psychopathy

Also, they frequently DO take others' morals into consideration. It's a blending-in technique, because most of them want to survive.



> Why else would empathy and compassion come naturally? Please explain. I believe it is there so we can support each other.



I'm not disputing the use of empathy, nor it's usefulness to those of us that value peace, etc. What I'm disputing is your assertion that it is automatically "right". That's how you're committing the Naturalistic Fallacy.


----------



## Dvaienat (Nov 29, 2011)

Nimgoble said:


> I was mistaken in using the term "adolescence". I meant to refer to toddlers. And I highly doubt you lacked social conditioning from your parents and elders by the age of 7. Especially in regards to how you should treat other children, etc. My point being that empathy may have been in your nature, but it isn't nurtured the same way for everyone, resulting in a difference in morals.


 
Fair enough. However, in the case of myself becoming vegetarian, it was solely my decision based upon my compassion for animals. I'd been given the green light to eat meat by my parents. Therefore compassion in that instance didn't develop from social conditioning. I don't think I'd been told that murder and rape were wrong either, let alone knowing what rape was. 

I agree that upbringing has a significant impact upon how an individual turns out, but it cannot override the fact that some people have natural empathy/compassion and some don't. 



> Right, but the negative impact on the victim is only a negative to the victim and those who feel compassion for them. The rapist doesn't fit in to either category, so the action isn't "negative" to the rapist. It's solely beneficial, assuming they don't get caught or care about getting caught.


 
We're going round in circles a little on this one. I agree that the rapist sees the act as solely good and I see it as bad. It _is _a negative for the victim, I'm glad we've cleared that up. 



> This simply isn't true for all psychopaths. It's entirely possible for "psychopath" to empathize and feel compassion. That does not, however, mean that they employ either. That is what, technically, makes them a psychopath, by the loosest sense of the categorization. There seems to be some debate on what, exactly, a psychopath is and what causes said behavior. Psychopathy
> 
> Also, they frequently DO take others' morals into consideration. It's a blending-in technique, because most of them want to survive.


 
Okay. What I was trying to say is that the psychopath simply doesn't care to employ thoughtful behaviour, unless it is beneficial to themselves. 



> I'm not disputing the use of empathy, nor it's usefulness to those of us that value peace, etc. What I'm disputing is your assertion that it is automatically "right". That's how you're committing the Naturalistic Fallacy.


 
I never was asserting that is was automatically right. I simply asserted that an overwhelming majority do have it. I agree not all of us do, however.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 29, 2011)

Okay I have to say I 100% understand where Nimgoble, Natg and I am coming from and how Nimgoble theory proves that none of us are in the wrong to think so because it is subjective.

I guess my real point here is just because 2 (or maybe more) groups/people disagree does not directly imply that there is not an absolute right answer to morality.

Someone could debate with me all day that that grass is blue and someone else that it is purple. Are either of them right, no.

That being said a book I read in philosophy called the Elements of Philosophy attempts to achieve a universal view of morality and it was still hard to define across the board.

An example I can think of is that Eskimo's when they have a baby that they cannot support will just stick it out side until it freezes to death. To us that is disgusting to them it is their culture. They, themselves however, are not attempting to do harm to the baby they just wouldn't have enough food/space to keep it and them alive. In other words no perverse reasoning is behind the act.

So that being said I do think everyone can agree that they would like to live and to do so best is to avoid killing others. The only way where that logic doesn't apply for the outliers are for rapist who probably wouldn't mind, if I had to guess, and someone who is sick/depressed and may want to die. But those are outliers, upbringing or not I have no desire to do either of those things to someone and even some terrible people I know who are mentally unstable wouldn't either.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 29, 2011)

The trick is in realizing that even though morality is subjective, that doesn't mean societies can't decide which moral values they want to enforce. As more and more members of a society decide something that was moral is now immoral or vice versa, the morals it chooses to enforce will change.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Nov 30, 2011)

Every creature who causes great imbalance and destruction of it's host (nature in our case), therefore destruction of it's own kind is a stupid, evil and sooner or later "dead" parasite. Our intelligence is useless when we observe the damage we do. We can't even brag about it, since many parasites are even more thoughtful of their host and stop leeching when the host gets weak.

So what we do is wrong, and even parasites know it. No need for human intelligence to understand it.

Survival of then fittest apply in nature. We are not in nature we where born in as species. We have our own cities build on concrete not soil and stone. Anyone who thinks they are superior to other animals have to think about
1) H.I.V. Doesn't even have 1 cell to brag of, kills at will. Our intelligence is futile
2) A small fight with a tiger without weapons. Use your brain to win!
3) A small visit to the Amazons without any extra protection.

As you will clearly see, if you take out your typical "urban" protection, you are pretty much dead. Even your inteeligence wouldn't help. That makes human unnatural. Or better said "freak of the nature", instead being part of it. The survival of the fittest also do not apply to our civilization, rules, laws and morals. 

The Rhinos are not fit, since thet shouldn't have been hunted. Nobody hunted them for so many thousands of years. Nature didn's see any reason for it. That's why we wiped them out. Animals with no real enemies are always small in numbers in the nature. If they suddenly get a strong enemy, be it a bacteria, virus, parasite or human, they lose the fight.


----------



## Jontain (Nov 30, 2011)

Consider that fact that any endangered animal cannot voice its opinon so it is 'naturally' not as fit as us so there fore will not survive.

I dont think I can agree with this as we have evolved far higher intelligence than most other animals and can see the wider effect, understand the wider effect and ultimately change that effect if we really want to.

This means that 'nature' is being guided by man but the problem being we only know 'what we know' if that makes sense. The universe is so complex and diverse beyond human comprehension that to say because we came from nature our choice are part of nature seems a bit short sighted.

Right or wrong its just an opinon, I understand the view of 'survival of the fittest' (afterall thats why humans evolved to be so intelligent), however 'Survival of the fittest' is an idea created by human minds, so can we really definativly say that IS how it IS, especially when you consider until not to long ago we said particals cannot travel faster than the speed of light and that IS how it IS? Ultimatley I guess as people we just react on our own wishest to survive to give us reason to live over another species.


----------



## Nimgoble (Nov 30, 2011)

Jontain said:


> This means that 'nature' is being guided by man but the problem being we only know 'what we know' if that makes sense. The universe is so complex and diverse beyond human comprehension that to say because we came from nature our choice are part of nature seems a bit short sighted.



How is that short-sighted? That same logic would be applied to every other decision any other animal makes. Or are you disputing that we're a part of nature?



> Right or wrong its just an opinon, I understand the view of 'survival of the fittest' (afterall thats why humans evolved to be so intelligent), however 'Survival of the fittest' is an idea created by human minds, so can we really definativly say that IS how it IS, especially when you consider until not to long ago we said particals cannot travel faster than the speed of light and that IS how it IS? Ultimatley I guess as people we just react on our own wishest to survive to give us reason to live over another species.



"Survival of the Fittest" is a term coined by human minds to describe the observable fact. The population of any group currently existing are the most fit to live. Any others are dead.


----------



## Nimgoble (Nov 30, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Every creature who causes great imbalance and destruction of it's host (nature in our case), therefore destruction of it's own kind is a stupid, evil and sooner or later "dead" parasite. Our intelligence is useless when we observe the damage we do. We can't even brag about it, since many parasites are even more thoughtful of their host and stop leeching when the host gets weak.



This is making the assumption that said parasite cares about survival more than the destruction of its host.



> So what we do is wrong, and even parasites know it. No need for human intelligence to understand it.



Wrong.



> Survival of then fittest apply in nature. We are not in nature we where born in as species. We have our own cities build on concrete not soil and stone. Anyone who thinks they are superior to other animals have to think about
> 1) H.I.V. Doesn't even have 1 cell to brag of, kills at will. Our intelligence is futile
> 2) A small fight with a tiger without weapons. Use your brain to win!
> 3) A small visit to the Amazons without any extra protection.
> ...



Is this serious?

1) H.I.V does kill a lot of us. I don't see how this makes our intelligence futile, though... This same argument could have been made for various other ailments that mankind has faced throughout our history. Some of those ailments are now of little threat due to our intelligence(Influenza and smallpox, for example).

2) So, we're no longer natural because we'd lose to a tiger in its element? So, does that mean that if a tiger wandered in to one of cities, it'd no longer be natural? How about after we shot it? I think what you mean to get at here is that since we're no longer born "in the wild", we're no longer natural. What you're failing to realize is that our cities came about as a natural defense to these dangers. The fact that we've become domesticated doesn't negate the fact that we are still of nature.

3) Yeah, we have weaknesses. Well spotted.

Our intelligence has still catapulted us to the top of the food chain.



> The survival of the fittest also do not apply to our civilization, rules, laws and morals.



You speak as if all of these things are universal. How about in third world countries, where entire populations die of hunger? How about war?


----------



## daemon barbeque (Nov 30, 2011)

> This is making the assumption that said parasite cares about survival more than the destruction of its host.



Yes, and we don't



> Wrong



Right!




> 1) H.I.V does kill a lot of us. I don't see how this makes our intelligence futile, though... This same argument could have been made for various other ailments that mankind has faced throughout our history. Some of those ailments are now of little threat due to our intelligence(Influenza and smallpox, for example).



It puts us away from being the top players of the food chain. We are actually food for many creatures, and we can't even protect ourselves against viruses, even bacteria can. Our intelligence can't stop it. That's why it's futile. A collective effort of generations are needed to fight against one type of virus, but they keep comng. They evolve and they survive. Look at Flu. Every year something different, and every year new victims. They lead the fight, we follow. They definetly rule the game.



> 2) So, we're no longer natural because we'd lose to a tiger in its element? So, does that mean that if a tiger wandered in to one of cities, it'd no longer be natural? How about after we shot it? I think what you mean to get at here is that since we're no longer born "in the wild", we're no longer natural. What you're failing to realize is that our cities came about as a natural defense to these dangers. The fact that we've become domesticated doesn't negate the fact that we are still of nature.



Okay, put the tiger in a big room, in your element. I'll even give you a knife.



> 3) Yeah, we have weaknesses. Well spotted.
> 
> Our intelligence has still catapulted us to the top of the food chain.



Yeah, there where we can't even stop a virus. Our arrogance is not helping our future. Weare also food and we fall to that. Just because people in the western world do not die as much from natural causes as the rest of the world, doesn't mean we lose our lives to tigers, sharks, snakes, spiders, bacteria, parasites, viruses. We are talking about thousands and millions. Not a handful.



> You speak as if all of these things are universal. How about in third world countries, where entire populations die of hunger? How about war?



Still the same. You survive if you where born in the right place from the right parents. You can be ill, short , weak, stupid, but you survive. Your point is invalid! Same goes for war. 
How many Japanese where quicker, more intelligent, healthier or anything better when they died in Hiroshima? How many extreme weak, old, ill people survive in Europe because of social system? Survival of the fittest? No. Not really.


----------



## Nimgoble (Nov 30, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Yes, and we don't



That's a generalization. Even ONE person who doesn't value their survival over destruction negates your claim.



> Right!



See above.



> It puts us away from being the top players of the food chain. We are actually food for many creatures, and we can't even protect ourselves against viruses, even bacteria can. Our intelligence can't stop it. That's why it's futile.



We're still the dominate species on the planet. Bacteria and viruses are the largest problem we face, barring ourselves. Even then, we're making plenty of headway against them. It's true that we haven't killed them off, completely, but we're building better defenses. It's hard to kill a virus, but to make ourselves immune is practically the same thing. Also, there's a difference between "can't" and "hasn't". And you have no proof that we CAN'T stop it. It's entirely possible that we can. It's also entirely possible that we'll be stuck in a never-ending war against viruses. I don't know and neither do you.



> A collective effort of generations are needed to fight against one type of virus, but they keep comng. They evolve and they survive. Look at Flu. Every year something different, and every year new victims.



This same sentiment works if you switch the roles of "humans" and "viruses".

Sure, they evolve. And so do we. Who is winning this war and how are you gauging it?



> They lead the fight, we follow. They definetly rule the game.



Not necessarily. I'd say that WE rule the game and they're taking potshots at us. The amount of people we lose to them is minimal. We're still the species on the planet with the most power over the greatest number of species.



> Okay, put the tiger in a big room, in your element. I'll even give you a knife.



Why, though? Why not put the tiger in his element and let me use whatever I want to hunt him with? Our weapons are a product of our collective intelligence. Using them is one of our strengths.



> Yeah, there where we can't even stop a virus. Our arrogance is not helping our future. Weare also food and we fall to that. Just because people in the western world do not die as much from natural causes as the rest of the world, doesn't mean we lose our lives to tigers, sharks, snakes, spiders, bacteria, parasites, viruses. We are talking about thousands and millions. Not a handful.



Yes, we CAN stop a virus. We've stopped a few. And we're making progress towards stopping more of them all of the time. While maintaining a presences of around 6 billion people on the planet. And going strong. I never said that we don't die to other species. Being a dominate species doesn't mean that, one-on-one, you couldn't fall to a species considered to be lower on the food chain. 

And I think your "numbers" are a little exaggerated.



> Still the same. You survive if you where born in the right place from the right parents. You can be ill, short , weak, stupid, but you survive. Your point is invalid! Same goes for war.
> How many Japanese where quicker, more intelligent, healthier or anything better when they died in Hiroshima? How many extreme weak, old, ill people survive in Europe because of social system?



I really don't get what you aren't understanding about this: If you survive, then you were fit enough to survive under the conditions in which you lived. Those sick/weak/short/stupid people that survived? Yeah, they did so because their living conditions were adjusted to suit them. Those Japanese that died? Did so because the conditions under which they lived were adjusted so that they WOULDN'T survive. I never once said that we all live under the same conditions.



> Survival of the fittest? No. Not really.



Yes, really. Our social structure is designed SO that we survive, as a species. And even then, there is a point at which we, as a society, will cut our losses and let the weak die.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Nov 30, 2011)

> That's a generalization. Even ONE person who doesn't value their survival over destruction negates your claim.


No it doesn't. The collective effect supports the claim. I am not like you, and I don*'t dominate the food chain. But I am still a part of the mankind, and destruct the earth, slowly.






> We're still the dominate species on the planet. Bacteria and viruses are the largest problem we face, barring ourselves. Even then, we're making plenty of headway against them. It's true that we haven't killed them off, completely, but we're building better defenses. It's hard to kill a virus, but to make ourselves immune is practically the same thing. Also, there's a difference between "can't" and "hasn't". And you have no proof that we CAN'T stop it. It's entirely possible that we can. It's also entirely possible that we'll be stuck in a never-ending war against viruses. I don't know and neither do you.



Again, you try to add the future possible powers of humankind if it wahere today. The viruses evolve too, and we always loose people. There are billion folds more bacteria, algae, parasites, mites and any other species who really dominate the earth. We are just more effective in destroying it. The earth would do very well if you remove us, but not algae, nor bacteria. We are insignificant with our absence, and destructive with our presence. And for being the top of the food chain. We definetly are not.




> This same sentiment works if you switch the roles of "humans" and "viruses".
> 
> Sure, they evolve. And so do we. Who is winning this war and how are you gauging it?
> 
> ...



It's easy, they first kill some of us, and we try to find a solution. Like computer viruses. Who is leading the war?




> Why, though? Why not put the tiger in his element and let me use whatever I want to hunt him with? Our weapons are a product of our collective intelligence. Using them is one of our strengths.



You have to fight with what you have by nature. That's the rule of survival of the fittest! I just try to show you that you are NOTHING when left alone without other's intelligence and effort against a predator. That's why I try to show you your insignificance in this world. You are not top of anything. Maybe destruction that is.





> Yes, we CAN stop a virus. We've stopped a few. And we're making progress towards stopping more of them all of the time. While maintaining a presences of around 6 billion people on the planet. And going strong. I never said that we don't die to other species. Being a dominate species doesn't mean that, one-on-one, you couldn't fall to a species considered to be lower on the food chain.
> 
> And I think your "numbers" are a little exaggerated.



Again, you are not a dominant species. 7 Billion is a joke compared to the wast oceans and whatnot. Come down a bit!



> I really don't get what you aren't understanding about this: If you survive, then you were fit enough to survive under the conditions in which you lived. Those sick/weak/short/stupid people that survived? Yeah, they did so because their living conditions were adjusted to suit them. Those Japanese that died? Did so because the conditions under which they lived were adjusted so that they WOULDN'T survive. I never once said that we all live under the same conditions.
> 
> 
> Yes, really. Our social structure is designed SO that we survive, as a species. And even then, there is a point at which we, as a society, will cut our losses and let the weak die.



Look, in nature, every single member has to be fit to survive. Not in Humankind. And even that puts us away from the "survival of the fittest". You are the one who is not understanding this at all.


----------



## Nimgoble (Nov 30, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> No it doesn't. The collective effect supports the claim. I am not like you, and I don*'t dominate the food chain. But I am still a part of the mankind, and destruct the earth, slowly.



I was originally arguing against the absolutist claims of right and wrong. In that context, my statement stands.




> Again, you try to add the future possible powers of humankind if it wahere today. The viruses evolve too, and we always loose people. There are billion folds more bacteria, algae, parasites, mites and any other species who really dominate the earth. We are just more effective in destroying it. The earth would do very well if you remove us, but not algae, nor bacteria. We are insignificant with our absence, and destructive with our presence. And for being the top of the food chain. We definetly are not.



No, I don't try to add future possible powers of humankind. I do, however, acknowledge our potential. Numbers aren't everything in the game of survival. It has to be coupled with power. And we have the most power over the largest number of species out of every other species on the planet.



> It's easy, they first kill some of us, and we try to find a solution. Like computer viruses. Who is leading the war?



Being on the offensive does not automatically mean they are winning.



> You have to fight with what you have by nature. That's the rule of survival of the fittest! I just try to show you that you are NOTHING when left alone without other's intelligence and effort against a predator. That's why I try to show you your insignificance in this world. You are not top of anything. Maybe destruction that is.



What qualifies as natural? I posit that everything that exists is natural. Therefore, the weapons I would use are natural. They occur in nature because WE occur in nature, and they come from us. There is no reason to make the disconnect. Also, I didn't say I was the top of anything. I said we are. I'm well aware that I can fall to a wild animal. But nature has given me a foundation(my peers and our history) that allows me to dominate over a wild animal.



> Again, you are not a dominant species. 7 Billion is a joke compared to the wast oceans and whatnot. Come down a bit!



No need, thanks. While I disagree with the notion of human exceptionalism when it tries to separate us from nature, I AM, indeed, a fan of humanity. We're pretty awesome. The best species on this planet. Fuck yeah.



> Look, in nature, every single member has to be fit to survive. Not in Humankind. And even that puts us away from the "survival of the fittest". You are the one who is not understanding this at all.



...What are you talking about? In nature? We are in nature. Therefore, every member that survives is fit to do so *in nature*.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Nov 30, 2011)

Man, we really have to agree to disagree. You totally ignore the 3/4 of the world, the oceans, you totally ignore all other awesome features of the animals we lack, and you also feel powerfull fighting one member of a species with a collective of your kind. You even take pride in it. 
Even the Dinasours couldn't last forever, we won't either. And know what? Cocroaches, Turtles, crocodiles, sharks will go on living. We are not the best. Not at all!


----------



## ElRay (Nov 30, 2011)

Nimgoble said:


> "Survival of the Fittest" is a term coined by human minds to describe the observable fact.


and on top of that, "Survival of the Fittest" only applies intra-species. It says nothing about the inter-relationship, dependancies, symbiosis, etc. of groups of species. What's the fitter species? The cattle that share the grass with the sheep, deer, etc., or the particular species of grass that has managed to choke-out all other varieties of grass?


Nimgoble said:


> The population of any group currently existing are the most fit to live. Any others are dead.



That's what a lot of folks lose. Any population static, observation, characteristic, etc. says absolutely nothing about any individual. Likewise, the fate of any individual says nothing about the entire population.

If a human idiot goes into a tiger's habitat w/o the products of the population's intelligence and gets mauled, that says nothing about the population. If the idiot's mauling and/or consumption by said tiger allows more humans to survive to maturity and produce offspring, then the idiot's death actually served to benefit the species.

Nature does some weird stuff and as long as it benefits the species as a whole, "Survival of the Fittest" applies. For example, there's a species of frog that eat's its children. Basically, the tadpoles pull the lowest-level nutrients out of the environment, and the adults eat the tadpoles. Seems "unnatural" and counter-productive, but it works.

Ray


----------



## flint757 (Nov 30, 2011)

An interesting point that someone glanced at that just came to mind was that if intelligence is our own advantage then bringing weapons and traps, etc. to a fight with another animal survival of the fittest style actually isn't fair because they were not conceived from our own minds, but through the brilliance of others. Now if we had to MacGyver that shit then I would agree.

The one thing that Albert Einstein said that could screw us in the end is that why memorize something if you can find it in a book. One reason I can think of is that history has been lost countless times because all the info were in books that were inevitably burned. Technology in the historical sense has been lost and learned repeatedly because we don't truly possess the knowledge we just read about it or use someone else for their skills. i couldn't tell you how to assemble a car, make a makeshift gun and countless other things. Granted I know enough to outsmart most critters, so this doesn't necessarily have a baring on the conversation, but it would justify why using a gun is unfair in the tiger argument. Just food for thought.

One of the other reason I question putting so much knowledge in computers instead of on paper. Data is really easy to lose.

Since intelligence is really our only strength it only would take something to mess up the computers and a lot of info would just be gone forever. That to me is a scary thought in theory it least.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 30, 2011)

So what have we learnt from this? Is the death of an entire species due to the greed of man justified because of the idea of survival of the fittest? I mean if morality doesn't come into it, there's little else that applies.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Nov 30, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> So what have we learnt from this? Is the death of an entire species due to the greed of man justified because of the idea of survival of the fittest? I mean if morality doesn't come into it, there's little else that applies.



Every extinction might have a greater damage on the longer run. It might cause the human kind to extinct.
The only reason why moral is exsisting is to prevent uns from extinction. If morals do not serve the survival, it's obsolete.


----------



## Blind Theory (Dec 4, 2011)

I came in on this late and I didn't bother reading so excuse me if I am restating anything at all. Alright here I go:

This is why we need to focus a little more on our wildlife throughout the world. They play a MAJOR part in the ecosystem regardless of what species. I strongly believe that all governments need to put much heftier sentences to illegal poaching because that is a major factor in the decrease in population of many species (although you hear about it a lot more with African animals than any other). Some animals went extinct and it was no fault of our own but we have reached a point in our planets history that we should be able to prevent these kinds of things. I would strongly suggest doing some research to see what animals around your area are on the endangered species list. If you know more about the problems around you, you are in a better position to help out through donations or volunteer work. Many animal sanctuaries have volunteer programs and I know it would be greatly appreciated. I am not advocating supporting any organization like Peta, Green Peace, etc as they are fucking moronic and don't actually help anything (in my opinion). Sum of the story, talk to your local conservation/wildlife biologist(s) to see what kind of donations/volunteer work can be done. It helps a whole lot more than talking about it on the internet. 

/rant

Sorry I went off there


----------

