By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Planned extinction: Is it ethical to deliberately wipe out a species?

 

Do you think it is?

Yes 69 56.56%
 
No 53 43.44%
 
Total:122
sc94597 said:
Troll_Whisperer said:

That's sympathy, not empathy. And it's more instinctive.

Does (domesticated) show strong empathy skills. They track human eye patterns and induce chemical reactions based on the emotions of their owners. In fact, Dogs are more empathetic than Chimps, with a detailed set of theory of mind skills.  They essentially were bred to be empathetic and in tune with human emotions. It was necessary for their survival. 

Ok, but if my girlfriend leaves me, my dog doesn't think "poor guy, I know how that feels". Empathy is understanding other's feelings and being able to imagine yourself in his shoes.

I mean, they might get basics like "sad" or "excited" and instinctively copy them, but that's it.

But whatever, this is far removed from the point of the thread anyway.



No troll is too much for me to handle. I rehabilitate trolls, I train people. I am the Troll Whisperer.

Around the Network
curl-6 said:

When you hear that a species is endangered, it's usually in the context that it should be saved before it's lost forever.

But what if the species in question is the Guinea Worm, or the Polio virus? Both are critically endangered thanks to decades of deliberate extermination efforts by humans. Both also happen to cause debilitating disease.

We've done it before; Smallpox and Rinderpest are extinct in the wild thanks to successful eradication campaigns.

And why draw the line there? In 2003, biologist Olivia Judson proposed that by wiping out 30 species of mosquito through the introduction of recessive "knockout" genes, we could save at least a million human lives annually that would otherwise be lost to malaria, dengue fever, and other mosquito-borne diseases.

So, do you believe that it's ethically right to intentionally eliminate a species from the earth?


So after your logic we should kill our self too, because the human species is probably the biggest parisite on the planet



Troll_Whisperer said:
sc94597 said:

Does (domesticated) show strong empathy skills. They track human eye patterns and induce chemical reactions based on the emotions of their owners. In fact, Dogs are more empathetic than Chimps, with a detailed set of theory of mind skills.  They essentially were bred to be empathetic and in tune with human emotions. It was necessary for their survival. 

Ok, but if my girlfriend leaves me, my dog doesn't think "poor guy, I know how that feels". Empathy is understanding other's feelings and being able to imagine yourself in his shoes.

I mean, they might get basics like "sad" or "excited" and instinctively copy them, but that's it.

But whatever, this is far removed from the point of the thread anyway.

Sure there is always going to be a cognitive disadvantage which impedes how empathetic the dog can be, but this is not a binary of "has empathy"  vs. "does not have empathy." There are degrees of empathy. The cause of empathy in dogs is no different from the cause of empathy in humans. It is a mixture of chemical reactions induced by a combination of stimuli and cognitive processing. In the dog it is much more stimuli based, while in a human there exists empathy that is cognitive, but that doesn't mean there is not stimuli based empathy in humans and cognitive-based empathy in dogs. A lot of people will cry because they see somebody they love hurt without even understanding why they are hurt, for example. That is just as much empathy as understanding is. Empathy isn't just about understanding other people's emotions, but also about feeling other people's emotions. Sometimes it is necessary to understand one's emotions to feel them. Other times it is not. Dogs and Humans incorporate both. Humans being much more intelligent are capable of greater degrees of cognitive empathy, of course though. 



Ruler said:


So after your logic we should kill our self too, because the human species is probably the biggest parisite on the planet

The definition of a parasite requires two (or more) living beings in a symbiosis from which one gains resources at the expense of the other. Humans usually have mutually beneficial relationships with most species we interact with. We eat cows, for example, but the cows have benefited from this domestication by higher population rates.  

Nevertheless, his argument assumes that people put higher value on human life than the life of other species. I think most people are humanists and agree with such a sentiment. That doesn't mean other species aren't valuable, just less valuable than humans from the perspective of humans. 



Ruler said:

So after your logic we should kill our self too, because the human species is probably the biggest parisite on the planet


I very much so enjoy living. I largely enjoy the things we get to experience as human beings; 

 

The sad truth is we haven't done squat to better anything about this planet and have often times gone out of our way to disregard other species to make this world more enjoyable for us.  I just don't feel like it's right and that there might have been another path we could've taken early on in human history (it's nearly impossible at this point, but there's always hope).

 

I don't believe it was our destiny as a race to bring about the ultimate destruction of the only planet we've found that exhibits life. We live in a beautiful disaster



Around the Network

Anybody remember what happened when the wolves were all hunted in Yellowstone? Yup, shit got thrown outta balance. That's what will happen if you eradicate a species that is an integral part of something larger. Eradicating a species to make us more comfortable living our lives is a huge fuck you to mother nature. Unless of course that species is invasive and was introduced to a foreign ecosystem, in which case get it out of there if at all possible.
Viruses? Damn straight we should eradicate them. That is what I've been trying to say. Don't kill off the mosquito; make sure every human is prepared to fight off the disease they carry.



#1 Amb-ass-ador

curl-6 said:
Teeqoz said:

Is the guinea worm of any importance to any ecosystem? Does it fill any useful/neccesary role for nature?

Guinea Worms are exclusively a parasite of humans; if they do not infect a person, they cannot reproduce, and they die out.

Since their eggs and larvae live in fresh water, it's probable they serve as a food source for small aquatic predators, though one would think such predators would be able to find plenty of other smaller organisms to feed on.

While every species interacts with its local ecosystem, I doubt the disappearance of a single species of parasitic worm is going to unravel the entire freshwater ecology of the few countries where it survives. 

Of course, I'm no expert.


Could they even be called sentient beings?



Teeqoz said:


Could they even be called sentient beings?

One definetion of sentience is the ability to modify ones environment to increase one's survivability. This is why humans can live nearly everywhere on the planet.

See Kardashev Scale



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

question is: wiping them out for what reason? if they answer is to help the human population the next question would be: if the human population is constantly growing why should we do anything to increase the growth rate as long we are bound to this planet with limited resources?



I have no sympathy for bugs and lesser species to be honest. They don't function like us they don't think or feel so it's hard to care about them. If eradicating a species is the best option for human survival then I think it's ok.