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

100 Animal species we beat! =D

No, seriously, it is fucking horrific the level of damage we have inflicted on the natural world. We do need to change as a species, unfortunately there are a lot of greedy big business politicians out there trying to convince us otherwise.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network
Victorlink87 said:

We are fairly morally broken as a species. I think this is worth while, but what we do to each other is even worse.

I agree that our impact both on other species and our own is pretty terrifying.

However, I'd argue that as a species, we are not morally broken. In fact, we are the most moral animals on the face of the planet.

There is some growing evidence that certain animals have a sense of right and wrong, but no other species' sense of morality comes close to what humans feel. All animals (including humans) kill each other and their own. But the fact that cannibalism and infanticide are acceptable in some species while they're overwhelmingly frowned upon by humans is a point for mankind.

There's a lot of morally broken groups in our species, but many groups strive to fight for other species (tigers, as a species, wouldn't do that for us) and the environment. Our impact is only larger because of our advanced capabilities...not our morality.



danasider said:
Victorlink87 said:

We are fairly morally broken as a species. I think this is worth while, but what we do to each other is even worse.

I agree that our impact both on other species and our own is pretty terrifying.

However, I'd argue that as a species, we are not morally broken. In fact, we are the most moral animals on the face of the planet.

There is some growing evidence that certain animals have a sense of right and wrong, but no other species' sense of morality comes close to what humans feel. All animals (including humans) kill each other and their own. But the fact that cannibalism and infanticide are acceptable in some species while they're overwhelmingly frowned upon by humans is a point for mankind.

There's a lot of morally broken groups in our species, but many groups strive to fight for other species (tigers, as a species, wouldn't do that for us) and the environment. Our impact is only larger because of our advanced capabilities...not our morality.

This is interesting. I would argue that its tough to label any other species outside of other apes or octopi as having morals simply because we seem to operate at a much higher level of sentience. Be that due to brain, soul, spirit  etc I am not here to discuss.

 

Either way, it would be tough to argue that we aren't broken by saying we are less broken than X species.

 

That's why I say as a species. Not all people are equal in their brokeness or morality. However, even those that strive to be great have moral failures of some kind.

 

In regards to the environment I would argue both. Its due to us being more capable, but also lacking morality. Due to our higher level of operation we have a prerogative to protect and nourish our planet and yet we haven't. Why? Fear, anger, and greed come to mind first. All of which, except fear, demonstrate a lack of morality. A perfectly moral mankind would still negatively impact the planet as we will need to use it to survive, but we wouldn't hunt to extinction, we would clean up after ourselves and we wouldn't be so divided over protecting our planet.

 

This of course is effected by whether or not you view morality (generally) as subjective or objective.



Self hate is the worst hate.



So sad given how tasty some of them look.

Why couldn't it have been cats that went extinct instead?



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Around the Network
Victorlink87 said:

This is interesting. I would argue that its tough to label any other species outside of other apes or octopi as having morals simply because we seem to operate at a much higher level of sentience. Be that due to brain, soul, spirit  etc I am not here to discuss.

 

Either way, it would be tough to argue that we aren't broken by saying we are less broken than X species.

 

That's why I say as a species. Not all people are equal in their brokeness or morality. However, even those that strive to be great have moral failures of some kind.

 

In regards to the environment I would argue both. Its due to us being more capable, but also lacking morality. Due to our higher level of operation we have a prerogative to protect and nourish our planet and yet we haven't. Why? Fear, anger, and greed come to mind first. All of which, except fear, demonstrate a lack of morality. A perfectly moral mankind would still negatively impact the planet as we will need to use it to survive, but we wouldn't hunt to extinction, we would clean up after ourselves and we wouldn't be so divided over protecting our planet.

 

This of course is effected by whether or not you view morality (generally) as subjective or objective.

I can see your stance, but I believe morality is relative and subjective. In our history, morality has changed over generations. There are some tenets we've stuck to, but a whole bunch of things we see as right or wrong, ethical or corrupt, are completely different in just a span of a hundred years.

And if we don't gauge morality by relativity, than that means all species "suck" as the post title states. We're the apex of morality and yet we are considered morally broken, so what does that mean for other species?  If we're morally broken, then other species are more morally bankrupt (either barely having a sense of morality or lacking that sense altogether). I see that as a bleak view of all animals, and us as a species in particular.



danasider said:
Victorlink87 said:

This is interesting. I would argue that its tough to label any other species outside of other apes or octopi as having morals simply because we seem to operate at a much higher level of sentience. Be that due to brain, soul, spirit  etc I am not here to discuss.

 

Either way, it would be tough to argue that we aren't broken by saying we are less broken than X species.

 

That's why I say as a species. Not all people are equal in their brokeness or morality. However, even those that strive to be great have moral failures of some kind.

 

In regards to the environment I would argue both. Its due to us being more capable, but also lacking morality. Due to our higher level of operation we have a prerogative to protect and nourish our planet and yet we haven't. Why? Fear, anger, and greed come to mind first. All of which, except fear, demonstrate a lack of morality. A perfectly moral mankind would still negatively impact the planet as we will need to use it to survive, but we wouldn't hunt to extinction, we would clean up after ourselves and we wouldn't be so divided over protecting our planet.

 

This of course is effected by whether or not you view morality (generally) as subjective or objective.

I can see your stance, but I believe morality is relative and subjective. In our history, morality has changed over generations. There are some tenets we've stuck to, but a whole bunch of things we see as right or wrong, ethical or corrupt, are completely different in just a span of a hundred years.

And if we don't gauge morality by relativity, than that means all species "suck" as the post title states. We're the apex of morality and yet we are considered morally broken, so what does that mean for other species?  If we're morally broken, then other species are more morally bankrupt (either barely having a sense of morality or lacking that sense altogether). I see that as a bleak view of all animals, and us as a species in particular.

Fairly bleak to be sure. This is why government and religion exists. (Both of which can be corrupted by people).

 

But being morally broken doesn't necessarily mean we are always going to do the immoral thing. Rather, that if it is questionable or downright wrong or can be messed up we will find a way to do it. Not everyone in everyway, just everyone in their own way with their own vice.

Unfortunately, this also means we will do some messed up things as a society because they are grey or not understood or we are greedy (slavery on that last one). Amazing how at the root of every major social evil from the past from slavery to genocide is pride and greed.

 

I do see morality as objective, but not without room for interpretation and not to the degree that every decision we make has a moral right/wrong. Rather that the basics are true, I will list the positive: love, patience, charity, kindness, honesty, integrity, etc. 



Victorlink87 said:

Fairly bleak to be sure. This is why government and religion exists. (Both of which can be corrupted by people).

 

But being morally broken doesn't necessarily mean we are always going to do the immoral thing. Rather, that if it is questionable or downright wrong or can be messed up we will find a way to do it. Not everyone in everyway, just everyone in their own way with their own vice.

Unfortunately, this also means we will do some messed up things as a society because they are grey or not understood or we are greedy (slavery on that last one). Amazing how at the root of every major social evil from the past from slavery to genocide is pride and greed.

 

I do see morality as objective, but not without room for interpretation and not to the degree that every decision we make has a moral right/wrong. Rather that the basics are true, I will list the positive: love, patience, charity, kindness, honesty, integrity, etc. 

Morality is basically an artifact of our species' effort to further itself. These things we deem positive (and I agree, those things you listed are all considered right), are done so because we need a framework of rules that prevents us from doing things that would likely threaten our odds at surviving. Some of those things you mentioned didn't exist before the dawn of civilization.

I think even though we aren't perfect as a species, I'd lean towards us being more moral than immoral. The proof is in the numbers. Seven billion people show the rules we've followed through the morality we've made works. And they work really well, because the population was less than half (three billion) in 1960.



danasider said:
Victorlink87 said:

Fairly bleak to be sure. This is why government and religion exists. (Both of which can be corrupted by people).

 

But being morally broken doesn't necessarily mean we are always going to do the immoral thing. Rather, that if it is questionable or downright wrong or can be messed up we will find a way to do it. Not everyone in everyway, just everyone in their own way with their own vice.

Unfortunately, this also means we will do some messed up things as a society because they are grey or not understood or we are greedy (slavery on that last one). Amazing how at the root of every major social evil from the past from slavery to genocide is pride and greed.

 

I do see morality as objective, but not without room for interpretation and not to the degree that every decision we make has a moral right/wrong. Rather that the basics are true, I will list the positive: love, patience, charity, kindness, honesty, integrity, etc. 

Morality is basically an artifact of our species' effort to further itself. These things we deem positive (and I agree, those things you listed are all considered right), are done so because we need a framework of rules that prevents us from doing things that would likely threaten our odds at surviving. Some of those things you mentioned didn't exist before the dawn of civilization.

I think even though we aren't perfect as a species, I'd lean towards us being more moral than immoral. The proof is in the numbers. Seven billion people show the rules we've followed through the morality we've made works. And they work really well, because the population was less than half (three billion) in 1960.

I agree with almost everything you said. It is an artifact, but not something we can cast off. I do not believe we invented them, but that isn't what this thread is about. So I don't want that to distract us and will move on from it for another time.

 

Again, being immoral doesn't necessarily mean you will crash the society. That's too extreme. An immoral species can thrive so long as its held to standards like laws. Laws that are enforced primarily by government. We have set up institutions because we don't trust a large unchecked and unguided group of people.

I think we are morally broken not because we swing to the extremes, but because we can't do it all right all the time. (I will note that I do not think this means we are without hope or that human kind isn't pretty awesome)

Sometimes we do swing to the extreme, but most of the time we do not. Most of the time our morals do not impact anyone except those immediately involved. 

Summary: we are way more moral than immoral because there is restraint in the rule of law enforced by government and communities. Mankind has a lot going for it.

So, in the end we agree.

To my original comment: I am not shocked or even saddened by the extinctions or damage we have caused because of the view of morality I hold. (Anger and disappointment sometimes.)



S.Peelman said:
Rab said:

Not in such a small time scale, we are harming the ecology far faster than anything baring an asteroid impact  

My comment was half joking, but it has a bit of truth.

You are right in that we are doing things we needn’t be doing to the environment. I like animals, and hate poachers and other cruelty. However, humans are arrogant to think we can do anything to really ruin the planet and have a definitive impact in the grand scheme of things.

Our time here is but a blink on the lifespan of the Earth. Before us, lifeforms evolved and died out. Continents formed and got washed away. Volcanoes spewed, and still do, the same amount of CO2 into the air that we as a species in our entire existance do. After we are go away ourselves, new lifeforms will rise and die out again. Climates will continue to change. Even oil, coal and mineral reserves will replenish in time.

That said, I agree that for us, even if not necessary for the wellbeing of the planet, then at least for our own comfort, we can be less destructive. We don’t need to blast high amounts of CO2 into the air anymore when we have technology that makes that obsolete. We don’t need fur coats, or animal fluids for medicine. 

I was hoping you were joking, also I agree with everything you have said, its for our own good that we look after this jewel of a planet