Quantcast
Humans Suck -_-

Forums - General Discussion - Humans Suck -_-

I don't get it. If they went extinct wouldn't that mean they suck? Not only do they suck at living but also at procreating.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network

Other animals aren't better than humans, though.

They just can't do what we do but you just have to watch how animals are to each other to understand that many of them are even worse than humans and you can be lucky that they can't use weapons and stuff like that.

I always have to laugh when someone says that humans are worse than other animals. No, they are just not able to destroy as much as humans do.

Last edited by crissindahouse - on 25 January 2019

Rab said:
S.Peelman said:
Eh. 99.9999% of animals that existed are extinct. The couple that’s out fault are a drop in the pond.

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'm not expecting everyone here to personally go out and save the pandas or kill a poacher but some of you people are just fucking ignorant or selfish. Oh yeah let's wipe out half the species on the planet so that it ruins the food chain and directly impact species that benefit us



They were going to die anyway. It's life 



If you can't think for yourself, why are you alive? 

Around the Network

That's the course of nature.



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.

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.