By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Netyaroze on 05 April 2013
Edit Thread
curl-6 said:
Netyaroze said:
curl-6 said:

One could ask where's the "fairness" in one species, humans,getting priority over thousands of others?

Of course we value our own kind over others, we're programmed to.

Honestly, things like humans repopulating species on other planets and such, that's all a bit far fetched and distant compared to the here-and-now reality of our destruction of thousands of species.


We haven't had priority in the past. 

Number of species is not even relevant we are all one in the end, the species classification is human made and you can't put a value on it anyway. 1000 species are not more worth than 1.

Nothing is fair in life and death thats my point, the human extinction would not be better for life. We are life we are part of nature who decides whats better ? Nobody does.

 

The destruction of species is bad because ? 

 

The repopulating life after disasters  (not necessarily on other planets) is just to show you the only objective metric that exist for life is survival and if Humans exists life has a theoretical chance of prolonged survival. So its objectively speaking "better" for life if humans continue to exist. 

Its infact not better for life if humans die in order to save animals. Its better for those animals only. 

1000 species do matter more than 1. Would you let one person kill 1000 others, when killing him could save them?

And you act as though no other intelligent beings capable of "saving" life could or do exist.

Late response:

 

1000 persons matter more than 1 (atleast from my POV)

But 1 Species can be just hundreds or thousands humans are 7000000000 the 1000 species could be combined just 1000000.

So if you want to play a numbers game 1000 species are less than 1. And if they are not than those species are not in danger of dieing.

Other Intelligent beings could exist but even if they do what has this to do with life would profit from the extinction of humanity. You have no logical string of thoughts to argue that life would profit from the extinction of humanity. Because this is a illogical assumption.

 

First you have to define whats good for life and whats bad before you could possibly answer the question. If your point is the total number of lifeforms you forget the billions of humans and the billions of lifestock we grow which wouldn't happen at that scale in nature. Sacrificing Billions for 1000 species which already are just tens, hundreds, thousands ten thousands each seems a little harsh don't you think ?

 

Or do you have another way to argue your case. As you can see 1 Species does not equal another in terms of lifeforms.