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

Forums - General - If you could change one thing in this world, what would it be?

DarthVolod said:
JayWood2010 said:
DarthVolod said:
JayWood2010 said:

 

I am pretty sure we would all be dead in about 8 minutes or so if the sun suddenly dissapeared. This planet would freeze pretty quickly. Also, Earth would be knocked off its axis and be sent who knows where as it is no longer affected by the gravity of the sun. Plants, animals, and humans would all die at pretty much the same time with only a few single cell organisms if that which would be left on the planet after such a cataclysmic event. 

You are correct in saying that our brain (reason) is our primary survival mechanism. We do not get "help" from animals though as it is only through our utilization of animals and plants (a process that involves transforming them into something usuable such as a good) that we can survive.

I'm an atheist so I don't regard humanity as special because of a divine mandate. Rather, the souce of my preference for humanity (and the source for most people I would imagine even if they don't explicity state it) is simple self-interest. I am more concerned with human life because I am a human. This is a rational stance as well since I rely on humans to survive/thrive just as all humans do with few exceptions. Once again, however, I must state I am confused with your attempt to juxtapose a hierachy on human, plant, and animal life. Humans have to exploit the Earth which includes animals and plants in order to survive. This is just a fact. You can attempt to reason which is most important, but the question is as I stated "most important to whom?" Humans need to display self-interest and a preference for their survival over the survival of plants and animals in order to survive. It doesn't matter if you like that or not it is the nature of reality.

If a human really became so warped in their thinking that they would be willing to destroy themselves because they falsely belive that humans are harming the planet then they have every right to take their own life. If they try to take the lives of others, however, based on their irrational belief then don't be surprised if people rightly try to defend themselves. I'll ask you and this person if they are stilling monitoring this thread, what makes plant and animal life so special to you that you would be willing to kill off a perfectly healthy species that is, itself, considered to be part of the animal kingdom at least in origin. It is not the stated goal of humanity to eradicate all plant and animal life so what is this supposed threat that you are fighting against?


No.  We could survive without the sun for maybe 10 years if we go underground.  If we stay above ground we would die in a year.  Certainly longer than 8 minutes though.

The rest, Im a little too tired to answer right now :P  But i do appreciate the well thought out response even if we both have different views.  We all have opinions and i respect that

I suppose if we prepared for it and lived underground in specially made shelters we could survive for some time. I would be more concerned about where the planet itself would go without the sun to keep it in orbit. Probably would head straight towards Jupiter or something.

I think we are mostly on the same page here anyways, and it was definately nice discussing it though. I am confidant that you are not in favor of genocide in order to "save" the planet (unlike the other poster) so I can respect where you are coming from :  )


No, not for genocide at all lol  We are a destructive species but we are also smart enough to prolongue life.  We can even 'play god' in a way if we wanted to. They are actually thinking about bringing back the Whooly Mammoth and Sabre Tooth Tiger at the moment.  Not to mention we have stem cells that can create new organs or arms for that matter.  We can even clone people.  Because of this we are also able to help wildlife and plants even if we do destroy a lot of them.

As far as us being knocked out of orbit earth its self would be fine.  We could stil survive for  around 10 yars underground although our regular way of life would be so different that it may not be worth it.  It is actually possible that if we got knowcked out of orbit that we could find a new orbit around a different star to proliferate life all over again.  Life on the bottom of the sea around hydro-thermal vents can survive without the sun for billions of years without the sun.  They don't even know the sun exists now.




       

Around the Network
curl-6 said:
Make everyone bisexual.


I like this one lol.



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.