Originally Posted by Jodus
[/B]That means, if there aren't humans, the Earth will keep going (and probably will improve and fix the damage caused by us.)
This is correct but is very misleading.
If you remove any species from the earth, the earth will keep going. In fact, within living memory hundreds of species have gone extinct, and we haven't seen the earth implode just yet! You can remove a million species from the face of the earth and it will keep going. There is no way to understate this sentiment.
What is "the damage caused by us" - I should remind you that we /are/ part of the system, regardless of what your teacher tells you. What you are doing is making the same mistake as the people who hunted wolves. Firstly the term 'damage' is not well defined, and neither is the ideal state. Your teacher is using a bit of a mind game here, we all know "natural = good" therefore by removing humans and making the earth more natural, haven't we fixed the problems?! The earth certainly will go on! If your aim is to remove humans, then removing humans is an effective solution...
Originally Posted by Jodus
That's what I've got from the class today. I haven't done researches about this, to see if it's a real fact. But as far as I got knowledge of this kind of things, seems pretty true and impressive. Like, really, what naturally and biologically we can do for the ecosystem? We born with the mind in blank, there's no instinct really relevant that can help the Earth, like all the animals have.
That's not true, the perspective that animals all have instinct to help the earth is FALSE. I have a pet cat for example. It's instincts are to kill every living thing small than it is. How does this help the earth? Because it's "part of the circle of life"? Because "cat is natural therefore it's actions are natural and nature is good"? So what about the fact that I feed my cat, water my garden, build things that animals live on/in (eg spiders, birds, insects, etc)? Humans play a HUGE role in the 'system that of planet earth'.
Humans have "animal instincts" as much as any other animal.
In summary, your teacher utilizes a fallacy known as 'begging the question' in which by asserting the conclusion 'humans are not natural' they can then construct an argument, 'humans are not part of homeostasis', that proves his conclusion. This kind of circular argument is common, and in this case clever since it also uses the opinion that humans are above nature, which is very common subconscious belief (ask anyone and they will say that humans are part of nature, but you don't see them walking into a city and saying "ah, look at all this nature!").
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
This is correct but is very misleading.
If you remove any species from the earth, the earth will keep going. In fact, within living memory hundreds of species have gone extinct, and we haven't seen the earth implode just yet! You can remove a million species from the face of the earth and it will keep going. There is no way to understate this sentiment.
Man, so we can remove the vegetation of the world and still will keep going? What makes the difference between the trees and animals in terms of functionality? They all belong to the ecosystem. And as it's called ecosystem, there's really a system in it, right? A system means a group of components that needs each others to keep going. Giraffes needs trees and plants to live, the Lithosphere(rocks, minerals) needs the hydrosphere(water) to keep the minerals around the Earth, and so on. There's a process and every single thing has a function for the preservation of the world and all together it's called the ecosystem. It's a fact and you can see it by going outside, whether or not that be good, bad, ideal, not ideal, perfect, not perfect, that's what is going on. So, how do you know that the Earth isn't imploding? Do you have proof that the Earth it's fine? The world is more big than the area you're living.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
What is "the damage caused by us" - I should remind you that we /are/ part of the system, regardless of what your teacher tells you. What you are doing is making the same mistake as the people who hunted wolves. Firstly the term 'damage' is not well defined, and neither is the ideal state. Your teacher is using a bit of a mind game here, we all know "natural = good" therefore by removing humans and making the earth more natural, haven't we fixed the problems?! The earth certainly will go on! If your aim is to remove humans, then removing humans is an effective solution...
Where did I said that remove the humanity was a solution? solution of what? The whole point I began talking was the supposed separation between the system of the planet and the human being. Let me ask you, which specie will really extinct if we aren't here? Someone or something depends on our existence here in THIS planet to live? The only that for sure depends on us is a bacteria we have in our stomach. Now, let's eliminate the ants for example, or some other living being. That would be devastating for the ground and a lot of other living beings if the ants are extincted. Also the bees, and so on. All as far as we know is a chain of balance. And maybe you'll not notice the change that might have an extincted specie on your little space of your life, but that really is a damage. Actually the real name for that is an entropy.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
That's not true, the perspective that animals all have instinct to help the earth is FALSE. I have a pet cat for example. It's instincts are to kill every living thing small than it is. How does this help the earth? Because it's "part of the circle of life"? Because "cat is natural therefore it's actions are natural and nature is good"? So what about the fact that I feed my cat, water my garden, build things that animals live on/in (eg spiders, birds, insects, etc)? Humans play a HUGE role in the 'system that of planet earth'.
Humans have "animal instincts" as much as any other animal.
Cats are an evolution and what you have is specifically a domestic cat. That one has his story of how they've become the way they are. I don't want to go deep into this, but search history about the domestication of the cats, dogs and other animals. And, because the cat kills some insects or whatever can be, doesn't means that is "bad for the Earth". The real purpose of why he's doing it might be difficult to know from a simple analysis.
And of course, we play a big role in this planet. We need the planet to live, but seems that the planet doesn't need us to keep going on. You don't need to build things for the animals, that's the type of things the humans does to the nature. We implement our ethical stuff to the rest, which actually that it's unnecessary because the system of the planet will be seeking for balance, and if the action balance is done, means that will always be something "wrong to fix" which means that really nothing is wrong at all. There's nothing we should change, care or fix then. It's like a paradox; the black implies white, the white implies black.
I feel if you're religious, it gives a purpose life. Personally, I'm not religious at all; therefore I see no purpose to life. It's as if we were put here to just die. Now this all may sound very dark, but there are good parts of life too. But (to damper the good side of life) it seems that you spend more time doing what you don't want, then what you do want.
But more and more the earth is slowly over populating. But, whatever... we'll never be able to see what the future holds for earth and humans.
But more and more the earth is slowly over populating. But, whatever... we'll never be able to see what the future holds for earth and humans.
Last edited by Nate; Jan 27, 2015 at 05:02 PM.
Originally Posted by Nate
I feel if you're religious, it gives a purpose life. Personally, I'm not religious at all; therefore I see no purpose to life. It's as if we were put here to just die. Now this all may sound very dark, but there are good parts of life too. But (to damper the good side of life) it seems that you spend more time doing what you don't want, then what you do want.
But more and more the earth is slowly over populating. But, whatever... we'll never be able to see what the future holds for earth and humans.
I'm not religious. And yeah, now we wonder that, what's the purpose of life? But, the babies aren't thinking all this stuff, you can see that, they just are. The way we are made makes we get this level of knowledge and ask ourselves the typical questions while we grow. Seems that type of evolutionary thinking is blinding us, a block where we can't see the life itself how it is. Why do we really need a purpose or a goal to live? All that is learned by the twisted society. The feelings, the culture, and all that stuff are learned. And we don't die biologically by not having a purpose or a goal, so that's something created in some time in the history of us. And by that time, we got stuck.
The humans have a lot of things that may separate from all the living beings in this planet, and by that, might be a possibility that we don't belong to this planet. That's the point. And btw, this doesn't mean that we're superior than the rest species.
Originally Posted by Jodus
Man, so we can remove the vegetation of the world and still will keep going? What makes the difference between the trees and animals in terms of functionality? They all belong to the ecosystem. And as it's called ecosystem, there's really a system in it, right? A system means a group of components that needs each others to keep going. Giraffes needs trees and plants to live, the Lithosphere(rocks, minerals) needs the hydrosphere(water) to keep the minerals around the Earth, and so on. There's a process and every single thing has a function for the preservation of the world and all together it's called the ecosystem. It's a fact and you can see it by going outside, whether or not that be good, bad, ideal, not ideal, perfect, not perfect, that's what is going on. So, how do you know that the Earth isn't imploding? Do you have proof that the Earth it's fine? The world is more big than the area you're living.
Yes, if we removed all the vegetation the world would still keep going. I understand what the ecosystem is...
You're right, how can I know that the earth hasn't already broken? You are loosely throwing around ideas without any definitions. Can you explain what this breaking of the earth is?
Originally Posted by Jodus
Where did I said that remove the humanity was a solution? solution of what? The whole point I began talking was the supposed separation between the system of the planet and the human being. Let me ask you, which specie will really extinct if we aren't here? Someone or something depends on our existence here in THIS planet to live? The only that for sure depends on us is a bacteria we have in our stomach. Now, let's eliminate the ants for example, or some other living being. That would be devastating for the ground and a lot of other living beings if the ants are extincted. Also the bees, and so on. All as far as we know is a chain of balance. And maybe you'll not notice the change that might have an extincted specie on your little space of your life, but that really is a damage. Actually the real name for that is an entropy.
Solution to human caused problems, as I said in my post.
This is a pointless line of argument, but I'll humor you,
About what species will go extinct if humans disapeared: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinct_in_the_wild
And countless more will be heavily damaged.
As I said, hundreds of species have gone extinct within living memory and the world hasn't collapsed. Even if you wipe out all species of bees all over the world, the world will recover within a generation.
Originally Posted by Jodus
Cats are an evolution and what you have is specifically a domestic cat. That one has his story of how they've become the way they are. I don't want to go deep into this, but search history about the domestication of the cats, dogs and other animals. And, because the cat kills some insects or whatever can be, doesn't means that is "bad for the Earth". The real purpose of why he's doing it might be difficult to know from a simple analysis.
And of course, we play a big role in this planet. We need the planet to live, but seems that the planet doesn't need us to keep going on. You don't need to build things for the animals, that's the type of things the humans does to the nature. We implement our ethical stuff to the rest, which actually that it's unnecessary because the system of the planet will be seeking for balance, and if the action balance is done, means that will always be something "wrong to fix" which means that really nothing is wrong at all. There's nothing we should change, care or fix then. It's like a paradox; the black implies white, the white implies black.
"Cats are an evolution" ... ? Yes, obviously I do not have pet lion. There's no need to state that! For the record, "bees" and "ants" are not a species, but I think we both know what you are talking about so I didn't feel the need to make a big fuss about it...
And how well would lions do without the earth? Honestly I don't think they would do very well. Lions need the earth, but the earth doesn't need lions.
The earth does not seek balance, it arrives at it through a feedback system. The earth has no goals and no opinion, do not personify objects so casually unless you have a specific reason to do so. Since we have established that the earth is not a sentient being, I think we can say that human actions to help bring the earth into 'balance' are completely up to the human performing them.
"You don't need to build things for the animals" sure, this I agree with. If a species is going extinct, their genes should be catalogued for future use, and be allowed to die out. I think we have found some common ground here, I have no moral qualms about the macro destruction of habitats or mass extinctions, because the earth will tend towards balance in the end anyway. Humans are in charge of their destiny, and as you said, it's not our job to bring balance to the earth!
Your arguments can be used for any species on earth. You are specifically singling out humans as being non-natural, and then using that classification to prove that they aren't. No species can live without the earth, the earth can live without any single species. When any species is removed from the system, the system will have to adapt to the change.
If you want to continue with this argument you need to remove the fallacy which I already pointed out.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
