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
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»