: :: SDF: Oh, come on, NJ, just come out and say he's wrong, challenge him! After all, the human race is responsible for the sort of global ecological devastation that will mark the end of a geological era,
: Speculation.I believe it's called informed speculation, based on the fact taht the extinction rate today is far higher than ever before (on the order of 1000 species / yr.)
: ::comparable to that which occurred the end of the Cretaceous Era 65 million years ago, that is, if there are any humans left to observe this fact when it's finished occurring,
: More speculation.
Do you really think that we can continue to destroy the universe and continue to be unaffected ourselves? Come on. eevn for an avowed human superiorist this is a bit much.
: :: that is to say, in some distant future when I am dead. This hardly marks humanity as "superior".
: We'll just pretend that was logic and Sam can pretend he knows things.
No, it actually makes a lot of sense. Is the propensity to kill each other and destroy the environmental what makes humanity superior? pardon me for seeming thickheaded, but since you have chosen not to explain WHY you think humanity is superior, I am genuinely puzzled.
: :: What it does say, however, is that the human species did produce an individual that it named Charles Darwin, and who warned us near the beginning of THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES that species that were too successful at existence within a niche ecology (as human beings are) were in danger of overpopulating their niches, and dying en masse as a result of having depopulated their food chains. And then, we might observe, the human species ignored the possibility that Darwin's warning might apply to THEM. Previous civilizations (the Romans, the Mayas) have collapsed due to ecological overexploitation, but none so spectacularly as the one on Easter Island, which stands as an example for us all...
: I know! Great example! The population of Easter Island is gone while the rest of the planet flourishes. What point? That Easter Island is a microcosm of the earth as a whole? Your kidding - right?
Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand the guy Stu? Easter Island had a small supply of resources which they overused quickly and their civilization collapsed. The Mayans had access to more resources, which they proceeded to overuse and then collapsed. The modern West has still more access to the resources that we steal from the Thrid world, so it will probably last even longer. The point he was making is that resources are essentially finite and if managed in an unsustainable manner will lead to societal collapse.
: :: For humans, being the most versatile and successful animal of such a body size (ants may be more versatile, and furthermore have a bigger brain-to-body ratio than humans), have up to today overpopulated every niche they could possibly overpopulate. It is only through human intelligence that humanity has defied Darwin's warning, for now.
: But that doesn't mark as superiority when millions of other life forms have gone extinct?
this is ridiculous. Humans have been around for at most 3 million years- many life forms today have been around for afr, far longer than that. Humans are newcomers on teh geological time scale. If longevity is your criterion, then you should consider crocodiles and turtles to be "superior'. This kind of argument reminds me of those people down in Florida who said that schools should teach that "America is superior to other culture because it has lasted and they haven't.' To make a statement like that one has to have 1) no conception of history (America has been around for 200 years, India for several thousand) 2) no realization of the economic and moral problems in America today, 3) a blatantly racist conception of cultural superiority, 4) a moral indifferencve to the way America won power through genocide and capitalism, 4) an incredible naivete to assuem that America will last for a few more thousand years, 5) a total unawareness that there are thousands of other cultures existing in the world today which are perfectly happy with their own way of doing things.
:Go figure what's in the heads of leftist malcontents. Mush - best I can tell.
I wonder what's in the heads of conservative retrogrades? Delusions of superiority- best I can tell.
: :: Nevertheless the possibility that humanity could exploit itself to death, soon, remains a significant one.
: Only if your ideology is to remain intact.
?
: :: It's also a majority opinion so it's still legal to eat animals.
: :: SDF: The fact that an opinion is a "majority opinion" has no bearing on whether it's true or moral.
: Never said it did.
Umm, sorry, you did. You said essentially, "If it's not based on the Bible it's mere opinion and is tehrefore subject to majority opinion."
Ignoring the fact that, 1) the bible has a lot of "opinion" as well, 2)oyther people have consistent moral codes taht are just s defensible as yorus- your is no less of an 'opinion' than their, 3) opinions are fundamentally based on facts, and as such can be debated rationally, and 4) plenty of religiosn and moral codes say teh opposite of what you are trying to argue.
: :: This is a basic argumentative fallacy that can be read in any standard textbook on argumentation or debate.
: I said it was legal and I'm motivated to keep it that way. Read the thread.
Stu, you're battling a straw man here. With teh exception of a few right-wing fundamentalists in India, no one is trying to ban meat. Certainly not me. I eat fish, after all...
