ForumsWEPRIs the world screwed enough that it should be destroyed?

65 15021
roydotor2000
offline
roydotor2000
341 posts
Peasant

From the things I have notice around the world, From territory disputes to social media activism, should this world be destroyed? Post opinions pls.

  • 65 Replies
AClSllXVlll
offline
AClSllXVlll
741 posts
Jester

@HahiHa

1) Mass extinctions have happened before, and nature has always survived. In fact, mass extinctions are largely responsible for the diversity we see today; nature has never been entirely stable. The biggest harm we're doing is against ourselves. Instead of destroying ourselves, shouldn't we try to correct our behaviour?

If someone went to your home and destroyed it because they needed resources, that simply wouldn't be "okay". If someone was murdered for no reason, there would be an uproar. So why is it that whenever these things happen in nature, because of humans, there's never that much thought put into them? It's true that nature may not be stable, but I don't believe that it should be acceptable to kill animals as a sport or only use some of what could be taken from the body. If it's fine for extinctions to happen for almost no reason, then why don't we just grab a shotgun and start shooting everything we see? :/

As for attempting to correct our behavior, we've been trying for at least a century. There has been, and always will be, the selfish, violent, and even narcissistic people. It's impossible for everyone to change for the better and the ones who don't will always create the same problems that exist today.

2) Pollution is mostly coming from first world countries and big countries in development. There are tons of populations and tribes, however, who live in 'harmony' with nature. Wiping them out with us would be unfair, unethical, and criminal.

Do countries not always try to improve their technology and ease of living? Given time, more and more countries will begin developing into the same countries that cause pollution today. We may not need to "destroy" everyone, just the ones who are disregarding, and creating, the problems at hand. If it's still for the destruction of 100% of humanity, though it may be unfair, sacrifices have to be made when it's for the greater good.

Domesticating animals without torture is possible though, and some animals profited from that in history. I don't see that as reason enough to wipe us out.

Regardless of whether it's possible or not, it matters with how often it was/is done. It would also depend on exactly how many animals actually did profit from it. When it comes to animals used for food, they're constantly tortured and killed as though it was as simple as preparing a cup of tea.

You're saying that wiping out humanity would cause peace, but it wouldn't. There would no longer be any war, suffering, peace, or joy. Because there would be no human around anymore. If you want peace, you got to fight for it (by 'fight' I don't mean violence, but perseverance).

Peace is created when the factors that cause harm are eliminated. If there were no humans, there would technically be peace.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
7,724 posts
Grand Duke

@FishPreferred

The reason remains, however, as having everyone's descendants for the rest of the forseeable future also agree to this change of priorities is beyond any realm of possibility.

It can never be entirely discarded, but loses all substance for the time being.

@AClSllXVlll
We may not need to "destroy" everyone, just the ones who are disregarding, and creating, the problems at hand.

And that is exactly the reason why destroying all of humanity makes no sense whatsoever. Destroying only parts of it, although still an inhuman ethical nightmare, is always better than destroying all of it.

If it's fine for extinctions to happen for almost no reason, then why don't we just grab a shotgun and start shooting everything we see? :/

I agree, that would not be OK. The point I was trying to make is that humans as a species are a part of nature. The effect we have on the biosphere is exceptional only in the rate at which it is happening. I agree with you that we should care about our planet and not harm it if we can avoid it. But in the end, we are not answerable to 'nature', only to ourselves. There is no natural law saying 'Thou shalt not pollute', only our own subjective ethics; the very same ethics that prevent us from killing people. In conclusion, I too am against pollution and unsustainable economic models, but I don't consider killing people justified nonetheless.

As for attempting to correct our behavior, we've been trying for at least a century. There has been, and always will be, the selfish, violent, and even narcissistic people. It's impossible for everyone to change for the better and the ones who don't will always create the same problems that exist today.

That is not entirely true. Some level of pollution will likely always remain, but societies are already changing as sustainable technologies become more effective and affordable.

Peace is created when the factors that cause harm are eliminated. If there were no humans, there would technically be peace.

Yes, peace is the absence of war. But you said "Everyone always desires peace, would this not be a method to create that peace?". To which I say no, it isn't. The peace we desire is a peace between people, not without people. PETA applies a similarly warped logic by taking pets away from their owner to prevent abusive treatments, only to kill them because it's cheaper. You can't mistreat them if they're dead, right?
BalkanRenegades
offline
BalkanRenegades
819 posts
Templar

Why should it be destroyed?

We may not need to "destroy" everyone, just the ones who are disregarding, and creating, the problems at hand.

And that is exactly the reason why destroying all of humanity makes no sense whatsoever. Destroying only parts of it, although still an inhuman ethical nightmare, is always better than destroying all of it.

I totally agree with @HahiHa and @AClSllXVlll . There is no excuse for killing 7 billion people just because someone with power from shadow caused all of the world chaos.

AClSllXVlll
offline
AClSllXVlll
741 posts
Jester

Well I don't have anything else to say. Guess the thread should be locked then?

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
7,724 posts
Grand Duke

It's cool you tried to revive the debate after the thread was necro'ed, but I guess it can be locked now, yes. ^^

Anyone feeling confident that they found THE argument - after reading through all the previous posts - and wants to debate it can just drop a message on my profile and I'll unlock the thread.

Showing 61-65 of 65