Perhaps I can illustrate the flaw in your reasoning in this way: Let's suppose that I become a solipsist. I would regard everything around me as a product of my own mentality. I can then say that you do not make choices, you do not think logically, you only respond to external stimuli, and you will never be able to change your future, or anything else, based on reasoning and decision making, because you have none. As you are completely incapable of proving otherwise, I am therefore justified in concluding that this is so.
I must admit that this doesn't make any sense to me. All I am saying is that animals can't reason and use logic like people can. Animals function differently than people do. Consider artic terns for example. They migrate thousands of miles across vast open oceans to their destination with getting lost. This is an example of instinct that a person could not perform with no previous training. A human would have to be taught and become proficient in navigation and long distance travel (and use a boat or plane obviously). Humans on the other hand, are capable of thinking outside the box; they can invent, innovate, use logic, and reason. Humans have achieved feats greater than that of the artic tern's not because they are tougher or stronger, but because they are smarter.
Humans have carved their place in the world. We have made some amazing achievements - even just in the past 100 years. I feel like it's just an uncontroversial that we deserve the benefits from these accomplishments.
Imagine that we could have the state of Option 2 while keeping the advantages. As soon as nuclear fusion becomes a usable energy source, we can dispopse of carbon and nuclear fission and still produce all the energy we need. Killing animals won't be necessary because we will grow all our meat in Petri dishes.
Of course this necessitates that first we go through the phase we are in right now, which is the phase where we still pollute and eat actual animals. But this was necessary to develop the techniques and knowledge for a deserving option 2.
That seems to me a completely palatable route to take and one that I would hope we're on (or at least headed towards). We get the green benefits of option 2 without the sharp decline in welfare. It's kind of funny that this is another sort of catch-22 scenario. We have to keep doing what we're doing (to a great extent) in order to get to this idyllic future
All I am saying is that animals can't reason and use logic like people can.
And I am saying that I can use the same flawed reasoning to conclude that you can't either. You still can't do anything to prove otherwise. Why should I assume that you are a thinking sentient being but a goldfish isn't?
Humans have achieved feats greater than that of the artic tern's not because they are tougher or stronger, but because they are smarter.
That assumption isn't valid either. Arctic terns don't have hands or well developed vocal chords. They would be incapable of achieving these feats regardless of their intelligence, so it is illogical to attribute all of our accomplishments to intellect alone.
Imagine that we could have the state of Option 2 while keeping the advantages. As soon as nuclear fusion becomes a usable energy source, we can dispopse of carbon and nuclear fission and still produce all the energy we need. Killing animals won't be necessary because we will grow all our meat in Petri dishes.
I may just be too pessimistic, but this doesn't seem at all plausible to me.
Hehe, yeah the cold fusion part (I'm assuming cold fusion since we don't want to build a star here!) may well be a pipe dream. But the general notion of clean and reliable energy seems.... I don't know the word. Plausible may be too strong. Conceivable is too weak. Plauceivable?
Pang, you may want to look up the definition for a strawman fallacy. Every time I post something pang will be along to call it a strawman. The argument isn't weak, and if you think that simple animals are superior to us, I wish you luck in life.
1) It was a strawman, you exaggerated the argument in your favor, making it "easier to knock down", per se.
2) We aren't talking about superior/inferior, we are talking about intelligence. There is a vast difference.
The goldfish doesn't make choices or think logically like a person can, it can only act on instinct and respond to external stimuli.
Animals have been shown to make decisions time and time again. Or are you generalizing goldfish to be the kind in bowls?
And I am saying that I can use the same flawed reasoning to conclude that you can't either. You still can't do anything to prove otherwise. Why should I assume that you are a thinking sentient being but a goldfish isn't?
Yeah, who knows? Goldfish may be a zillion^1000000000000 times smarter than us. Perhaps it's just because they can't show it that we don't see it. Your logic makes perfect sense.
Don't use flawed reasoning then, use good reasoning.
I didn't say that goldfish can't think, I'm saying that they can't think like people can. Their brains are not as complicated or developed.
1) It was a strawman, you exaggerated the argument in your favor, making it "easier to knock down", per se.
I exaggerate to make the point, and you use this mistake of mine to ignore what I'm saying and jump on me. Typical.
so you are saying that those that didn't (or try to) understand the truth about the world around us should not be responsible to the planet? so if i was a person that works in the logging industry that doesn't replant the trees, i can bail out from responsibility to do that by saying " The earth is fine, it does not need the caring hands of humans or me" a.k.a denying the fact that the planet needs to be cared on. very logical
No they would still share in responsibility, I was speaking about humanity as a whole.
God have not given us the Earth, we have no control over the seasons and other things. We are only a part of the races found here.
Okay, then I'm a bit confused by your OP statement of "The god given us many things because he hope the humans I have created will go to the earth and will do many good things !"
I would like to ask you: What is the species on this planet do you think is more intelligent than humans? Seriously? I don't see monkeys putting other monkeys on the moon.
I suppose this all depends on how intelligence is being defined. Which could be a rather interesting philosophical topic to discuss on it's own.
In the case of humans, many of these actions have the potential to cause catastrophic events, so humans have much more significant responsibilities than another species which is not as dangerous.
Yes, that's the point I've been trying to get at as well.
It just makes me wonder whether we can really desire dramatic change to our already-established lifestyles. I'm not sure if this is even a coherent line to take. But I'm thinking about those 5 options I laid out earlier and someone suggested option 2. It's just such a dramatic change that I don't think we could genuinely desire such a thing.
I think there are plenty of changes we can make that would allow at least the majority of us to keep our lifestyles and have a different impact on the planet.
Some of those changes could even result in improving our way of life.
(I'm assuming cold fusion since we don't want to build a star here!)
Why not? If we could make it feasible it would be an excellent power source and still cleaner than conventional nuclear options.
Why not? If we could make it feasible it would be an excellent power source and still cleaner than conventional nuclear options.
Tee hee. I did some maths and it looks like the smallest diameter of an object that can use its own mass to generate nuclear fusion (i.e. a star) is about 10 times the diameter of Earth!! Crazy!
Don't use flawed reasoning then, use good reasoning.
No worries. I don't intend to.
I didn't say that goldfish can't think, I'm saying that they can't think like people can. Their brains are not as complicated or developed.
Their brains are no less "developed", as that would suggest that the entire species suffers from a growth defect. It is true, however, that their brains are not as complicated. The problem with using this as a measure of intellect is in that goldfish, due to their simple lifestyle, do not require vast data storage capabilities. Considering the sheer quantity of trivial or otherwise unintellectual information that we are subjected to and the vast number of things we need to remember on a daily basis, I see no reason to assume that the complexity of the human brain is being used for cognition alone, or even to a significant extent.
Why not? If we could make it feasible it would be an excellent power source and still cleaner than conventional nuclear options.
Why not, as in why not cold fusion? It would be a direct contradiction of conservation of energy. It also wouldn't be any cleaner unless it involved the direct conversion of all matter in a sample into energy, which seems even more outlandish.
Tee hee. I did some maths and it looks like the smallest diameter of an object that can use its own mass to generate nuclear fusion (i.e. a star) is about 10 times the diameter of Earth!! Crazy!
you mean like Jupiter? then explain to me why we have not Jupiter as a star but as a planet
Yeah, who knows? Goldfish may be a zillion^1000000000000 times smarter than us. Perhaps it's just because they can't show it that we don't see it. Your logic makes perfect sense.
Don't use flawed reasoning then, use good reasoning.
I didn't say that goldfish can't think, I'm saying that they can't think like people can. Their brains are not as complicated or developed.
you don't get it do you? all advanced animals with brains ( vertebrates, excluding those of the lower "castes" like cephalochordata) can form memories and make judgements based on them. goldfishes in the wild is known to memorize the places with abundances of food, that could be your intelligence your seeking. if you are talking about a goldfish in a bowl and trying to prove that it is "mindlessly gulping water" and having no intelligence whatsoever, then what do you say about human prisoners in solitary confinement? isn't he just mindlessly gulping air and moving about?
that's the flaw of your reasoning, because you see things based on a wrong perspective.
you mean like Jupiter? then explain to me why we have not Jupiter as a star but as a planet
Well, it's just not dense enough. It's really about the mass and volume of the object (thus, it's density). I had heard somewhere that Jupiter came close to becoming a star, but I don't think that's quite right. Anyway, this is super off topic, but I've already typed it. Sorries!
Tee hee. I did some maths and it looks like the smallest diameter of an object that can use its own mass to generate nuclear fusion (i.e. a star) is about 10 times the diameter of Earth!! Crazy!
We have been able to do it, They aren't stable for long and we just haven't been able to do it to where it would be cost effective. Also I'm not too sure of this but I don't think we've worked out how to harness the energy effectively either.
Why not, as in why not cold fusion? It would be a direct contradiction of conservation of energy. It also wouldn't be any cleaner unless it involved the direct conversion of all matter in a sample into energy, which seems even more outlandish.
No, I mean why not create a "mini-star" to derive power from.
I would like to see the use of matter/antimatter. However I hear the creation of antimatter that we would need can't get much more efficient than what we have now. Though I've never heard the reason as to why that is.
