The topic is "we are doing missuse of powers given us by the god. What do you think about this ? Can we prevent this ?".
I suppose in this context it's like a kid receiving a toy. That kid could be rough the the toy and break it, but they won't receive another. If the kid wants to keep that toy and always have it to play with they have to play with it in a way that won't break it and maintain it.
If this analogy holds then we have this planet and we are being rough with it when we should do more to maintain it. Now I would disagree that this is a responsibility that we have because this planet was given to us by god, but rather one we have due to our understanding of the world and universe and our ability to either be rough or responsible.
Following on this analogy the reason many are rough is because they are under the idea that their parent (god) will soon give them a new and even better toy (Earth) to play with, so they can be as rough and break this one all they like and not worry about not having it for the future.
Why you all are saying "us"? as @ FishPreferred said before it defines ownership.
God gave us dominion over the earth. We can use it however we want to. Sure, we abuse animals - but we're allowed to! Yes, we waste resources, but we're allowed to! At what point are we "doing missuse of powers given by the god"?
"God gave us dominion over the earth" first of all not only us. "Abuse animals" who gave us right to do this? "Waste resources" who gave us right to do this? don't say god because I think they don't want us to do these things.
Your "missuse" claim is still unsubstantiated, because you have not explained what these powers are or how you arrived at the conclusion that our use of them is improper.
Yes I agree, I have not explain the term "missuse". So take it "Option 2" but with little changes.
Following on this analogy the reason many are rough is because they are under the idea that their parent (god) will soon give them a new and even better toy (Earth) to play with, so they can be as rough and break this one all they like and not worry about not having it for the future.
First of all revise your words. Do you think the Earth is a toy? its called a unique planet because life exists on it. The planet in which you were born you call it toy?
Would this be at all accurate R1a2z3e4?
I totally disagree with your whole comment.
As I'm about 98% sure I've already stated, misuse of power has been around for a very very long time.
I agree.
But in what way are we misusing them? Contextual support would be nice.
Yes I agree, I have not explain the term "missuse". So take it "Option 2" but with little changes.
Why you all are saying "us"? as @ FishPreferred said before it defines ownership.
No, that was about using "our" when talking about things that aren't ours.
God gave us dominion over the earth. We can use it however we want to.
This is a notion from the Abrahamic religions, so it doesn't make much sense if you don't follow those. It might help if you state what faith "the god" pertains to.
Yes I agree, I have not explain the term "missuse". So take it "Option 2" but with little changes.
This doesn't help. You need to tell us why you think that people are misusing their powers.
First of all revise your words. Do you think the Earth is a toy? its called a unique planet because life exists on it. The planet in which you were born you call it toy?
It's an analogy. He's comparing humanity's treatment of natural resources to a child's treatment of a toy.
First of all revise your words. Do you think the Earth is a toy? its called a unique planet because life exists on it. The planet in which you were born you call it toy?
I was using the comparison of a child receiving a toy as a simple analogy of something given. Perhaps you were reading to literally into the analogy.
The basic premise was 1. We receive something precious. 2. We can either use that something precious in a way that it lasts or it doesn't. 3. If we use it in a way that it lasts we have it for the future, if we don't we won't have it for the future. 4. There are those who think the one who gave us this something precious will soon give us another one so it's okay if we don't make what we have last for the future.
This seems to me the basic premise you were going with.
1. We received the Earth. 2. We can either use the Earth in a way that it lasts or it doesn't. 3. If we use it in a way that it lasts we have it for the future, if we don't we won't have it for the future. 4. There are those who think that god who gave us the Earth will soon give us another one so it's okay if we don't make this Earth last for the future.
No, that was about using "our" when talking about things that aren't ours.
To be precise "us" also defines ownership.
This doesn't help. You need to tell us why you think that people are misusing their powers.
In simple words some peoples are cutting trees, killing animals for eating, for fun etc. Some peoples are killing each other. Some peoples are doing pollution. In other words they are destroying there home planet. As "angtongshu" said before "misuse of power has been around for a very very long time." The question is "Can we prevent this ?". See in the today's world what the humans are doing. I am not saying that all are bad, there are some good people they think about there mother planet.
Following on this analogy the reason many are rough is because they are under the idea that their parent (god) will soon give them a new and even better toy (Earth) to play with, so they can be as rough and break this one all they like and not worry about not having it for the future.
In other words you are saying "if some humans don't take the care of our toy (Earth) and break it, they think that they will recieve another". Am I right ? if yes so that's the point "Humanity"! After thinking for some time I like your comment and I understand what you want to say so I am taking my words back.
There are those who think that god who gave us the Earth will soon give us another one so it's okay if we don't make this Earth last for the future.
This clearly indicates they have no humanity left in them.
We should take the responsbility to protect our mother planet the Earth.
In other words you are saying "if some humans don't take the care of our toy (Earth) and break it, they think that they will recieve another". Am I right ? if yes so that's the point "Humanity"! After thinking for some time I like your comment and I understand what you want to say so I am taking my words back.
Yes, that's the general idea. So we are on the same page.
Now the part I would disagree with would be that this is the result of god giving us the Earth. Our responsibility comes from our capacity to understand the word around us and our ability to to make changes to that world at the level that we do. Or to to put it simply I will borrow a quote from one of my favorite comic book characters "With great power comes great responsibility."
We aren't the first species to come along that had the ability to make global changes to the planet. But we might be the first to be consciously aware of it and of what the impact those changes could have.
Finally he left.........19912. i avoided this discussion because of the presence of a religion fanatical like him. even though i was religious too.
Now the part I would disagree with would be that this is the result of god giving us the Earth. Our responsibility comes from our capacity to understand the word around us and our ability to to make changes to that world at the level that we do
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
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
The people actually cutting the rainforests on-site are likely happy to have a job at all. They've got families to feed. The boss, however, is responsible for what their industry does, and I'm pretty sure he knows exactly what's going on.
No, actually, it doesn't. The term "us" relates only to a group of individuals which includes the speaker/narrator. It says nothing about what they do or do not own.
In simple words some peoples are cutting trees, killing animals for eating, for fun etc. Some peoples are killing each other. Some peoples are doing pollution. In other words they are destroying there home planet. As "angtongshu" said before "misuse of power has been around for a very very long time."
You're missing the point. I'm aware of the events you're concerned with. I'm asking you why you believe them to be wrong.
This clearly indicates they have no humanity left in them.
No, actually, it doesn't. It suggests only that they believe their actions are not ultimately detrimental to the Earth.
I find it rather interesting that FishPreferred doesn't think that humans are the world's most intelligent species. 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 find it rather interesting that FishPreferred doesn't think that humans are the world's most intelligent species.
I'm having trouble finding where he thinks this. But suppose it's true - does it change the argument on offer? Would this more intelligent species be more responsible for the future of Earth than humans?
I find it rather interesting that FishPreferred doesn't think that humans are the world's most intelligent species. 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.
This tells me, rightly or wrongly, two important things:
a) You didn't read the entirety of page 1. b) You have a very shallow concept of intellect.
