the world, itself, should not be destroyed, for there are other things besides humans living here. Humanity...has to try to rebound, for we can not fight for ourselves but for every little thing that has walked, roamed, slithered, slide, or scurried on this very planet.Anything that has been, is now, or will. That is what we should live for.
I'm sayin' that we're screwed and Fish didn't even notice it![/quote]
You missed the point entirely. I will clarify: In what way is world destruction (in either sense) morally acceptible? Are you suggesting that being corrupt as a species is sufficient reason to give in to that corruption?
The current level is "F the rules" level. Why? Didn't notice?
I strongly encourage you to read my previous post (p. 4) in which I ask you two important questions. This answer is sort of a response to (1), but it falls apart when we get to (2). After all, if there are morally upstanding people who have not reached this 'F the rules' level, it seems that (1) no longer applies. You might argue that if the majority (or some other threshold) of a species reaches this level, then the whole species should be eradicated. Making this move would, of course, require altering the argument I provided for you in the aforementioned post. And this new argument is going to have 1 dodgy empirical claim and 1 incredibly dodgy theoretical claim.
Honestly, this project as a whole just looks like a non-starter. Is there anything worth discussing that we can extract from the discussion so far?
Oh, I just had a thought. Does this seem correct: If a particular species does more harm than good to the environment it inhabits, then the species should be eradicated. Is this a plausible line to take?
Did you hear about the good deed the man did by putting out the campfire that could have lit a forest down (No).
That is not a good deed in any way whatsoever. It's just the correct way of dealing with an untended campfire. Letting the fire spread uncontrolled would be hazardous and irresponsible, so putting it out is as much a good deed as deciding at the last minute not to smash your car into a gasoline tanker.
In short your crazy and its a dumb thing and ignorant thing to think humanity is horrible.
If you can't get by without resorting to ad hominem, your argument really isn't worth stating.
Oh, I just had a thought. Does this seem correct: If a particular species does more harm than good to the environment it inhabits, then the species should be eradicated. Is this a plausible line to take?
It seems like it could be; although, I feel like that arguments rests upon the premise that the value of all species' existences is equal. That is, the reason why humanity should destroy itself is that the value of our species is no greater than the value of any other. And, given our apparent inability to exist without the destruction of other, equally valuable, species, the only morally responsible option is to collectively commit suicide. If you would like, I can build up an argument as to a) why it rests upon that premise and/or b) why I reject said premise as valid. Then again, the argument could rest on the weaker premise that the existence of our species may be more valuable than the existence of any other in a one-to-one comparison but when comparing the value of humanity against the value of a certain number of certain species, a threshold is crossed that, again, morally necessitates us to collectively kill ourselves. Nevertheless, I don't find either premise particularly compelling.
Trying another plausible line (although this rests on the idea that the destruction of the world =/= the complete destruction of the human race): we may have reached a point as a species where it is no longer possible for us, as a collective, to experience true happiness, fulfillment, joy, etc.; as such,the only morally responsible action is to "restart". That is, to destroy ourselves in hopes of future civilizations reaching a state of absolute fulfillment.
Oh, I just had a thought. Does this seem correct: If a particular species does more harm than good to the environment it inhabits, then the species should be eradicated. Is this a plausible line to take?
I'm not convinced. You're looking at a momentary situation; who's to say that no equilibrium shall be found in the future?
Trying another plausible line (although this rests on the idea that the destruction of the world =/= the complete destruction of the human race): we may have reached a point as a species where it is no longer possible for us, as a collective, to experience true happiness, fulfillment, joy, etc.; as such,the only morally responsible action is to "restart". That is, to destroy ourselves in hopes of future civilizations reaching a state of absolute fulfillment.
I would argue that it was never possible for us as a collective to experience 'true' happiness, fulfillment and joy (whatever you mean by true); hence there is no need to "restart". Another point against that is that nature always does with what it has, and never "restarts". Sometimes bad things happen, but we cannot foresee what consequences it, or our actions against it, will have in the future.
In what way is world destruction (in either sense) morally acceptible?
The question in itself is self-defeating. We, the inhabitants of this "world" created the morality on this planet in itself. No amount of this world's morality would justify it's host's destruction, it would result in its own destruction and certainly not favorable for any known morality.
0% of humanity deserves to die
No, 100% of humanity deserves to die. Everybody has a right to die by euthanasia, and therefore "deserves" to "die"
who's to say that no equilibrium shall be found in the future?
equilibrium will be found, but depending on the circumstances, the process could and have been proven to wreck havoc on the surrounding ecosystem. consider the cane toad infestations in Australia. shouldn't they, a pest and an invader, be justifiably eradicable? I would love to exterminate every last one of those "invaders"
From the things I have notice around the world, From territory disputes to social media activism, should this world be destroyed? Post opinions pls.
Ask that question to Noah. I don't think he'll enjoy being crammed into an ark full of animals for 40 days and 40 nights again.
Having to feed them all. That must be a logistical nightmare.
I feel sorry for the poor cow who'd have to produce all that milk to feed all the felines. :O
Where do they go to poop? Can you imagine the stench? :O
I thinks it's a little dramatic to want to destroy the World because of a few lunatics.
Well... it really depends i guess, most people have good enough morals, but i can't speak for everyone on the planet. Maybe if something pretty major was threatening all life on earth, then we could finally get along and work together, and hopefully become better people from that.
