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.
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?
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.
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.
