This is a philosophy that I created. It's different from other philosophies like Daoism or Confucianism, and I guess it's not exactly a philosophy. Just comment on what you think about it, tell me what you think the philosophy should be called, and answer the question in the very last sentence.
Without humans, what would the world be like? The world would be different, far different then what it is now. The way I look at it is that humans are like a disease, an incurable virus. Like a virus, we spread across the globe, consuming resources and killing off life that we come across. We are the ultimate virus, a virus that has a brain that can actually think. Such a thing would be suitable for world dominance. And, look where we are now. The world is ours. No other species has challenged our dominance over the world. There is no rebellion to bring down the human race.
I once thought that a virus or disease was used to control a population that is, quite frankly, sprawling out of control. A virus is used to maintain a constant number of people or things, so that there is never to many. But even with cancer and HIV, the human population is still wildly uncontrollable. It would take a lot more than a virus to bring down all of the human race. But as humans, if we are a virus, what are we trying to control? Maybe this could be another hint as to the meaning of all life.
I was once told, during a visit to Rome, Italy, that the only way an ancient Roman building could ever be destroyed was with the forces that had erected it. The vikings, who pillaged the crumbling Roman Empire when it was losing power, could not remove or destroy the great stone pillars of Rome's many temples. This is similar to the human race. No other species can kill us off, no disease can spread to enough people. It would take a huge war between all humans on Earth to destroy us. Or, for those who believe in God (I do not) you could say that it would take the power of God to destroy us all. It's the only logical outcome. Some may say that a natural disaster could destroy us all. Indeed there are a handful of natural disasters just waiting to occur, like the complete melting of the polar ice caps or the eruption of the calderra below Yellow Stone National Park. But these individual disasters, they would only destroy part of the human race, not all of it.
So comes the point of the philosophy. Without humans, the world would have a chance to survive. It would go unharmed by over industrialization or global warming and war. So here is the point. This philosophy teaches that humans must be extinct in order for a much larger purpose (Earth, nature, animals, plants etc...) to be able to survive. I made a quote saying "For every greater good, there is an even greater sacrifice." It is the truth. While humanity lives, Earth dies. So which one do we choose; humanity or Earth? One must live while the other one dies...
Not nescessarily. You cannot make sweepinng generalisations about all of human kind. What about the people who devote all their time and effort into conservation projects etc. Are they to be gotten rid of too?
This philosophy sure seems to be very black-and-white. It's either live or die, no tolerance, harmony, or anything of the sort. I take issue with that. Humanity can live and not destroy the Earth. . .you seem not to think that.
Without humans, what would the world be like? The world would be different, far different then what it is now.
I think a fair rephrasing of this statement would be: If humans did not inhabit the Earth, then the Earth would be different.
Now, I am guessing here that you must mean different in a better way, since you go on to compare humanity to viruses. The problem with the above claim is that it is a counterfactual - it is a statement that goes against the facts. This creates what philosophers call "funny facts" that - even if they seem to be true - cannot be assessed in an adequate logical manner. The reason for this is that the antecedent of the conditional is false, so there is no way for the conditional itself to be false. If you said "If there were no humans, then 2+2=5" would also be a true conditional. Counterfactuals are useful in many arguments, but this seems to be a major premise upon which your philosophy is based. Modal logic might be able to handle the counterfactual claim by assessing the close worlds in which p (no humans) does, in fact, obtain.
I do find your conclusion intriguing, though. Is there some intrinsic worth to our planet? Why do we care about the future of earth so much that we would wipe ourselves from the face of it? The earth seems useful to us because it sustains our life; but if we're going to kill ourselves anyway, this suddenly seems less valuable.
@Moe: The whole 'true, not correct' conditionals are amusing. . .'if 2+2=5, then I am a dinosaur!' ------------
I do find your conclusion intriguing, though. Is there some intrinsic worth to our planet? Why do we care about the future of earth so much that we would wipe ourselves from the face of it? The earth seems useful to us because it sustains our life; but if we're going to kill ourselves anyway, this suddenly seems less valuable.
There is a term that describes this kind of thing. . .it currently escapes me. But, it does make a person think about the worth of Earth as a whole, not just relating to humanity. Hmmmmm. . . .
Yeah, I was trying to think of a good word there but I couldn't. But really, what cosmological significance does this planet have? It's a tiny rock in a ridiculously vast universe. Even if our entire solar system was destroyed, this wouldn't even register on a universal scale. It really seems like the Earth's significance is determined by human presence. We certainly don't find planets we haven't discovered to be significant like that. If somehow our being alive was destroying some planet in a distant galaxy (and we knew about it) I really don't think many people would care. And certainly not enough for people to consider killing themselves over it. So I guess I reject the presumed intrinsic value of this particular planet.
It depends on what one would judge a planet's significance upon. . .perhaps it could be gauged by the sentient beings that inhabit it? But really, Earth is incredibly small. Like a single atom of a single sand grain in the Sahara desert. I reject it as well. . .it is more of a gauge based on our perception is what Earth's significance than actual significance.
Your all right, this was far more grim than I had intended. What I really meant to say was that if humans continue to harm the Earth then ultimately only one will live. Either Earth will be harmed until it can no longer sustain life, or humans may wage a war until there is none of us left. Hopefully, we can find a way to fix the Earth and make it so that we can both survive.
Sure, Earth is nice. It is here, is green, has water and provides us with the means to live. It may kinda be the suck that we are killing it (which is actually up for debate)...but look up into the midnight sky sometime soon. Each and every star is star cluster. Around each star you see there is bound to be a few planetary bodies, wach with the chance to be similiar to our planet. If not similiar, at least close enough to provide for life.
Even if there are by some freak chance no other life bearing planets out there, it does not change the fact that Earth is just on small blue orb rotating around Sol. One blue orb that happens to have creatures than can look up and go "I wonder..."
No, I am actually basing the insignificance of Earth on sentient life.
It goes along with what Moe said more or lee. The presence life doesn not mean anything unless we can affect other lifeforms out there. Otherwise, it is not different than having two people in totally seperate rooms on opposite sides of the world. Each person may have great ideas, values and achievments...but without being able to help the other there is no point.
