Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Humans as Non-Animal: Can any inferences be drawn?

  1. Top | #21
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    7,404
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    12,443
    Rep Power
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by rousseau View Post
    But the problem is that our biosphere is a closed system. And the truth is none of us really know what the world is going to look like in 1000 years, but what we do know is that we're already doing pretty serious damage to pretty much every global ecosystem.
    Most people on the planet don't give a rat's ass about environmental damage or pollution so long as they have life's basic necessities. How many other species are exterminated is of no concern, never has been and never will be.

  2. Top | #22
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,892
    Archived
    3,946
    Total Posts
    5,838
    Rep Power
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by rousseau View Post
    But the problem is that our biosphere is a closed system. And the truth is none of us really know what the world is going to look like in 1000 years, but what we do know is that we're already doing pretty serious damage to pretty much every global ecosystem.
    Most people on the planet don't give a rat's ass about environmental damage or pollution so long as they have life's basic necessities. How many other species are exterminated is of no concern, never has been and never will be.
    Which is why we have a serious case of overshoot with this species. We don't concern ourselves enough with our dependence and interrelation with the rest of earth's life. However much we're evolved to be a self-involved animal, I can't help but keep hoping we also evolved the ability to overcome that.

    ----

    And a little more about humans being self-involved... Once in IIDB, I offered that it'd be unfortunate if humans left earth for other planets after killing off most of its nonhuman life. A posthumanist sort responded that technology could solve that by recreating the extinct species, so "animal lovers" like me could revisit extinct life-forms in a Star Trekkian "holodeck". That POV views nonhuman lives as existing FOR humans. I know of no non-religious justification for thinking that way. The technophilic faith that fellow subscribed to is just a revisioning of Christianity.

  3. Top | #23
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    6,263
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    19,239
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by rousseau View Post
    But the problem is that our biosphere is a closed system. And the truth is none of us really know what the world is going to look like in 1000 years, but what we do know is that we're already doing pretty serious damage to pretty much every global ecosystem.
    Most people on the planet don't give a rat's ass about environmental damage or pollution so long as they have life's basic necessities. How many other species are exterminated is of no concern, never has been and never will be.
    Doesn't that pretty much indicate that there is no difference between humans and other animals?

    That is kinda the subject of this thread.

  4. Top | #24
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    7,404
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    12,443
    Rep Power
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by rousseau View Post
    But the problem is that our biosphere is a closed system. And the truth is none of us really know what the world is going to look like in 1000 years, but what we do know is that we're already doing pretty serious damage to pretty much every global ecosystem.
    Most people on the planet don't give a rat's ass about environmental damage or pollution so long as they have life's basic necessities. How many other species are exterminated is of no concern, never has been and never will be.
    Doesn't that pretty much indicate that there is no difference between humans and other animals?

    That is kinda the subject of this thread.
    Well, I didn't want to get too pedantic.

    The wife and I used to volunteer at the local library by taking folks on a short hike at a local county park. It's not a big park and has 18 miles of formally blazed trail. Some of the group had never been to the park, despite being locals. Some were visibly distressed and worried when we got out of sight of their cars and the parking area.

    That told me there's a fear factor operating in a lot of people. As backpackers my wife and I realize that we can't call 911 and expect an ambulance when we're in the backcountry. I think many folks are very uncomfortable with that condition and so avoid it.

    I also met one gentleman who told me he doesn't go "camping" because it means he'd have to take a crap or a pee in the woods. Everyone knows that the only civilized place for that is in a proper toilet.

  5. Top | #25
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    11,115
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    20,155
    Rep Power
    94
    Staff Notice
    X . The "Overpopulation" discussion has been moved to its own thread
    https://talkfreethought.org/showthre...n-animals-quot

    Please go there for discussions of overpopulation

  6. Top | #26
    Deus Meumque Jus
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Canada's London
    Posts
    11,242
    Archived
    9,514
    Total Posts
    20,756
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by rousseau View Post
    But the problem is that our biosphere is a closed system. And the truth is none of us really know what the world is going to look like in 1000 years, but what we do know is that we're already doing pretty serious damage to pretty much every global ecosystem.
    Most people on the planet don't give a rat's ass about environmental damage or pollution so long as they have life's basic necessities. How many other species are exterminated is of no concern, never has been and never will be.
    Doesn't that pretty much indicate that there is no difference between humans and other animals?

    That is kinda the subject of this thread.
    This is an important point, I think for one's own mental well-being, something I've promoted for some time now. It's easy to get angsty about our impact on the environment, but on some level what else would you expect? Is it reasonable to believe that, being animals, we can direct our future in any meaningful way?

    It makes sense to try, but when I hear so much pessimism over human nature I feel like there's something missing. It maybe implies a should that doesn't, and can't exist. It's great to be idealistic, but not to the extent that you let the state of the world ruin your life. At some point we need to accept that this is the world we live in, not to justify inaction, but to realize that it's unhelpful to think of the world as wrong.

  7. Top | #27
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    6,263
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    19,239
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Doesn't that pretty much indicate that there is no difference between humans and other animals?

    That is kinda the subject of this thread.
    Well, I didn't want to get too pedantic.

    The wife and I used to volunteer at the local library by taking folks on a short hike at a local county park. It's not a big park and has 18 miles of formally blazed trail. Some of the group had never been to the park, despite being locals. Some were visibly distressed and worried when we got out of sight of their cars and the parking area.

    That told me there's a fear factor operating in a lot of people. As backpackers my wife and I realize that we can't call 911 and expect an ambulance when we're in the backcountry. I think many folks are very uncomfortable with that condition and so avoid it.
    Yes, animals (of course including humans) are uncomfortable in unfamiliar environments. I saw a video about a "retirement" center someone had set up for chimps that had lived as lab animals. In the center they would have freedom to roam around the grounds that was forested. The chimps had never seen the outside of the lab. It took several days for one old chimp to build up the courage to step off the paved walkway onto the grass. Even then it was very tentative... but he did eventually, over time, adapt to his new environment.
    I also met one gentleman who told me he doesn't go "camping" because it means he'd have to take a crap or a pee in the woods. Everyone knows that the only civilized place for that is in a proper toilet.
    I have always loved camping and do a lot of it. I have to confess that I would much rather shit in a toilet than in the woods. On a toilet, there is no leg strain from squatting, no struggle to balance, no care required to insure the shit doesn't get on my heels, etc. OTOH, I much prefer pissing in the woods - there is just something liberating about it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •