Grothistan
Military Diplomat
Prime Minister of the Equilism Commonwealth
Posts: 66
|
Post by Grothistan on Nov 14, 2005 5:09:16 GMT
Now THAT'S utopic Personally, I can't see how people calling themselves socialists could ever cheerish the death of humans. The socialism I believe in, is more than anything based on a great love to humanity. If we didn't care about them, why bother trying to help them break their chains? The poverty and oppression of humanity would not matter, if it wasn't for the love of humanity.
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Nov 14, 2005 11:46:01 GMT
LOL sorry I think I was a bit OTT above, not only do I seem militaristic but now also genosidal and psycopathic LOL not a good mix. Il explain myself.
I would never cherrish the destruction of life but in some cases I believe it nessasary. It is indeed a fact that the planet could support many more of us but in the current climate we are struggling to support our population even now, which is why I believe we need controls both natural and human induced. We need effective population managment, evenything that exists is a resource, humanity the same as animals is no different we shoulds be able to manage and exploit ourselves as nothing is achieved without exploitation, what is nessasary though is a system where societies exploitation is for the beneifit of society as a whole. To save one species (for example the tiger in india) I would have no plroblem in wiping out or at least doing a forced relocation of every person within the area, if the alternative meant the compete extinction of the species. As I hold the viability of the species continuation as a greater thing than a few individuals to a species that would survive reguardless of the change.
Great stuff ES, I too believe in the benifits of genetics. I do have reservations however in the alteration of the species in certain respects. Health resons fine but altering people to make them smarter and stronger im more concerned about, alterations that are not nessasary to continue the life and such. It is an interesting case of dwarf people, that will say in most cases that if born again they would want to be the same as making them "normal" would rob them of who they are. I conclude that we are the sum of our imperfections and that going for perfection would rob us of individuality.....all blonde basketball players....no ta :.D. Additionally it might raise segregation isuues.
Another question for you, would you be adverse to genetic modification of a species so it showed human level intelligence? Or the creation of a new lifeform showing these traits thats entirely man made?
|
|
|
Post by Star City on Nov 14, 2005 14:02:24 GMT
Yes, I do believe human genetics should be exploited. Could we hurry up and get over the whole biological stage and upload our minds into nice clean computers? - it's disgusting being human... saliva, blood, feces, urine, ad nauseum...
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Nov 14, 2005 18:20:58 GMT
Now whos playing devils advocate :.D!
Cockroaches and other small things are easy to move into safe enviroments away from harm, its the larger animals I would take harder action for.
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Nov 14, 2005 19:16:27 GMT
Because i feel it is the correct thing to do....simply. Ending encroachemnt would be the first thing id do, along with more patrols and all the other techniques but its already gone to far, ask any conservationist. So if I came to it yes removing 500000+ humans would hold no grude for me if i could create a lasting and sustainable future for the animal/s in question.
Do I hold tigers and other such creatures greater than people, no, I just dont hold humans any greater than animals. However the fewer a species become the more valuable it become until it become more valuable than one of another species then 2 then 10 then 1000000 especially if that species is as populus as humanity is. Few million, drop in the ocean, what is chilling is that a species that has existed for millions of years would be wiped out full stop, no going back, end. In my opinion its worth it.
|
|
Grothistan
Military Diplomat
Prime Minister of the Equilism Commonwealth
Posts: 66
|
Post by Grothistan on Nov 14, 2005 21:02:04 GMT
The same argument can be used for the creation of Israel. Arabs were plentiful, while jews were few, so to ensure the survival of the jewish race, millions of arabs had to be forced from their homes, and given that the jews were in minority, and needed their natural habitat to survieve, forcing millions of innocents from their homes was the right thing to do. And yes, I AM saying that if we go to too great lenghts to protect tigers, they WILL come back and terrorize us with Apache helicopters.
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Nov 15, 2005 10:41:27 GMT
All depends if you believe that Jews are an endangered species or not.....personally I dont, amazonian/australian/wahatever bush people now theres an possibility but not isreal.
|
|
Grothistan
Military Diplomat
Prime Minister of the Equilism Commonwealth
Posts: 66
|
Post by Grothistan on Nov 15, 2005 12:10:13 GMT
During WW2, 6 million jews were killed, which was almost third of the entire jewish population. Even after the war, they found themselves in climates hostile to them. The war was not lead because of the jews, mind you. The allies attacked Hitler for many reasons, but jews were hardly one of them. They weren't exactly treated nicely in the rest of the world either.
Regardless, do you believe we should clear Manhatten and give it to the native americans?
|
|
Grothistan
Military Diplomat
Prime Minister of the Equilism Commonwealth
Posts: 66
|
Post by Grothistan on Nov 15, 2005 15:13:09 GMT
I'm not.
|
|
Grothistan
Military Diplomat
Prime Minister of the Equilism Commonwealth
Posts: 66
|
Post by Grothistan on Nov 16, 2005 5:19:51 GMT
You make me sad.
*runs off, banging two coconuts against eachother*
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Nov 16, 2005 13:20:49 GMT
No, native americans if there are any true native americans left should not be given manhatten, they would probably hate it, anyway this has altered slightly, the jew and native american are not seperate species mearly different cultures preservation of cluture is entirely different to preservation of species, indeed its probably impossible to preserve a culture as its constantly changing.
I suppose it all depends on if you think humans should come first, I dont. It must be fairly balanced on both sides between the enviroment and us. Humanity will not be set back with the loss of a few thousand hecters of land, the enviroment could lose everything. So I side with the enviroment.
|
|
|
Post by gratedlemons on Nov 29, 2005 14:00:16 GMT
Damn i'd signed up last week! I could have used your arguements in our Debating Society in school, ah well as it was it turned out no-one there felt any compassion for funzy-bunny and friends (except if it was having an eye-bath of cosmetics).
Well no-one but the guy who's closing and opening arguements consisted of a stupid little dance...
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Nov 29, 2005 21:08:47 GMT
LOL, I got my stuff from a ethics class from my degree, I should get my debating society to do human rights.
|
|
|
Post by Enlightener on Dec 6, 2005 16:16:33 GMT
The crux of the question of course depends on what difference you perceive between man and animals. The difference I perceive is that of reason: animals are incapable of acting beyond their nature whereas humans, due to possessing reason, are able to make choices between varying instincts. The ability to be rational, logical and reasonable are not qualities possessed by most animals but they are the dominating qualities of the modern human being.
RM, being an observer of science and its laws, states that man is no more than an animal in his biology and thus must be no more than an animal in his mind. Such an argument would seem to be logical and reasonable but yet, by even stating such a theory, RM has inadvertently disproved that man is a beast in mind as well body. The animal cannot reason in the same way he has reasoned: they are purely things of instinct. Man was once a beast but no longer: he is now beyond nature, its observer and its commander rather than its servant and its slave.
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Dec 6, 2005 21:08:23 GMT
Interesting, but do we use reason as a factor for giving rights?
To quote Peter Singer: We dont base right on intelligence due to children and the mentally disabled, not on the ability to moralise as the insane and criminals still have rights, no it is but on the ability to suffer.
Animals to can also suffer so they should be given the same basic rights as humanity. A goat may not be as smart as me but it should still be protected from rights abuses.
|
|