NationStates Jolt Archive

*Puts on fire resistant suit*

It's the truth. All we have EVER done on this planet is to screw it up in one way or another. It doesn't matter if it was natural or human made, we screwed it up and down the planet.

Look at religion. The base of almost every religion ever coughed up was in order to bring peace, love, and joy to the planet. Notable exceptions usually are just made in order to bring wealth to the people in the religion, which is equally bad. But as soon as humanity gets involved in the religion, everything goes to hell. We start using religion for our own purposes, to conquer, to gain wealth, to obtain high social status. Religion as an idea is great, but when humanity gets ahold of it, it all goes to hell.

Now let us look at social and political ideal. I will admit now, and probably never will again, that every single last social and political ideal, even capitalism is a good base idea. Look through it, and you will see they are thought up in an effort to help the planet. It may not seem like it on the surface, but just look through them and you will see. Even capitalism in the end was designed to help the world. But then humanity enters the equation. Socialists become authoritarian in order to achieve their means. Capitalists end up making life hell for everyone but a few. Anarchists end up getting everyone killed without order. Facists end up killing or oppressing most of their people. As soon as humanity enters the equation, all of that happens.

The list goes on.

To put it simply: Humanity fucks things up. No matter what it is, humanity fucks it up. We never achieve any good what so ever with anything we do. No religion or political ideal, NONE ever achieves any good. They were all designed to achieve great good, but humanity never allows it. Humanity is a plague on this earth, and it needs to be cleansed.

*Puts on fire resistant suit*

It's the truth. All we have EVER done on this planet is to screw it up in one way or another. It doesn't matter if it was natural or human made, we screwed it up and down the planet.

Look at religion. The base of almost every religion ever coughed up was in order to bring peace, love, and joy to the planet. Notable exceptions usually are just made in order to bring wealth to the people in the religion, which is equally bad. But as soon as humanity gets involved in the religion, everything goes to hell. We start using religion for our own purposes, to conquer, to gain wealth, to obtain high social status. Religion as an idea is great, but when humanity gets ahold of it, it all goes to hell.

Now let us look at social and political ideal. I will admit now, and probably never will again, that every single last social and political ideal, even capitalism is a good base idea. Look through it, and you will see they are thought up in an effort to help the planet. It may not seem like it on the surface, but just look through them and you will see. Even capitalism in the end was designed to help the world. But then humanity enters the equation. Socialists become authoritarian in order to achieve their means. Capitalists end up making life hell for everyone but a few. Anarchists end up getting everyone killed without order. Facists end up killing or oppressing most of their people. As soon as humanity enters the equation, all of that happens.

The list goes on.

To put it simply: Humanity fucks things up. No matter what it is, humanity fucks it up. We never achieve any good what so ever with anything we do. No religion or political ideal, NONE ever achieves any good. They were all designed to achieve great good, but humanity never allows it. Humanity is a plague on this earth, and it needs to be cleansed.

Whilst I agree that humanity does lots of bad, I don't think active cleansing is the way to go. Once we've made the earth uninhabitable in the course of our selfish lives, everything will be fine.

So you're advocating genocide?

Why would we want to cleanse ourselves though?? :confused: All of the things you mention are only problems because we consider them problems. Why kill ourselves over our own invented problems?

Why? So we fuck a lot of things up. So what? Eliminating humanity would make things better for who? The fucking polar bears? Fuck them. No humanity means no humans to enjoy the chaos we produce. No wars to watch on CNN, nobody driving the fast cars that fuck up the environment with greenhouse gasses, no religious nuts and nobody to read their dumb/funny/infuriating rants on NS. All the goodness of nature would be wasted and all the entertaining chaos of humanity would be gone.

To put it simply: Humanity fucks things up. No matter what it is, humanity fucks it up. We never achieve any good what so ever with anything we do. No religion or political ideal, NONE ever achieves any good. They were all designed to achieve great good, but humanity never allows it. Humanity is a plague on this earth, and it needs to be cleansed.

You want to kill everybody? You support a mass-genocide?

EDIT: I was going to write something else but then I realised this was actually ridiculous, looked at the top of the post:

*Puts on fire resistant suit*

And realised this was simple flaming....

All we have EVER done on this planet is to screw it up in one way or another.

starting when?

You want to kill everybody? You support a mass-genocide?

She might be supporting mass-suicide, I suppose. Then it's less of a rule violation.

Is it my fault that I love this planet so much that it has turned into the love that hurts and not helps? I think not, Sir or Madam. I think not.

So you're advocating genocide?

Yeah, just not for one ethnic/religious/geographical group. I'm talking about the entirety of humanity. From Australia to the U.S. to China to Brazil. All of humanity needs to be cleansed in order for this Earth to reclaim its natural beauty and peacefulness. With humanity around we will only continue to screw things up for the planet.

Yeah, just not for one ethnic/religious/geographical group. I'm talking about the entirety of humanity. From Australia to the U.S. to China to Brazil. All of humanity needs to be cleansed in order for this Earth to reclaim its natural beauty and peacefulness. With humanity around we will only continue to screw things up for the planet.

And, as we all know, things are absolutely paradisaical without humans. Except for all the animals starving, being torn to shreds and devoured alive, being eviscerated from inside by parasites, starving, dying of thirst, being killed by horrific diseases, poisoned, running from predators in fear and cowering in darkness, seeing their children consumed by predators...and all abundance and peace eventually collapsing back in to its natural state of misery and degradation.

Human civilization is paradise compared to what nature has created for itself. I do not see any sign that nature is somehow better or more desirable than the world humans have created for ourselves. What we see as "natural beauty and peacefulness" is really just our interpretation of the brutal, endless fight for survival than all other species are forced to undergo.

Also: Not saying I'm any better than anybody else. I'm equally guilty, and should be equally cleansed. I just realize the situation surrounding us.

May I be the first to say, "get the fuck over yourself". Good, bad, right, wrong, viruous, evil, all subjective.

Wiping out the only sentient race on the planet, perhaps in all existance, forever and permanently, would be, in my opinion, a far great evil then anything humanity has done

*Puts on fire resistant suit*

It's the truth. All we have EVER done on this planet is to screw it up in one way or another. It doesn't matter if it was natural or human made, we screwed it up and down the planet.

Look at religion. The base of almost every religion ever coughed up was in order to bring peace, love, and joy to the planet. Notable exceptions usually are just made in order to bring wealth to the people in the religion, which is equally bad. But as soon as humanity gets involved in the religion, everything goes to hell. We start using religion for our own purposes, to conquer, to gain wealth, to obtain high social status. Religion as an idea is great, but when humanity gets ahold of it, it all goes to hell.

Now let us look at social and political ideal. I will admit now, and probably never will again, that every single last social and political ideal, even capitalism is a good base idea. Look through it, and you will see they are thought up in an effort to help the planet. It may not seem like it on the surface, but just look through them and you will see. Even capitalism in the end was designed to help the world. But then humanity enters the equation. Socialists become authoritarian in order to achieve their means. Capitalists end up making life hell for everyone but a few. Anarchists end up getting everyone killed without order. Facists end up killing or oppressing most of their people. As soon as humanity enters the equation, all of that happens.

The list goes on.

To put it simply: Humanity fucks things up. No matter what it is, humanity fucks it up. We never achieve any good what so ever with anything we do. No religion or political ideal, NONE ever achieves any good. They were all designed to achieve great good, but humanity never allows it. Humanity is a plague on this earth, and it needs to be cleansed.

As much as I love earth, and want to see it thrive, I love life more. :p

And, as we all know, things are absolutely paradisaical without humans. Except for all the animals starving, being torn to shreds and devoured alive, being eviscerated from inside by parasites, starving, dying of thirst, being killed by horrific diseases, poisoned, running from predators in fear and cowering in darkness, seeing their children consumed by predators...

Human civilization is paradise compared to what nature has created for itself. I do not see any sign that nature is somehow better or more desirable than the world humans have created for ourselves.

Do you know why? You have never seen nature without humanity. Don't say "nature preserves" either. That's just artificial nature. Humanity still screws it up.

Also: Not saying I'm any better than anybody else. I'm equally guilty, and should be equally cleansed. I just realize the situation surrounding us.

once again I repeat my statement.

Get the fuck over yourself. You are neither evil enough, nor important enough, to have done anything to be considered truly "bad".

Knock off the pretentious emo "I cut myself to stop the pain" whine, you're just embarassing yourself.

May I be the first to say, "get the fuck over yourself". Good, bad, right, wrong, viruous, evil, all subjective.

Wiping out the only sentient race on the planet, perhaps in all existance, forever and permanently, would be, in my opinion, a far great evil then anything humanity has done

Hell, as far as I can tell, it IS our sentience that is giving us the ability to do these things to the planet. So frankly, sentience should be wiped out, as sentience can only lead to destruction.

She might be supporting mass-suicide, I suppose. Then it's less of a rule violation.

The idea of mass-suicide makes me grin. Not because I'm disgusting....I just have a picture in my mind of someone proposing it and then everyone going "yeah, great idea, tell you what lets all count to three and then shoot ourselves....1....2....3....You didn't do it!" "You didn't do it either!" etc etc

*shrugs*

I believe in nurture over nature. Ho hum.

Hell, as far as I can tell, it IS our sentience that is giving us the ability to do these things to the planet. So frankly, sentience should be wiped out, as sentience can only lead to destruction.

And if there's nothing sentient, who's going to appreciate your oh-so-precious world?

once again I repeat my statement.

Get the fuck over yourself. You are neither evil enough, nor important enough, to have done anything to be considered truly "bad".

Knock off the pretentious emo "I cut myself to stop the pain" whine, you're just embarassing yourself.

I'm saying humanity in a whole is evil. I'm not saying I'm more evil than the rest. Or less evil, for that matter.

And if there's nothing sentient, who's going to appreciate your oh-so-precious world?

Who cares about appreciation? We won't be able to appreciate it if it's not there anyways. No one there to appreciate it is is better than there being nothing to appreciate.

Hell, as far as I can tell, it IS our sentience that is giving us the ability to do these things to the planet. So frankly, sentience should be wiped out, as sentience can only lead to destruction.

and in doing so, create an oh so wonderful world to be enjoyed...by whom?

Nature isn't "good", nature isn't "bad", nature is a neutral state. The lion doesn't care about the beauty of his enviornment. The lion doesn't bemoan the declining population of his kind.

The lion, upon seeing you, doesn't worry about your role or his. The lion, if he is hungry, kills you.

The lion, if he is afraid of you, kills you.

The lion, if he feels a need to assert his superiority over you, kills you.

This is neither good, nor bad.

Who is going to enjoy your precious perfect world? The lion certainly as hell won't care one way or the other.

I'm saying humanity in a whole is evil. I'm not saying I'm more evil than the rest. Or less evil, for that matter.

and once again, may I state

"get the fuck over yourself"

and this time allow me to add

"and grow the fuck up"

Humanity is the greatest achievement of this planet, and there's pretty much nothing that could wipe us out without destroying the entire biosphere...

So face it: Humanity will rule this planet, this solar system, and perhaps someday, the stars, now and forever!

Who cares about appreciation? We won't be able to appreciate it if it's not there anyways. No one there to appreciate it is is better than there being nothing to appreciate.

Aw, I guess logic isn't your forté.

Do you know why? You have never seen nature without humanity. Don't say "nature preserves" either. That's just artificial nature. Humanity still screws it up.

Well, of course. As we all know, none of those things happen in places where there are no humans.

There were absolutely no diseases, starvation, predation, suffering, parasites, extinctions or epidemics prior to humanity. There were no dinosaurs ripping their prey to shreds or eviscerating them with razor-sharp claws, or eating the eggs and children of other dinosaurs, or using poisonous excretions to blind and poison prey and predators, or packs of them settling in on the weak and old and gradually devouring them alive.

I'd rather take what humans have to offer than allow it to sink back in to the complete and utter hell that it was prior to our existence.

Yeah, just not for one ethnic/religious/geographical group. I'm talking about the entirety of humanity. From Australia to the U.S. to China to Brazil. All of humanity needs to be cleansed in order for this Earth to reclaim its natural beauty and peacefulness. With humanity around we will only continue to screw things up for the planet.

Advocating genocide is a nono. :(

Who cares about appreciation? We won't be able to appreciate it if it's not there anyways. No one there to appreciate it is is better than there being nothing to appreciate.

ahh but there you are in error.

I appreciate my nice warm apartment. I appreciate my cable tv. I appreciate my xbox. I appreciate a nice cigarette and a good drink now and then.

In fact, I am quite sure I am far, far far FAR more capable of appreciating life than any other species on this planet.

While certainly I appreciate things that the lion might not (he lacks the opposable thumbs to make use of my xbox after all) I assure you that my depth of appreciation is far deeper than his.

Humanity is the greatest achievement of this planet, and there's pretty much nothing that could wipe us out without destroying the entire biosphere...

So face it: Humanity will rule this planet, this solar system, and perhaps someday, the stars, now and forever!

No, the greatest achievement on this planet was the natural formation of Mt Rushmore which predicted four American presidents.

Do you know why? You have never seen nature without humanity. Don't say "nature preserves" either. That's just artificial nature. Humanity still screws it up.

False dichotomy. There is no such thing as artificial nature. The nature of nature does not change because of differing selective pressure.

Awesome, I agree wholeheartedly, start with yourself and I'm sure everyone else will follow.

:rolleyes:

in fact, let me show why your entire premise is wrong.

I appreciate my cat's existance far more than he appreciates mine.

No, the greatest achievement on this planet was the natural formation of Mt Rushmore which predicted four American presidents.

That nearly forced me out of my chair with laughter :D

Awesome, I agree wholeheartedly, start with yourself and I'm sure everyone else will follow.

:rolleyes:

My point exactely.:D

The idea of mass-suicide makes me grin. Not because I'm disgusting....I just have a picture in my mind of someone proposing it and then everyone going "yeah, great idea, tell you what lets all count to three and then shoot ourselves....1....2....3....You didn't do it!" "You didn't do it either!" etc etc

False dichotomy. There is no such thing as artificial nature. The nature of nature does not change because of differing selective pressure.

And, of course, nature preserves show a lot nicer view of nature than the wild jungle. There are plenty of helpful and compassionate humans there to treat the animals when they get sick, or injured, or there's a food shortage, or an imbalanced population or any other problem.

If necessary, we provide a painless death through euthanasia or through controlled hunting that is infinitely more compassionate than the torture that nature provides.

Humans have done incredible good as well. If humans can be capable of mass killing and destruction for their own benefit, they can be capable of incredible sacrifice as well. People can and do sacrifice some of their wealth, time, or property to help others. Some give up their careers, put themselves at risk, or even die to help others.

My parents' doctor regularly travels to southern Sudan (not Darfur) to do relief work in areas controlled by local rebels. If he were caught by the government, he could be executed.
Tell me, are we as a race so bad?

http://img344.imageshack.us/img344/6848/antitrollde7.png

lol

and in doing so, create an oh so wonderful world to be enjoyed...by whom?

Nature isn't "good", nature isn't "bad", nature is a neutral state. The lion doesn't care about the beauty of his enviornment. The lion doesn't bemoan the declining population of his kind.

The lion, upon seeing you, doesn't worry about your role or his. The lion, if he is hungry, kills you.

The lion, if he is afraid of you, kills you.

The lion, if he feels a need to assert his superiority over you, kills you.

This is neither good, nor bad.

Who is going to enjoy your precious perfect world? The lion certainly as hell won't care one way or the other.

Neutral is better than bad.

Well, of course. As we all know, none of those things happen in places where there are no humans.

There were absolutely no diseases, starvation, predation, suffering, parasites, extinctions or epidemics prior to humanity. There were no dinosaurs ripping their prey to shreds or eviscerating them with razor-sharp claws, or eating the eggs and children of other dinosaurs, or using poisonous excretions to blind and poison prey and predators, or packs of them settling in on the weak and old and gradually devouring them alive.

I'd rather take what humans have to offer than allow it to sink back in to the complete and utter hell that it was prior to our existence.

I never said that doesn't happen. I said that what humanity does is far worse than what nature does.

False dichotomy. There is no such thing as artificial nature. The nature of nature does not change because of differing selective pressure.

So say a tree is planted in a park by humans. It is cared for by humans, and eventually grows up to a full tree. Is that not artificial? Was the tree planted there naturally? Did the tree grow naturally? No. Humanity planted it. Humanity took care of it. That is "artificial nature".

There is no such thing as artificial nature.

sure there is. a museum-piece, constantly managed landscape is an artificial simulation of 'nature'.

So say a tree is planted in a park by humans. It is cared for by humans, and eventually grows up to a full tree. Is that not artificial? Was the tree planted there naturally? Did the tree grow naturally? No. Humanity planted it. Humanity took care of it. That is "artificial nature".

Of course, given that humanity is an intrinsic part of nature...

http://img344.imageshack.us/img344/6848/antitrollde7.png

http://img344.imageshack.us/img344/6848/antitrollde7.png

ZOmg teh spam!!/!??!11111eleven

I never said that doesn't happen. I said that what humanity does is far worse than what nature does.

This planet has wiped out more species and doomed more of them to suffering and death than all of the egregious abuses of humanity in its entire history. Every single species alive today clawed its way to survival by genocide, by wiping out its rivals in brutal competition.

And here's something else: Humans can change their ways and stop this destruction. We have the power to discern right from wrong, and to change things when we recognize the problems they cause. Nature can't, because it's a product of mindless natural forces that continue their processes for as long as life on Earth exists.

Neutral is better than bad.

You have failed to define "bad" in any worthwhile or useful sense. And more importantly, once again, you miss the important concept.

Better...to whom? good and bad do not exist in a vaccum. Who would benefit? Who would NOTICE they're benefiting? Does anyone other than humans give a shit? Is anyone other than humans CAPABLE of giving a shit?

Who, exactly, would be left to CARE?


So say a tree is planted in a park by humans. It is cared for by humans, and eventually grows up to a full tree. Is that not artificial? Was the tree planted there naturally? Did the tree grow naturally? No. Humanity planted it. Humanity took care of it. That is "artificial nature".

The...hell? The tree grew because its roots absorbed neutrients from the soil. That is how it grows. That is nature.

How those neutrients got there, or how the seed got there in the first place, is irrelevant. There is no such thing as "artificial nature". You seem to have this absolutly ludicrus romantic idea that "nature" is what exists when people aren't around to fuck it up.

That's just stupid.

And, of course, nature preserves show a lot nicer view of nature than the wild jungle. There are plenty of helpful and compassionate humans there to treat the animals when they get sick, or injured, or there's a food shortage, or an imbalanced population or any other problem.

If necessary, we provide a painless death through euthanasia or through controlled hunting that is infinitely more compassionate than the torture that nature provides.

Humans have done incredible good as well. If humans can be capable of mass killing and destruction for their own benefit, they can be capable of incredible sacrifice as well. People can and do sacrifice some of their wealth, time, or property to help others. Some give up their careers, put themselves at risk, or even die to help others.

My parents' doctor regularly travels to southern Sudan (not Darfur) to do relief work in areas controlled by local rebels. If he were caught by the government, he could be executed.
Tell me, are we as a race so bad?

I know there IS good in humanity, but the bad greatly overwhelms the good. Just because there is a few good apples in humanity doesn't mean there are no bad apples.

ZOmg teh spam!!/!??!11111eleven

how is that spam?

I know there IS good in humanity, but the bad greatly overwhelms the good. Just because there is a few good apples in humanity doesn't mean there are no bad apples.

The difference between man and nature is that we have good apples. Nature has none, and its only true and permanent kindness is death.

I know there IS good in humanity, but the bad greatly overwhelms the good. Just because there is a few good apples in humanity doesn't mean there are no bad apples.

and once again you fail to understand that good and bad are concepts that necessitate the capacity to conciously understand the difference and intentionally, with self awareness, seek out the good.

Bad as a concept only exists if you're capable of understanding bad. Good as a concept only exists if you're capable of understanding good.

Human beings are the only species on the planet that can conceptualize such concepts in that way. A cat doesn't have a concept of "good" or "bad", so to eliminate people because it's "good" ignores once agan the concept.

GOOD FOR WHOM? Eliminating people eliminates the only group that are actually comprehending the concept of good and bad.

The lion who pounces on the gazelle, severing its spine, ripping out its throat and consuming its entrails doesn't feel bad about the fact that the gazelle died in excruciating, agonizing pain.

And it doesn't feel good about that fact either.

The lion, in fact, doesn't care one way or the other, and really doesn't feel anything at all. All the lion feels about his violent murder and consumation of another living creature, is fed.

Nal...listen to me. Go and stand out in the middle of a highway or quit with this bs, k?

Do you know why? You have never seen nature without humanity. Don't say "nature preserves" either. That's just artificial nature. Humanity still screws it up.

LOL!

yep, we made those trees and grass in those preserves. we also made those animals to. looks just like the real thing.


yes, I've seen untouched nature, and nature is more ruthless than man could ever be. It doesn't care if you're disabled, if you can or cannot feed yourself, it doesn't care if you have a roof over your head or if you are deseased or not.

but the "damange" man has done is nothing to the damage that nature does. sure we exterminated species, but the number of species that went extinct without man's help is far greater than we could ever imagine.

This planet has wiped out more species and doomed more of them to suffering and death than all of the egregious abuses of humanity in its entire history.

yeah, though to achieve these sorts of rates it usually has to toss a giant rock from deep space at us or the like.

Every single species alive today clawed its way to survival by genocide, by wiping out its rivals in brutal competition.

i think you've mistaken a metaphor for reality here.

Eliminating people eliminates the only group that are actually comprehending the concept of good and bad.

yeah, and?

yeah, though to achieve these sorts of rates it usually has to toss a giant rock from deep space at us or the like.

True. Of course, the point isn't that it's okay to eradicate species; we're not excused from that by any stretch. We should try to avoid that as much as possible, since we're not immune to extinction either.

Humans at least have the ability to control the damage they do to the environment.

i think you've mistaken a metaphor for reality here.

Yeah, I know. The point is that nature is not some warm and fuzzy state of perfection, but rather pretty grim.

Yeah, I know. The point is that nature is not some warm and fuzzy state of perfection, but rather pretty grim.

but mostly as a function of it's amazing fecundity. the world is full of life. so full that there actually isn't enough to go around. and that's what makes things somewhat grim - there isn't really genocidal slaughter going on, just some things being better at getting resources than others and having more offspring than others.

yeah, and?

So talking about "greater good" caused by killing off the only species capable of conceptualizing of good is roughly akin to asking a dog what his favorite color is.

No people = no good, no bad, as it lacks anybody capable of conceptualizing of good or bad.

but mostly as a function of it's amazing fecundity. the world is full of life. so full that there actually isn't enough to go around. and that's what makes things somewhat grim - there isn't really genocidal slaughter going on, just some things being better at getting resources than others and having more offspring than others.

True. I mean, "genocide" implies premeditated slaughter which is definitely not part of natural selection.

yeah, though to achieve these sorts of rates it usually has to toss a giant rock from deep space at us or the like.


A rock that is perfectly natural, and thus quite an act of NATURE.

So talking about "greater good" caused by killing off the only species capable of conceptualizing of good is roughly akin to asking a dog what his favorite color is.

No people = no good, no bad, as it lacks anybody capable of conceptualizing of good or bad.

even if the existence of good and bad requires the existence of valuers, like humans, it doesn't follow that it is better that those valuers exist. the valuers may actually result in a net bad by their very existence. therefore, it might be the case that the greater good/lesser bad would be served by getting rid of them.

and, of course, the fact that the world won't have valuers then has no impact on the value of that future state now.

even if the existence of good and bad requires the existence of valuers, like humans, it doesn't follow that it is better that those valuers exist. the valuers may actually result in a net bad by their very existence. therefore, it might be the case that the greater good/lesser bad would be served by getting rid of them

That's an interesting point. Let's say, for example, that a meteor capable of destroying a significant portion of life on Earth were to hit us in the near future. If humans used some kind of weapon to destroy that meteor and avoid that catastrophe, would it be a net good or a net evil?

All of humanity needs to be cleansed in order for this Earth to reclaim its natural beauty and peacefulness. With humanity around we will only continue to screw things up for the planet.
Beauty and peace are meaningless in this context, for they doesn't exist without humans to appreciate them.

The Earth will always survive us.

Also, humans have achieved much evil, but they also have achieved great good and beauty. All of which can only be appreciated by humans.

Beauty and peace are meaningless in this context, for they doesn't exist without humans to appreciate them.

is beauty constantly conjured into and out of existence depending on where people are looking?

That's an interesting point. Let's say, for example, that a meteor capable of destroying a significant portion of life on Earth were to hit us in the near future. If humans used some kind of weapon to destroy that meteor and avoid that catastrophe, would it be a net good or a net evil?

sounds like a good to me (depending on how it was accomplished, of course). more importantly, it would be bad to refrain from doing so, even if the outcome was the complete annihilation of valuers.

All of humanity needs to be cleansed in order for this Earth to reclaim its natural beauty and peacefulness. With humanity around we will only continue to screw things up for the planet.

What the hell kind of good does that do us?
How does that solve any of our problems?
We are going to die anyhow, so does it make a difference when?
What do we care wether the squirrels live in peace or not, they die just like we do.

That is the most idiotic solution to the problem that I have ever heard.
It's like commiting suicide because "life is too tough". Get over it. Fix it. Move on.

What the hell kind of good does that do us?
How does that solve any of our problems?

i think you missed their point

And I suppose those who support the view of ridding the world of humanity are just lining up to volunteer first...right?

i think you missed their point

I thought the point was rather clear.
Humanicide.

Unless he/she meant that it would solve nature's problem and he/she could care less if it helps humanity in any way.

That defies the human will to live and survival instincts though.

Unless he/she meant that it would solve nature's problem and he/she could care less if it helps humanity in any way.

that's the one

Yes, let's cleanse the planet of humans for the sake of its molten rockiness. :rolleyes:

Idiot.

that's the one

That makes a minimum amount of sense as well.
If all humans are killed to save something... well, I don't think we will be around to see what we have saved or whether it has worked or not.

So unless we were doing it for some reward in the afterlife(if one believes in that), there is absolutely no point.

Mass human genocide isn't the answer.
We must brainwash people to love one another.

Knock off the pretentious emo "I cut myself to stop the pain" whine, you're just embarassing yourself.
QFT.

that's the one

how can "nature" have a problem in the slightest? Nature is not an entity, it is not a sentient being, nature has no concept of good or bad, virtuous or evil.

Nature doesn't have a "problem" one way or the other, and to say it does is to anthropomorphise the concept right out of usefulness.

That makes a minimum amount of sense as well.
If all humans are killed to save something... well, I don't think we will be around to see what we have saved or whether it has worked or not.

So unless we were doing it for some reward in the afterlife(if one believes in that), there is absolutely no point.

why would the value of an act require some human seeing it?

how can "nature" have a problem in the slightest? Nature is not an entity, it is not a sentient being, nature has no concept of good or bad, virtuous or evil.

Nature doesn't have a "problem" one way or the other, and to say it does is to anthropomorphise the concept right out of usefulness.

'nature' can and does have interests. sentience is not required.

yo, nn:

All we have EVER done on this planet is to screw it up in one way or another.
starting when?

why would the value of an act require some human seeing it?

Well, if you believe like I do that value is objective and independent of human perception, it wouldn't.

why would the value of an act require some human seeing it?

It wouldn't. It might have value, but since it does not benefit any member of our species, since we would not see it benefit anything else, nor know if it did. What reason could one possibly have for doing it? Unless one is entirely random(which is impossible), there is generally a reason for an action.

'nature' can and does have interests. sentience is not required.

"nature" has nothing of the sort. A bear might have interests, a cat might have interests, a wolf might have interests.

However all of those are interests in the abstract, seperated from a conciousness of self, and seperated from any ability to logically reason "worst, bad, better, best".

Nature on the other hand is simply a set of governing rules, plants use roots to feed, humans produce carbon dioxide, radiation kills.

Nature is simply a set of operating conditions and rules governing those conditions. An understanding of nature is an understanding of those rules and how they affect situations.

Nature has no interests what so ever. The species living IN nature may have an interest in certain conditions not existing, because the rules governing those conditions are rather negative (such as no clean water = death).

But nature has no feelings, no ideology, and no sense of what is "best", nature is merely the rules that govern situations in our enviornment. Romanticizing it and pretending that we're all some big disney movie where nature exists and cries and feels and loves and talks to us through magic rings is children's games.

Nature doesn't care about anything.

Nature is simply a set of operating conditions and rules governing those conditions. An understanding of nature is an understanding of those rules and how they affect situations.

it seems like you're using nature to mean the laws of nature. i don't believe i was.

It wouldn't. It might have value, but since it does not benefit any member of our species, since we would not see it benefit anything else, nor know if it did. What reason could one possibly have for doing it?

because one wanted to do the right thing?

because one wanted to do the right thing?
Right for whom? I can also give the economy a human guise, when it clearly is nothing but the sum of human economic actions. Anthropomorphosing it in such a way would be beyond idiotic. The same goes for nature.

because one wanted to do the right thing?

Once again

right

for

whom?

Right for humanity? Killing everyone is hardly the "right" thing.

Right for nature? Once again, nature doesn't have a right or wrong, a good or bad outcome. Nature is simply a set of governing rules, same as economics, same as physics, nothing more or less. the governing rules keep on ticking regardless of what we do, so our actions can not be good or bad for nature.

Right for the enviornment? again the enviornment is simply a set of conditions, while we can harm the enviornment, so that the enviornment causes negative effects in other species, once again the enviornment does not have ends, means, goals, or aspirations in and of itself. Clean water is no more happy or sad than dirty water. Clean air is no more happy or said than toxic air. The enviornment has no good or bad in and of itself, only other things may exist better in a cleaner enviornment. But we don't do things for the enviornment for the sake OF THE ENVIORNMENT, that's silly and again anthropomorphizing beyond sanity.

So we're just left with one thing, right for the animals. OK, so maybe some species of animals are certainly harmed by the presence of humans, and sure we should act to minimize that harm, that's fine, that's laudable.

But why should I die so the cute fuzzy animals who would just as soon eat me as look at me can live?

Right for whom?

just right, in the abstract.

the question was of doing some admittedly right action despite not being around to see the results.

what reason would one do that? because one wanted to do the right thing.

just right, in the abstract.

the question was of doing some admittedly right action despite not being around to see the results.

what reason would one do that? because one wanted to do the right thing.
What is the purpose of the action? For whom is it right? For an anthropomorphosed entity? For mankind?


So we're just left with one thing, right for the animals. OK, so maybe some species of animals are certainly harmed by the presence of humans, and sure we should act to minimize that harm, that's fine, that's laudable.

But why should I die so the cute fuzzy animals who would just as soon eat me as look at me can live?
And even then, the animals are not exactly harmless themselves. Their entire existence is pretty much like ours, a matter of survival of the fittest. What would make me laugh is if some other animal evolved to the point of human intelligence, only to come to ask if it should annihilate itself for the "greater good".

What is the purpose of the action? For whom is it right? For an anthropomorphosed entity? For mankind?

i don't know, man - i'm talking in the abstract here.

i don't know, man - i'm talking in the abstract here.
So am I. This entire thread is an attempt at intellectuality, only it fails miserably, like most of NN's threads. Unless you can specify, in the abstract or in concrete terms, for whom this action is right, it is nonsense.

just right, in the abstract.

the question was of doing some admittedly right action despite not being around to see the results.

what reason would one do that? because one wanted to do the right thing.

there is no such thing as right "in the abstract". The "right thing" is the right thing because someone at some point, in some way, either from your action or the cumulative effects of multiple actions, benefits.

The "wrong thing" is the wrong thing because someone at some point, in some way, either from your action or the cumulative effects of multiple actions, is harmed.

To do the "right thing" is to benefit someone in some way. TO do the "wrong thing" is to harm someone in some way.

So once again, who would benefit from extinction of humanity? The only things left TO benefit are the animals (once again neither "nature" nor "the enviornment" can either be benefited or harmed in that sense).

So if the only things that can benefit are the animals, is the benefit to the animals greater than the harm done to people?

Or as I said, why should the cute and fuzzy animals who would just as soon eat me as look at me get to live at the expense of my life?

And, as we all know, things are absolutely paradisaical without humans. Except for all the animals starving, being torn to shreds and devoured alive, being eviscerated from inside by parasites, starving, dying of thirst, being killed by horrific diseases, poisoned, running from predators in fear and cowering in darkness, seeing their children consumed by predators...and all abundance and peace eventually collapsing back in to its natural state of misery and degradation.

Oh, and we stopped that, did we?

Well, if you believe like I do that value is objective and independent of human perception, it wouldn't.

Actually, it doesn't matter even if it's not.

Value may be subjective and dependent on perception, but that doesn't mean the only things perceived to be valuable need be directly perceived, as opposed to conceived of.

I can subjectively value the state of the world I will help achieve by dying for some worthy cause, for instance.

Oh, and we stopped that, did we?

We stopped most of those for us...at least one species is able to escape that state, however fleeting that escape might be.

Value may be subjective and dependent on perception, but that doesn't mean the only things perceived to be valuable need be directly perceived, as opposed to conceived of.

I can subjectively value the state of the world I will help achieve by dying for some worthy cause, for instance.

That's what I do. I think the world has value, and whether or not that perception is subjective I will do things to enhance that value and do the right thing.

Or as I said, why should the cute and fuzzy animals who would just as soon eat me as look at me get to live at the expense of my life?

Let's reverse this for a moment.

Why should the uncute and unfuzzy humans who would sooner slaughter other animals and destroy their habitats at unbelievable rates be permitted to live at the expense of all the other animals?

Actually, it doesn't matter even if it's not.

Value may be subjective and dependent on perception, but that doesn't mean the only things perceived to be valuable need be directly perceived, as opposed to conceived of.

I can subjectively value the state of the world I will help achieve by dying for some worthy cause, for instance.

once again though, only because your death would bring about what you perceive to be a good.

What good is being brought about through this? what would benefit? Don't say nature, nature never "benefits" at all, ever. Likewise the enviornment, while it may get worse, does not gain benefit to itself ever either.

We stopped most of those for us...at least one species is able to escape that state, however fleeting that escape might be.

And the price of our escape has been disaster for much of the rest of the planet. So while things were not "paradiasical" before we arrived, one can hardly claim that we've improved them much (or at all.)

Nature is simply a set of governing rules
...
again the enviornment is simply a set of conditions

your use of terms is different than mine. it isn't really productive to argue about that.

But we don't do things for the enviornment for the sake OF THE ENVIORNMENT

under the usual, somewhat sloppy, terminology 'nature', 'environment', 'biotic community', 'the land', 'ecosystem', etc are used somewhat interchangeably. and under that scheme, yes we should and yes we do.

So we're just left with one thing, right for the animals.

nah, some forms of the last man argument pretty clearly undermine the idea that only animals count.

But why should I die so the cute fuzzy animals who would just as soon eat me as look at me can live?

you shouldn't. except, perhaps, if your very existence was so inherently detrimental to other morally relevant things that it really was the case that getting rid of you was the only moral thing to do.

What good is being brought about through this? what would benefit?

Non-human animals.

Let's wipe out all life as we know it!

*runs*

You can start by cleansing yourself.

Let's reverse this for a moment.

Why should the uncute and unfuzzy humans who would sooner slaughter other animals and destroy their habitats at unbelievable rates be permitted to live at the expense of all the other animals?

Ever take an antibiotic? You killed a lot of bacteria when you did. Why should the bacteria have to die so you could live?

Because we are sentient. survival of the fittest. If we are unfit and the other animals can succeed in killing us, they are free to try.

Don't pretend a lion would give a damn about eatting you. Don't pretend the bacteria that you willingly killed with that antibiotic gave two shits about your life.

Now this is not to say that we as humans don't have some obligation. We can seek to perserve our enviornment, both for our own benefit, and to benefit other creatures, surely.

But at the same time I'm gonna fry me up a steak tonight. Why? both because I derive pleasure from it, and it keeps me alive. It keeps my life, as an intelligent, sentient being going, at the cost of a non sentient non intelligent life form.

Frankly speaking, I am more important than the cow. I am more important than the bacteria. I am more important than the lion.

Now at the same time I'm not going to kill the lion for no reason. ANd I would not support destroying the natural enviornment of that lion and driving it to extinction if we didn't HAVE to.

But in a matter of SURVIVAL, I care more about my survival, and the survival of humanity more than any other species, absolutly.

And why should humanity die so the lion could live?

And the price of our escape has been disaster for much of the rest of the planet. So while things were not "paradiasical" before we arrived, one can hardly claim that we've improved them much (or at all.)

We've improved them for us; I guess it eventually comes down to whether or not it is worth it for us to improve ourselves at the expense of other species.

So am I. This entire thread is an attempt at intellectuality, only it fails miserably, like most of NN's threads. Unless you can specify, in the abstract or in concrete terms, for whom this action is right, it is nonsense.

well, since the original premise is just silly, the conclusion is rather badly undermined from the get go.

Ever take an antibiotic? You killed a lot of bacteria when you did. Why should the bacteria have to die so you could live?

Because we are sentient. survival of the fittest. If we are unfit and the other animals can succeed in killing us, they are free to try.

Don't pretend a lion would give a damn about eatting you. Don't pretend the bacteria that you willingly killed with that antibiotic gave two shits about your life.

Now this is not to say that we as humans don't have some obligation. We can seek to perserve our enviornment, both for our own benefit, and to benefit other creatures, surely.

But at the same time I'm gonna fry me up a steak tonight. Why? both because I derive pleasure from it, and it keeps me alive. It keeps my life, as an intelligent, sentient being going, at the cost of a non sentient non intelligent life form.

Frankly speaking, I am more important than the cow. I am more important than the bacteria. I am more important than the lion.

Now at the same time I'm not going to kill the lion for no reason. ANd I would not support destroying the natural enviornment of that lion and driving it to extinction if we didn't HAVE to.

But in a matter of SURVIVAL, I care more about my survival, and the survival of humanity more than any other species, absolutly.

And why should humanity die so the lion could live?

So you support the genocide of billions of bacteria? You're a sick, sick person, you know that?

Non-human animals.

ok, fine, they benefit.

Why should they benefit at the cost of my life?

Now I'm willing to say that they should benefit at the cost of my CONVENIENCE, maybe I shouldn't drive so much, or pollute so much, or eat so much meat, ok I'm willing to meet you there.

But why should they gain a benefit through the death of every human?

Why is their lives worth the death of what may be the only sentient species in the universe?

If we are unfit and the other animals can succeed in killing us, they are free to try.

your conception of fitness appears confused.

So you support the genocide of billions of bacteria?

Every single time I sneeze.

your conception of fitness appears confused.

not in the slightest, I merely consider an intellect capable of producing medicine a part of being fit.

If a species develops neither the natural immune system nor the intellect to develop medicine to fight off diseases of the enviornment then that species is not fit to survive.

The lion would eat me if it could. But the intellect of humanity allows us to build weapons and vehicles and defenses and buildings that make sure it doesn't.

In fact, take away our intellect and we're pretty pathetic a group of creatures.

Non-human animals.
In which case, plants would still be at their mercy. Surely, these animals should be wiped out too for the benefit of the flora.

well, since the original premise is just silly, the conclusion is rather badly undermined from the get go.
Then why waste time arguing for it?

Let me put it this way. I have a cat. I like my cat, I enjoy my cat. I derive pleasure from having it around. I keep him well fed and warm. I give him shots to keep him healthy, I make sure he is fed well (a little too well).

I would never simply kill him. In fact I take great steps to ensure he survives and is healthy.

However if I were ever in a situation where one of us had to die, and it was either his life or my own? Sorry kitty, you're goin down.

*Puts on fire resistant suit*

It's the truth. All we have EVER done on this planet is to screw it up in one way or another. It doesn't matter if it was natural or human made, we screwed it up and down the planet.

Look at religion. The base of almost every religion ever coughed up was in order to bring peace, love, and joy to the planet. Notable exceptions usually are just made in order to bring wealth to the people in the religion, which is equally bad. But as soon as humanity gets involved in the religion, everything goes to hell. We start using religion for our own purposes, to conquer, to gain wealth, to obtain high social status. Religion as an idea is great, but when humanity gets ahold of it, it all goes to hell.

Now let us look at social and political ideal. I will admit now, and probably never will again, that every single last social and political ideal, even capitalism is a good base idea. Look through it, and you will see they are thought up in an effort to help the planet. It may not seem like it on the surface, but just look through them and you will see. Even capitalism in the end was designed to help the world. But then humanity enters the equation. Socialists become authoritarian in order to achieve their means. Capitalists end up making life hell for everyone but a few. Anarchists end up getting everyone killed without order. Facists end up killing or oppressing most of their people. As soon as humanity enters the equation, all of that happens.

The list goes on.

To put it simply: Humanity fucks things up. No matter what it is, humanity fucks it up. We never achieve any good what so ever with anything we do. No religion or political ideal, NONE ever achieves any good. They were all designed to achieve great good, but humanity never allows it. Humanity is a plague on this earth, and it needs to be cleansed.

Your statement sounds like something a card-carrying Green Party member I met at the MN State Fair this past year told me. I really hope you're not serious.

Because we are sentient.

I agree that sentience is a morally relevant characteristic. Bacteria are clearly not sentient. Many non-human animals, on the other hand, clearly are.

survival of the fittest.

What does that have to do with moral action?

Don't pretend a lion would give a damn about eatting you. Don't pretend the bacteria that you willingly killed with that antibiotic gave two shits about your life.

I don't. And if human beings were limited to the means of lions or bacteria, then I would have no objection to killing members of other species for survival. (Not that your implied conclusion actually results from your premises, but whatever.)

Now this is not to say that we as humans don't have some obligation. We can seek to perserve our enviornment, both for our own benefit, and to benefit other creatures, surely.

But at the same time I'm gonna fry me up a steak tonight. Why? both because I derive pleasure from it, and it keeps me alive. It keeps my life, as an intelligent, sentient being going, at the cost of a non sentient non intelligent life form.

I think you either need to redefine "sentient" or learn what the word actually means (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sentience).

Frankly speaking, I am more important than the cow. I am more important than the bacteria. I am more important than the lion.

Frankly speaking, that is not an argument.

Now at the same time I'm not going to kill the lion for no reason. ANd I would not support destroying the natural enviornment of that lion and driving it to extinction if we didn't HAVE to.

We don't.

But in a matter of SURVIVAL, I care more about my survival, and the survival of humanity more than any other species, absolutly.

Why?

And why should humanity die so the lion could live?

Not the lion alone - the lion among countless other species we have systematically destroyed.

The better question would be "why does humanity need to die for the lion to be able to live?" and the answer to that one is, of course it doesn't.

In which case, plants would still be at their mercy. Surely, these animals should be wiped out too for the benefit of the flora.

The fact that I reject a blind "human/non-human" distinction as arbitrary does not mean that I reject all distinctions as arbitrary.

Motörhead - March Ör Die

The beast behind our eyes is loose,
The day has come, the day has come,
We march to Armageddon, hungry for the war
I see the hated enemy, I see what I was taught to see

And one of us will bend the knee
We understand the law

The blood lust jerks our legs to march,
Fife and drum, fife and drum
Our eyes are fixed and fearless
Searching for the war
Our statesmen deal in blood and lies
100 million stifled cries, 100 million wasted lives
Already gone before

So March or Die, March or Die
The stench of death is in the sky
We never fail to satisfy
We rend with tooth and claw

Sword and shield and jackboot heel
We love to kill, we love to kill
We love the taste our own blood
Squirm in our own gore

Children weep and widows wail,
Our education systems fail,
To hide our guilt we build more jails,
and we shall build still more
Our forests die, the stranglehold
That we put on the earth for gold
Will yet increase ten thousand fold
And no one knows what for

March and die, March and die
Defecate, despoil and lie
Cheat, dissemble, preach & spy
Build your house of straw

Laugh and cry, laugh and cry
Bloody sunset drowns the sky
For earth to heal then we must die
No-one deserves it more

I tell you we are doomed my friends
Our time is come, our time is come
We live within a charnel house
Rotten to the core
We glorify lust, greed & pain
We drown our hope in poison rain
We point the finger, shift the blame
Ambition makes us whores

March or croak, march or croak
All your lives a cosmic joke
Fill your days with piss and smoke
The wolf waits at your door

Burn and dance, burn and dance
Sex, death, torture, false romance
Whoop and howl, you have no chance
Burn & rise no more

Burn & rise no more

Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
Die
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/blood.gif


Hehe, there. (Yet again!) :p

The fact that I reject a blind "human/non-human" distinction as arbitrary does not mean that I reject all distinctions as arbitrary.
Then I will ask this; for what possible reason should I act against my sense of self, and desire the destruction of my species for the benefit of another species? The benefit the other would derive is irrelevant. Why should I measure my existence as inferior to its existence?

And another thing, one may still argue that a plant's existence is no less important than an animal's...

not in the slightest, I merely consider an intellect capable of producing medicine a part of being fit.

If a species develops neither the natural immune system nor the intellect to develop medicine to fight off diseases of the enviornment then that species is not fit to survive.

You are confusing "fitness" with "desert."

A baby unaided is not "fit" to survive, but thankfully, most of us don't think we should let it die as a consequence.

You are confusing "fitness" with "desert."

A baby unaided is not "fit" to survive, but thankfully, most of us don't think we should let it die as a consequence.
In terms of self-interest, allowing the baby to die would mean the end of the species if everyone did that. How does another species then fit into the self-interest equation?

The benefit the other would derive is irrelevant. Why should I measure my existence as inferior to its existence?

You should not. It does not follow that the derived benefit is irrelevant. Nor does it follow that the human species should not be eradicated.

I am not inferior to other human beings, but I do not have the right to take their lives to save my own.

I am not inferior to other human beings, but I do not have the right to take their lives to save my own.
Then why should I end my existence in their interest? That is what I ask.

In terms of self-interest, allowing the baby to die would mean the end of the species if everyone did that.

That's "human interest," not "self-interest."

How does another species then fit into the self-interest equation?

It doesn't. Why should we act from self-interest?

Then why waste time arguing for it?

i haven't been

That's "human interest," not "self-interest."
If you're human, your self-interest is necessarily human interest.

It doesn't. Why should we act from self-interest?
Because it serves our own ends. Is there any reason we shouldn't act out of our own interest?

Then why should I end my existence in their interest? That is what I ask.

For the same reasons you should end your existence if your life is at the expense of the lives of other human beings.

Not that it is a one-to-one equivalence; I'm not claiming that. The sapience and more profound sentience of human beings put them above other animals. But the reasons are basically the same; no characteristic of human beings puts us on another moral plane entirely.

For the same reasons you should end your existence if your life is at the expense of the lives of other human beings.
If I so choose. Now why should an entire species choose this? If it conflicts with its natural configuration furthermore, why should it choose this?

If you're human, your self-interest is necessarily human interest.

self = other?

If you're human, self-interest is necessarily human interest.

Nonsense. Killing every other human on the planet may well be in my self-interest, but it certainly is not in the interest of the human species in totality.

Because it serves our own ends.

Maybe. Depends on what is meant by "ends."

Is there any reason we shouldn't act out of our own interest?

Yes. There is no non-arbitrary basis for distinguishing between the self and others.

Other people dislike pain, enjoy happiness, prefer life over death, and so on. If I seek to avoid pain, pursue happiness, and protect my own life, I must thus do so for others as well.

If I so choose.

No, obligation does not depend on choosing to fulfill it. That is the nature of obligation.

Now why should an entire species choose this?

For the same reasons you should.

If it conflicts with its natural configuration furthermore, why should it choose this?

Because the "natural configuration" of humans is irrelevant to moral obligation.

And the "natural configuration" of humans doesn't involve destroying the ecosystem anyway.

Maybe. Depends on what is meant by "ends."
Anything the individual (or individuals) do to satisfy their wants, I suppose. Not destroying the environment in order to survive would be an example.

Yes. There is no non-arbitrary basis for distinguishing between the self and others.

Other people dislike pain, enjoy happiness, prefer life over death, and so on. If I seek to avoid pain, pursue happiness, and protect my own life, I must thus do so for others as well.
These are still more or less actions that will elicit certain counter-reactions from other individuals if I do not act in that prescribed fashion. The reasoning goes, if I want to be treated like so, I should treat others so as well. Aside from consistency, suppose that I am able to fend myself from these counter-reactions. In this case, why should I care?

No, obligation does not depend on choosing to fulfill it. That is the nature of obligation.
What makes it an obligation to begin with?

Anything the individual (or individuals) do to satisfy their wants, I suppose.

That is not self-interest. Self-interest would be "anything the individual (or individuals) do that is oriented at their own welfare."

These are still more or less actions that will elicit certain counter-reactions from other individuals if I do not act in that prescribed fashion. The reasoning goes, if I want to be treated like so, I should treat others so as well.

Yes, but the moral reasoning is one of consistency, not of cost-benefit.

Aside from consistency, suppose that I am able to fend myself from these counter-reactions. In this case, why should I care?

Because you are not the only person who matters.

What makes it an obligation to begin with?

The consistent application of a decent moral standard.

That is not self-interest. Self-interest would be "anything the individual (or individuals) do that is oriented at their own welfare."
Is welfare not having one's needs and wants satisfied?


Yes, but the moral reasoning is one of consistency, not of cost-benefit.
In which case, why should I feel obligated by it?

Because you are not the only person who matters.
Clearly, but that is nothing that compels me to put aside my own self-interest. If anything it is other conflicting self-interests that do. If I do not insure that I that my actions do not harm others I may myself be harmed after all.

The consistent application of a decent moral standard.
Same as above.

Is welfare not having one's needs and wants satisfied?

No. Sacrificing my life to save another might satisfy my desire for that person's welfare, but it certainly doesn't serve mine. That is why it is called a sacrifice.

In which case, why should I feel obligated by it?

I don't like to suffer; thus, I try to avoid it. Because I recognize that there is no good reason to distinguish between myself and others (can you provide one?), I seek to prevent them from suffering as well.

Clearly, but there is nothing that compels me to put aside my own self-interest.

Compulsion and moral obligation are very different things.

Because I recognize that there is no good reason to distinguish between myself and others (can you provide one?), I seek to prevent them from suffering as well.
There is a difference between yourself and others, you are not others but are only yourself. Their suffering does not directly affect you so therefore you have no reason to care. Essentially, one has to argue more for the reason to defy self-interest than to follow it as the latter is more instinctual.

There is a difference between yourself and others, you are not others but are only yourself.

Obviously. And they may have green eyes to my blue and blond hair to my brown, or they may be furry, or they may have good eyesight. So? These are all arbitrary distinctions. I asked for a good reason, not merely for a difference.

Their suffering does not directly affect you so therefore you have no reason to care.

Only if "affect[ing] you" is the standard. That's begging the question.

Essentially, one has to argue more for the reason to defy self-interest than to follow it as the latter is more instinctual.

Practically, yes. Morally, no. Instinct is morally arbitrary as well.

I don't like to suffer; thus, I try to avoid it. Because I recognize that there is no good reason to distinguish between myself and others (can you provide one?), I seek to prevent them from suffering as well.
Why is there not a good reason to distinguish between myself and others? I am in the end my own person, and do see myself as separate and distinct to other individuals. The only thing preventing me from behaving as I would is actions-consequences analysis. If this notion of not seeing a good reason for distinction is what is meant by a moral standard, I am very dubious of it.

Compulsion and moral obligation are very different things.
Compulsion is ultimately being forced to do something. An obligation is being bound to do something by something like a sense of duty. That would seem to me to be an internal compulsion (or external, were it something like a contract).

*Puts on fire resistant suit*

It's the truth. All we have EVER done on this planet is to screw it up in one way or another. It doesn't matter if it was natural or human made, we screwed it up and down the planet.

Look at religion. The base of almost every religion ever coughed up was in order to bring peace, love, and joy to the planet. Notable exceptions usually are just made in order to bring wealth to the people in the religion, which is equally bad. But as soon as humanity gets involved in the religion, everything goes to hell. We start using religion for our own purposes, to conquer, to gain wealth, to obtain high social status. Religion as an idea is great, but when humanity gets ahold of it, it all goes to hell.

Now let us look at social and political ideal. I will admit now, and probably never will again, that every single last social and political ideal, even capitalism is a good base idea. Look through it, and you will see they are thought up in an effort to help the planet. It may not seem like it on the surface, but just look through them and you will see. Even capitalism in the end was designed to help the world. But then humanity enters the equation. Socialists become authoritarian in order to achieve their means. Capitalists end up making life hell for everyone but a few. Anarchists end up getting everyone killed without order. Facists end up killing or oppressing most of their people. As soon as humanity enters the equation, all of that happens.

The list goes on.

To put it simply: Humanity fucks things up. No matter what it is, humanity fucks it up. We never achieve any good what so ever with anything we do. No religion or political ideal, NONE ever achieves any good. They were all designed to achieve great good, but humanity never allows it. Humanity is a plague on this earth, and it needs to be cleansed.

Goodbye.

I plan on staying around.

But I wouldn't mind dying.

Oh, and good luck.

Why is there not a good reason to distinguish between myself and others?

I don't know. Ask the universe.

I am in the end my own person, and do see myself as separate and distinct to other individuals.

So? That does not preclude valuing others.

The only thing preventing me from behaving as I would is actions-consequences analysis.

What of it?

If this notion of not seeing a good reason for distinction is what is meant by a moral standard, I am very dubious of it.

So you think we should act based on bad reasons?

Compulsion is ultimately being forced to do something. An obligation is being bound to do something by something like a sense of duty. That would seem to me to be an internal compulsion (or external, were it something like a contract).

No, it is not compulsion at all. Compulsion does not require a moral duty, nor do moral duties require compulsion. Compulsion is when a person is being coerced into something.

I don't know. Ask the universe.
A non-answer. I could submit the same.

So?
So what good reason is there not to see myself as distinct?

What of it?

It provides me with a very good reason not to go against the interests of others; namely, that so doing will in the end harm my interests. A notion of moral consistency is far more illusory.

So you think we should act based on bad reasons?
Define a bad reason.

No, it is not compulsion at all. Compulsion does not require a moral duty, nor do moral duties require compulsion. Compulsion is when a person is being coerced into something.
Would you not call kleptomania a bad habit arising from an internal compulsion?

A non-answer.

To a non-question. Why is anything the way it is?

So what good reason is there not to see myself as distinct?

See yourself as distinct all you want. What does that have to do with valuing others?

Define a bad reason.

Arbitrary. Irrelevant. Baseless.

Would you not call kleptomania a bad habit arising from an internal compulsion?

Conceivably, but not for reasons that would apply generally to morality.

To a non-question. Why is anything the way it is?
I think I mis-phrased the question. What I meant is what makes you think there is not a good reason?

See yourself as distinct all you want. What does that have to do with valuing others?
Nothing. Their reactions to my actions are what I may value. Perhaps I'd like to murder everyone in a village. I have no sense of morality. What would stop me qua rational individual? The fact that this could lead to my imprisonment, which I do not desire. In this case morality is irrelevant to my refrainment, whereas the consequences of the actions are not. I value them in the sense that they may react, and I should take this into consideration.

Arbitrary. Irrelevant. Baseless.
What would make you think that acting in a way that is not morally consistent is any of these things? It may not be morally consistent, but it may be consistent with my self-interest to (not) perform certain actions. Now, why should it be obligatory that I am morally consistent if I have no desire to be moral to begin with?

Conceivably, but not for reasons that would apply generally to morality.
In what way is a sense of duty then not a similar internal compulsion? Kleptomania forces me to act in a certain manner. A sense of duty compels me to act in a "moral" manner.

Im pretty sure no idiot would go on a mass genocide but isnt it better to try and fix it first so nature and humans and co exist peacefully?

Obviously. And they may have green eyes to my blue and blond hair to my brown, or they may be furry, or they may have good eyesight. So? These are all arbitrary distinctions. I asked for a good reason, not merely for a difference.The things mentioned are more arbitrary than what I mentioned. A very good premise to start off with is that my life is important to me and build off of that.

Only if "affect[ing] you" is the standard. That's begging the question.
The basic assumption is that one believes that their life is important, which is something that most people believe. Being that there is no objective morality, and there is an objective reason to desire a certain goal, then it makes sense for one to go around this goal.

Practically, yes. Morally, no. Instinct is morally arbitrary as well.
But all I care about is practicality. Metaphysics, being that nothing can be proven about it, is useless.

But all I care about is practicality. Metaphysics, being that nothing can be proven about it, is useless.
Agreed.

A rock that is perfectly natural, and thus quite an act of NATURE.


That's an interesting point. Let's say, for example, that a meteor capable of destroying a significant portion of life on Earth were to hit us in the near future. If humans used some kind of weapon to destroy that meteor and avoid that catastrophe, would it be a net good or a net evil?

Such a meteor may hit Earth, actually there is a pretty good possibility of one hitting the Earth again, and make the OP come true.
And it won't be picky about wiping out 90% of life on this planet along with us.

That is why mankind should heed the words of people like Stephen Hawking (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=2006-11-30T152352Z_01_L30663009_RTRIDST_0_OUKOE-UK-SPACE-HAWKING.XML&WTmodLoc=Oddly+Enough-C1-Headline-2) who is advocating that we get serious about colonizing other planets where the human race can carry on if such a disaster occurs.
The Human Race is worth saving.
We have done terrible things, mostly to each other, but we also have done wonderful things.

We should be spreading out so we do not get wiped out.