# The obligation of humankind to preserve nature



## bighairydog (Apr 2, 2002)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;OK, random topic, but I'd be interested to know what you peeps think about humankinds obligations to nature. Do animals have an intrinsic value, independent of any benefit humans derive from them? Do we have any duty to preserve a species because future generations may value it even if we dont? Does it make a difference what species is being considered  would you feel more obliged to protect apes than a plant species even if the plant was more important to human welfare than the ape?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;My take is that the only things that should be taken into account are human benefits, both now and in the future. Id be interested to know if Im in a minority...

Bernie     )


----------



## xoot (Apr 2, 2002)

A lot of people are following my style here: posting random topics.


----------



## gamedog00 (Apr 2, 2002)

This section is for random topics your posting pointless topics their is a distinction.

This would be considered a pointless post.


----------



## divibisan (Apr 2, 2002)

Whats wrong with random posts?

Your probably not the minority.  I think that we do get a benefit from preserving species and the enviroment even if theres no immediate benefit because there may be one in the future and having some untouched land is a benefit in itself even if you dont care because once its gone it cant be replaced


----------



## nkuvu (Apr 2, 2002)

My point of view is easy, though I am positive that I am in the minority.

The only things that should be taken into account are _non-human_ welfare issues.  Humans have corrupted the planet and its environment long enough, and I would be very happy to see the human race removed from the planet (peacefully, so nothing else gets messed up).

The reason I know that this is a minority stance is that there are still things like animal testing and worse, vivisection happening in our world.  We still hunt species to extinction, often for no reason.  (Rhino horn is an alleged _aphrodisiac_ and for that we will demolish their species?!)  I find it abhorrent that humans decimate temperate rain forests to be replaced with cattle farms.

I am a radical animal rights thinker, but not an activist.  I frown upon the methods sanctioned by groups such as PETA, even though I agree with their underlying beliefs.  But freeing a whole lab full of animals into the street will only result in a lot of animals dying outside of their natural habitats.  Not to mention the fact that it gives the rest of us a bad name.  

Once, I had an economics course.  The teacher was trying to get us to understand that sometimes it is better to create a little pollution because the alternative is too expensive.  My feeling on that is that the plant should be shut down if it cannot be run without producing pollution.  Keep in mind that the scenario we were talking about was that there were feasible techniques that could be put into place to remove the pollution.  It was expensive, but not impossible.  About three quarters of the class agreed with me -- the teacher was speaking _better_ in the sense of economics, I was speaking _better_ in the overall sense of the environment.

I'm vegetarian, but not vegan (I'm still working on that).  For those of you who do eat meat, my version of vegetarian means that I do not eat meat.  Fish is meat.  Poultry is meat.  Shrimp?  Yep, that's meat.  I eat plants.  (Sorry -- this is a sore point when I say I'm vegetarian.  "Well you still eat fish, right?"  NO!  )

So forgive me if I have misinterpreted you, bighairydog.  When people say that they believe humans to be above all others, I see only arrogance.  And I believe that taking only human benefits into account proclaims that humans are above all others.  This does not mean that I regard human life to be worthless.  I'm not about to start killing others so that they reduce the world burden.  But I would dearly love for more people to curb their desires for large families.  Truth be told, I feel that licensing to have children would be pure blessing.  But that's a whole 'nother post to go... 

Whew!  That was a charged post.  I'd better go find my flame retardant underwear.

*NOTE:*  This post is not intended to start a flame war, jihad, or any other unpleasant forms of debate.  It is merely a response to a lot of built up issues, with no place to release those issues.  Very few people will listen to this whole thing -- but now I have a captive audience (at least for as long as I am typing  ).


----------



## scruffy (Apr 3, 2002)

nkuvu, have you heard of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement?  Sounds like they agree with your viewpoint.
http://www.vhemt.org

Regarding the overall question:
Should animals' welfare be considered of intrinsic value?  Absolutely!

I don't believe that being a moral agent and being morally valuable are the same thing.  That is, we are moral agents, because we reason and make ethical decisions.  (We don't know which other species do the same, but that is beside the point.)  By 'morally valuable' I mean, 'meriting consideration in ethical decisions'.  The thing that makes a being morally valuable, for me, is not the faculty of reason, but that of emotion.

Whenever possible, we must avoid inflicting suffering on all things; so  we must consider other beings in ethical decisions if they would suffer if mistreated.  So I would argue that the fact a human is smarter than a chimp is smarter than a squirrel, does not necessarily mean much in moral decisions.  What does matter is that the chimp has more emotional and sensory faculties than the squirrel, and we really don't know whether the human or the chimp is more emotionally 'alive'.  So, the squirrel is probably less important than either primate, but it's hard to make a call between the two primates.

Incidentally, I am effectively a vegetarian, although not truly.  What I mean is that I only eat meat if I know that the animal was not abused in life - I won't have my money go to support feedlots and battery poultry operations and such.  That means that getting meat I will eat is complicated enough it's easier to do without.  That and I only know how to cook vegetables.


----------



## bighairydog (Apr 3, 2002)

Interesting points all of you. My justification for the point of view I expressed in the first post is as follows:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Regardless of what PETA might have us believe, most mammals, especially the more intelligent ones, arent very nice when judged by human morality standards. They kill any animal that it would be advantageous to kill, both of their species and of other ones. Animals clearly dont have any kind of moral code binding their behaviour.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Humans, in terms of killing members of their own species, are actually one of the less violent mammals, because we have entered into a mutual code called society, within which (generally speaking), most people dont kill each other, and everybody benefits.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Animals are not part of society. Good deeds to animals are not reciprocated, and I think the only barrier to an animal killing a human is that it is not in the animals best interests, and/or the animal is incapable of doing so.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Given this, I think that the only bad kind of killing is humans killing other humans. I do feel bad at the concept of animal suffering, and think that it should be minimised, but dont see any reason not to kill an animal that would kill me if it thought it would benefit from the action.

Bernie     )


----------



## genghiscohen (Apr 3, 2002)

We *are* animals, BTW.  Just a particularly successful species (at the moment).
I oppose cruelty to other animals, but am also an omnivore (and I like leather).  IMHO, organizations like PETA have a totally distorted view of reality.  They seem to believe that animals in the wild never experience suffering.  Well, I've got a news flash for them - When an animal in the wild gets sick or elderly, it doesn't check in to some critter hospice.  *It gets eaten alive!*


----------



## nkuvu (Apr 3, 2002)

Of course there is suffering in the animal world.  It's just that humans don't need to emphasize that suffering.  I don't see how PETA believes that there is no suffering in the animal world, BTW.  They do believe that humans should not cause suffering, though.

And as far as kill or be killed, I think that's a load of hooey.  It's okay to kill a lizard (for example) because it would kill us if it could?  Bah.  Animals may not have the same morals that I do.  So what?  There are a lot of humans that don't have the same morals that I do.  For example, there are a lot of people in the Middle East who are willing to kill for their god.  I am not willing to kill any animal (that includes humans), under any circumstances.  So because they don't have the same morals, I should be able to kill them??

Humans are less violent mammals?  Where do you get your information??  We have a society, yes.  Does that prevent us from waging war on ourselves?  Not at all.  Does that prevent people from murdering, raping, or otherwise hurting fellow humans?  Nope.  Show me a non-human species which kills as much of its fellow species as humans do.  Then show me all of the ones that kill more.  I think you'll find that there are very few that even come close to human viciousness.  

Animals are not part of _human_ society.  That doesn't make them any less worthy of our care.  Do you extend your philosophy to humans?  Would you kill first, if you thought that a person would kill you if they could?

The previous note about not starting a flame war still stands -- I'm not trying to offend, I just strongly disagree.


----------



## bighairydog (Apr 3, 2002)

Some very interesting points nkuvu, it's not often I think so much about my views on this matter. I'll try and answer them:



> _Originally posted by nkuvu _
> *And as far as kill or be killed, I think that's a load of hooey.  It's okay to kill a lizard (for example) because it would kill us if it could?  Bah.*


I didn't mean kill lizards for no reason other than because they would kill us if they could. I just think that if there would be an advantage to my killing a lizard, say I'm hungry for example, then I see nothing wrong with that, because the lizard would probably do the same to me if it could.





> *Humans are less violent mammals?  Where do you get your information??*


Just a casual observation. I'll give 2 examples:
Male lions often kill competing lions, inherit their victim's harem of females, and proceed to kill all of the female's children so that it can start again with it's own offspring (not only Lions do this - its quite common in the animal world).
Numerous bird species (not mammals I know, but close) have adapted to kill their nest siblings by pushing them out, because this increases their allocation of food and hence their chance of survival.



> *We have a society, yes.  Does that prevent us from waging war on ourselves?  Not at all.  Does that prevent people from murdering, raping, or otherwise hurting fellow humans?  Nope.*


I'd argue that these are a breakdown of society. In the case of people who break the rules of society, and are about to murder me or a friend, then yes I would consider killing them to prevent this. Id very much rather not, but I would if I had to, and I wouldnt feel guilt, because they had stepped outside of the code of conduct that is society.





> *Show me a non-human species which kills as much of its fellow species as humans do.  Then show me all of the ones that kill more.*


Glad to: I'm not sure how many humans kill each other, but I think as a proportion it can't be to different from the lion example earlier. For a non-human species that kills more - 98% of all death in Ladybirds is caused by cannibalism.

I wouldnt say that society is ubiquitous. Some people, such as those that you mentioned who would kill in order to further their religious or political cause, have not signed the unwritten contract of society. This is how we justify waging war against those who would harm our families, because they have not entered into the contract whereby we do not harm them and they do not harm us.

Bernie     )


----------



## vic (Apr 3, 2002)

i think that we need to preserve nano animals, and electronic animals in general, it is sad to see the death of so many electronic animals at the hands of carelss kids, oh, and about phisical animals i would not concern myself too much, i mean they can't even go on the net!


----------



## gamedog00 (Apr 3, 2002)

lol vic, to anyone who would "never kill a human being" do you want  bin laden dead?


----------



## vic (Apr 3, 2002)

i don't want bin laden dead! i'd open up a circus with bin laden in a cage and cash in !!!!!


----------



## vic (Apr 3, 2002)

> _Originally posted by nkuvu _
> *My point of view is easy, though I am positive that I am in the minority.
> 
> The only things that should be taken into account are non-human welfare issues.  Humans have corrupted the planet and its environment long enough, and I would be very happy to see the human race removed from the planet (peacefully, so nothing else gets messed up).
> ...




i agree!!! human should DIE!


----------



## genghiscohen (Apr 3, 2002)

nkuvu,
My comment on the unrealistic views of PETA and their cohorts should have included the statement that in many instances, domesticated animals have it better than their wild counterparts.  I do *not* condone most forms of drug and beauty product testing on animals, nor the way in which calves are "raised" for veal.  But we *are* naturally omnivores, you know.
I must admit that the voluntary-human-extinction folks have some good points.  Of course, the way GW Bush is turning back the clock on pollution controls, we can expect the human deathrate to go up quite nicely before too long...


----------



## nkuvu (Apr 3, 2002)

Sure, we're naturally omnivores.  It's that naturally bit that sticks out a bit, though.  Society has progressed beyond anything that we would encounter "naturally".  Naturally, our infant mortality rate is much higher than it currently is.  Our life expectancy is shorter.  Diseased or handicapped people live much shorter lives.  Does that mean that we should continue with the "natural" path?  I doubt that many people would agree with that.  Let's look at the typical American diet.  What percentage of meat do you eat?  I'm guessing that most American meals are on the order of 50%-75% meat.  Now look at our closest genetic relatives, chimpanzees.  What percentage of meat do they eat?  Again I have no hard numbers, but I am approximating 10%-20%.  So in order to fulfill this American need for meat, we raise insane amounts of cattle and chicken, most often in inhumane conditions.

Do you hunt?  If you do, and that is your only supply of meat, I commend you.  I personally couldn't stomach it.  On the other hand, if all of your meat is from the grocery store, you are condoning a completely unnatural way of life.  I am assuming that you are American -- apologies if this is not the case.  

And the pollution rate increasing may kill of more humans, but it also destroys the nonhuman environments.  So I don't see this as a relief.



> In the case of people who break the rules of society, and are about to murder me or a friend, then yes I would consider killing them to prevent this. Id very much rather not, but I would if I had to, and I wouldnt feel guilt, because they had stepped outside of the code of conduct that is society.


So you're being threatened by animals every day, are you?   I don't see that a cow is going to kill me.  If I behave poorly around a bull, then yes it probably will.  Or if I cause (or am suddenly caught in) a stampede.  Yep, I doubt that I'd survive a whole buncha cows steppin' on my head.  But your argument doesn't hold in this case.  Chickens are no threat to you, but by eating meat you are killing them -- then telling me that you are doing so because animals would kill you if they could.  Am I misinterpreting your statements?


----------



## nkuvu (Apr 3, 2002)

p.s.


> in many instances, domesticated animals have it better than their wild counterparts


I think that the major reason for this is the encroachment of human civilization onto wildlife habitats.

I'd personally rather have freedom as opposed to a guaranteed meal and shelter.  I think this is a majority feeling, since the punishment for many crimes is imprisonment.


----------



## vic (Apr 3, 2002)

speaking to americans only? why? what is the difference between your grocery store and mine - here in canada? or germany? or france? or china?


----------



## nkuvu (Apr 3, 2002)

Different cultures have different amounts of meat that they eat on average.  Since I am American, I will not guess on other country average meat consumption numbers.  I have experience with American culture, so that's what I'll talk about.

For a perfect example, look at how much meat is consumed by Japanese.  The amount of land is (obviously) extremely limited, so raising cattle is difficult if not impossible.  So all beef needs to be imported, making it very expensive.  So they eat less beef than other countries.

I think Germans eat a lot more meat, but I can't explain why.


----------



## nkuvu (Apr 3, 2002)

Have you ever walked into a Chinese supermarket?  If not, go try it and then ask me what the differences are...


----------



## vic (Apr 3, 2002)

"I think Germans eat a lot more meat, but I can't explain why."

it's the sousages man the sausages!!!

ok, waht i'm trying to say that this is something everybody should be concerned about not only americans.


----------



## scruffy (Apr 3, 2002)

> _Originally posted by vic _
> *speaking to americans only? why? what is the difference between your grocery store and mine - here in canada? or germany? or france? or china? *



Many countries have much stronger laws than the US on standards for treatment of animals in agriculture.  Other countries have weaker laws...

Also, regardless of the laws, consumer demands are different, which leads to different things being available.  I spent last summer mostly in Munich, Germany.  At the grocery store nearest where I was staying, you had a choice between certified free-range eggs, and certified free-range, organic, appropriate-diet-for-the-chickens, string-quartets-every-Saturday-in-the-henhouse eggs.  This was an ordinary grocery store - they carried these eggs because that's all that sold.  OK, I made up the string quartet bit.



> _Originally posted by bighairydog_
> *Some people, such as those that you mentioned who would kill in order to further their religious or political cause, have not signed the unwritten contract of society*



Does that include the US government?  Or was Vietnam (etc. etc. etc) just a little misunderstanding?  They have not signed the _same_ contract that you have, that's all.  When each individual contract says it's OK to kill people who are under a different contract, this doesn't help us much.

Note:  I'm not against the US specifically, pretty well every major government has cynically killed innocents to further its political goals.  I just happen to know more about the specific misdeeds of the US.


----------



## bighairydog (Apr 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by nkuvu _
> *So you're being threatened by animals every day, are you?   I don't see that a cow is going to kill me.  If I behave poorly around a bull, then yes it probably will.  Or if I cause (or am suddenly caught in) a stampede.  Yep, I doubt that I'd survive a whole buncha cows steppin' on my head.  But your argument doesn't hold in this case.  Chickens are no threat to you, but by eating meat you are killing them -- then telling me that you are doing so because animals would kill you if they could.  Am I misinterpreting your statements? *


&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The important difference between humans and other animals as I see it, is that even if a human has stepped outside society, they are capable of stepping back in, because they are human. A chicken is not capable of stepping into society, because it has no concept of society, and is incapable of contributing to it.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;For this reason, I would be loath to kill a fellow human, because even it they are threatening me, there is a chance that they one day might repent. An animal however, will never be part of the contract of society, so I have no proplem in eating it. I don't eat animals because I feel threatened by them, but because I see no reason not to eat them.

Bernie     )


----------



## bighairydog (Apr 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by scruffy _
> *Does that include the US government?  Or was Vietnam (etc. etc. etc) just a little misunderstanding?  They have not signed the same contract that you have, that's all.*


&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Yup, it sure does. If I was a Vietnamese at the time of the war, I would have fought to protect my country from the soldiers who were part of a different morality contract, and trying to kill my family. If I was an American at the time, I would have resisted the war from the inside, rejecting my government's idea of what constituted morality.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I wouldn't take this to the point of killing and eating those who are part of a different morality contract, purely to sate my hunger. This is because as I said in my above post, those in a different contract still have the potential to enter mine.

BTW, random fact, do you know that car accidents today in the US are killing at a faster rate than the Vietnam war at it's peak? ... But I digress

Bernie     )


----------

