hypnagogue said:
Mankind is also the only species that cares whether or not another species is destroyed.
You mean that in all of nature, no other species would "care" if a species were whiped out? Would flowers "care" if there were no bees? Have you seen through the eyes of
any creature other than homo-sapien? Can you realistically and visually understand the millipede experience? How about a starfish. Do you assume certain values apply
only to humans? How many species do you suppose would "care" if humans were whiped out? I'm not sure of the context of "care" you intended, but I imagine it's subjective.
hypnagogue said:
(If this were not true, there would be no conservation efforts, nor would you have created this post.)
So if chimpanzees suddenly agreed with us that the California condor is an endangered species and should be protected, we will automatically throw the whole endangered species list into the bonfire, and build a massive tourist shopping mall in the middle of Yellowstone National Park?
hypnagogue said:
Here is a question to consider: In what sense is killing the last of a species worse than killing the first?
Because it erradicates an entire species forever. My answer took about 1.5 seconds to come to mind. Why don't you ask yourself: In what sense is pressing the red button worse than going on a killing spree and killing 39 people? (hint: it's the same question).
hypnagogue said:
The only answer that seems coherent to me is that destroying an entire species is worse than killing many but leaving the species intact because, in killing off the whole species, we lose another piece of the beautiful diversity of nature.
Absolutily! I thought I made this point of view "coherent" before. Other life forms have an intrinsic value that does not require a human perspective to be appreciated by nature. If you die right now, with $20.00 in your pocket, does that twenty dollar bill suddenly become worthless, just because
you can't spend it? Of course when I hit the button I will no longer have my emotional, human point of view. I will answer for it when I meet my makers. I will have this very same discussion with them (hopefully they're in a good mood). But while I weigh the decision of whether or not to hit that button, my subjective opinion definitely applies. So does yours if you're at the button.
hypnagogue said:
This is certainly a respectable argument, and one that I would agree with, but let's put it in its place: it's based entirely on human subjective values.
Yours isn't?
hypnagogue said:
From the animals' standpoint, they don't know or care that their species might be dying; they care about their immediate life and perhaps their immediate family or social group. Certainly the individual animals that belong to plentiful species and are killed don't suffer any less for knowing that their legacy will be passed on.
Since when do
you, as a homo-sapien, know the "animals' standpoint"?
hypnagogue said:
So we humans are the ones who suffer the more for the killing of a species, not members of the species itself.
This is not my point, rather I claim the oppositte, that for the most part, humans DON'T CARE about the killing of another species. The species itself is what is really affected. If the button is pressed, the humans CAN'T CARE. But the species, and others that depend on that species, can care.
hypnagogue said:
If this is right, it would seem that using this as a motivation for saying that humans should be exterminated is more a matter of human self-loathing than a matter of consideration for the life on the planet.
I hope you know by now, my motivation is nothing but consideration for life on the planet (besides humans). It's not self loathing, or even loathing of humanity. I press the button for the sake of countless other species, who's combined value is far beyond my own. In fact I respect myself
more for this viewpoint.
Biodiversity has a value completely independent from human perspective, more than you might think. According to David Tilman, from the department of Ecology, evolution and behavior, University of Minnesota, "In broad summary, these reviews show that, on average, greater diversity leads to greater productivity in plant communities, greater nutrient retention in ecosystems and greater ecosystem stability." read the article (it's interesting) here: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v405/n6783/full/405208a0_fs.html Because different species depend on one another for survival, biodiversity is essential to the maintenance of ecosystems, which is a fact far beyond my subjective opinions.
If you don't agree that biodiversity is important, try to imagine a world with only two species: wolves and rabbits. After ten years in this scenario, how many species do you suppose remain? I would figure that after the wolves ate all the rabbits, they would starve to death, leaving zero. The bottom line in my opinion regarding biodiversity is that every species has a "role" in its ecosystem, none of which are less or more important than any other species, despite what we may subjectivly assume.
). I ceased to try to be objective. I don't think my life has a purpose except for me and the ones that surround me. If it serves something I don't know, it doesn't alter my sense of usefulness of my life. If something profits of my existence, let it be... :shy:
Helping other species to survive? Saving the world, saving the universe? What kind of goal do you want?
Why wouldn't you try to destroy the whole universe for being without reason? 
.
Remind me, what was your suggestion? Mankind isn't one? So, you seem to want to take revenge. Our unique characteristic is that we destroy entire species? So this didn't happen until we entered the stage? What about dino's, and all expired species before we even existed? There is nothing new under the sun in regard to this.
