The Most Egotistical Creature in The World!

  • Thread starter Lisa!
  • Start date
  • #51
JamesU
Gold Member
750
3
I am just saying that PETA is wasting their time. (that's if their trying to acomplish their 'goal' not just live on profits)
 
  • #52
Skyhunter
Maybe I don't know enough about PETA the organization, however I know some members, and they are all intelligent, compassionate, humans. They are also very healthy, have a positive outlook, and have undertaken to change their lifestyle in order to "be the change they want to see in the world."

I think that your opinion may be unduly influenced by anti-PETA propoganda. If perhaps you could provide me with some information to support your position I would be willing to look it over.
 
  • #53
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
Come on. Don't let this thread become the eightieth PETA debate. This doesn't have to be about valuing the lives of non-humans. There are plenty of selfish reasons for humans to value biodiversity.
 
  • #54
JamesU
Gold Member
750
3
can it be about humans being huge PITAs? pain in the ***es?
 
  • #55
464
0
I think that your opinion may be unduly influenced by anti-PETA propoganda. If perhaps you could provide me with some information to support your position I would be willing to look it over.
No PETA please.

Bacteria have no intent to harm humans. and any other animal couldn't care less if humans were gone or not
I agree. Animals are no more evil than computers or natural disasters. They simply life out their lives as their instincts dictate.

To me the answer is obvious. Humans have no more right to live than any other life form. However because we can think and foresee the consequences of our actions we have an obligation to act in such a way as to minimize or eliminate the destructive consequences of our actions.
I actually don't believe anyone has an inalienable right to life, or a right to anything. Life and all things are given to people, and animals alike, through undeserved kindness from God. Though we are certainly held above animals by God, he never intended for man to kill animals because in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve didn't eat meat and lived in harmony with all animals.
 
  • #56
344
2
yomamma said:
I am just saying that PETA is wasting their time. (that's if their trying to acomplish their 'goal' not just live on profits)
As far as I know, PETA is a non-profit organization. Like Skyhunter, I know a few of the members in our local area who are very nice people, and their local chapter doesn't squander the money on themselves. IMO, they are also nicer and have a better worldview, compared to the food industry execs who (like any executives) think about profit alone.

I cannot speak for some of the more rabid individuals. But extremism isn't (and shouldn't be) the norm for such organizations. Its too broad a generalization, its like saying that all Republicans are right-wing gun nuts and are anti-feminist, which obviously isn't true.
 
  • #57
Skyhunter
Entropy said:
No PETA please..
No problem


Entropy said:
I actually don't believe anyone has an inalienable right to life, or a right to anything. Life and all things are given to people, and animals alike, through undeserved kindness from God. Though we are certainly held above animals by God, he never intended for man to kill animals because in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve didn't eat meat and lived in harmony with all animals.
So if you believe we should live as God intended, in peace and harmony with all animals, what do you eat at the local McDonalds?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #58
Lisa!
Gold Member
612
96
Persoanly I've not found enough time to read all post carefully.(I'll read them for sure)So right now I can't reply to some of you. :blushing:

You know I think most of humans don't think if we're allowed to kill anamils and stuff like that. Some of us think about that but we do the same like the rest.
Somehow it seems that we have the right to do these because we're able to them and nobody is able to prevent us. We're intelligent ,we have freewill(forget about this one), we could make a better life for ourselves by taking advantages of other creatures while they can't improve anything...So it sounds pretty stupid if we stop ourselves from improving because of these creatures.
What do you think of it now?(again I want to go to a conclusion but first I prefer to have your ideas!)
 
  • #59
Skyhunter
loseyourname said:
Come on. Don't let this thread become the eightieth PETA debate. This doesn't have to be about valuing the lives of non-humans. There are plenty of selfish reasons for humans to value biodiversity.
Absolutely, it has been my experience that most people, including myself are motivated by selfish reasons.

I volunteer in my community as well as with national and international organizations. I am socially conscious, have re-usable grocery bags, buy only green products, and eat a plant based diet. Many of my peers think I am a model citizen and live this way for altruistic reasons. At some level they might be correct, but for the most part everything I do is for selfish reasons.

The main reason is to set an example. If I would like others to lessen their impact on the world I should practice the same, or else I would just be another hypocrite. And hypocrisy is abhorrent to me.
 
  • #60
25
0
Entropy said:
So well that most humans didn't live over 30 and the human race was brought to the brink of extinction (hint: read up on the population bottle neck that occured in prehistory, it supported by the fact that our midicondrial (sp?) DNA is very similiar to one another's).
What is your evidence for humans living until only 30? I searched online for several hours and I found only 3 sites (out of dozens) that didn't assume life was rough for early humans.

Site 1) We simply don't know anything about how people lived before 1750.
Site 2) Agriculture led to nutrition deficiencies.
Site 3) The Greeks lived until about 30, but maybe only because of wars and diseases, not their diet.

As for the bottlenecking, I looked that up too. The bottlenecking of humanity is theorized to have occured due to global environmental change. have you read on the theorized effects of global warming? Same basic principle.
 
  • #61
Mk
1,984
3
Archon said:
So in your opinion, certain bacteria don't have a right to exist simply because they kill large numbers of humans. This brings us back to the point: why do humans have any more right to be alive than animals? Why is it ok for a human to exterminate a species of animal, but not for bacteria to kill a few thousand/million humans?
Not just they kill large numbers of humans, they kill large numbers of all sorts of things (not bacteria in general, just the evil ones), and I also said ticks (and added a few viruses if you think viruses are alive). From your general view, you think every creature is totally innocent, the bacteria have the same right to live as humans. You also say that everything is interconnected, and if something dies, that will be bad for some other animal or plant or something, and that would make it die off, and since that died off 100 other species would, and so on and so on. But if ticks died no organism would give a crap, but the bacteria they harbor. If they had the brain capacity at most they would be glad.


I used polio and lyme disease - largely human affecting diseases - to get the point across, because I thought you would care more about your fellow human - your girlfriend, your wife, your kids, your neighbor, more than you would your houseplant, or dog. I guess you don't. And once again, I am sorry for you.

No, but that's exactly the point: these are purely natural processes, and have purely natural implications. Other animals and plants must adapt to their new environments, but this takes time. Termites, Beavers, and coral reafs don't usually spread across vast areas before other species of animals are able to adapt to their presence: the same is not true of humans.
Adapt to their presence? That's how natural selection goes! If they can't adapt they'll have to die off. Survival of the fittest. Some organisms like how the humans deal. Pueria montana is also known as kudzo, a plant native to Asia, is growing in epic proportions in the southeastern states of the USA. Like many "invasive species" it was once loved and cherished. American gardeners of the late 1800s embraced its fragrant blossoms. The common dandelioin was introduced to North America from Eurasia for its medicinal and culinary properties, it is now growing out of control. The Mnemiopsis leidyi type of comb jelly, native to American waters, discovered a paradise for it. In the 1980s it ate quite literally everything in the Black Sea. Since then, even though it destroyed almost everything, the Black Sea is not a dead wasteland. Bos taurus, your everyday cow is doing very finely after being introduced to North America. Dogs and cats, are doing well because of humans.

Mental Gridlock said:
Even if you disagree with this idea, the response to the scenario you describe need be no different than the original response: you push the deer because pushing the human would have legal consequences. Nowhere in the post you cited do I see the implication that the poster would push the human rather than the deer. So what's your point?
You push kill the deer because killing the man has legal consequences? Tell me you don't think that. I hope you are arguing just to argue.

My point is, the value of the human is much more than the value of the deer. Even the deer would agree if he could.

Why the hell do you think those laws were made? To keep the ****ing insane people that think it is perfectly ok to kill other people for not much of a reason.

While scrolling down to see who said this, I was hoping it wasn't Skyhunter, because he knows better than that, and I like him. (btw sorry if you didn't see my post)
 
Last edited:
  • #62
Mk
1,984
3
Smasherman said:
What is your evidence for humans living until only 30? I searched online for several hours and I found only 3 sites (out of dozens) that didn't assume life was rough for early humans.
I don't know who said thirty (hope it wasn't me) but I thought it was highly exagerrated! But its not!

Life expectancy increased dramatically in the 20th century, especially in developed nations. Life expectancy at birth in the United States in 1901 was 49 years. At the end of the century it was 77 years, an increase of greater than 50%. Similar gains have been enjoyed throughout the world. Life expectancy in India and The People's Republic of China was around 40 years at midcentury. At century's close it had risen to around 63 years. These gains were due largely to the eradication and control of numerous infectious diseases and to advances in agricultural technology, mainly chemical fertilizers.

years. European socialist countries (such as the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary) were characterized by decreasing life expectancy and increasing mortality (especially among adult men) in the late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Another exception is Russia and other former USSR republics after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Life expectancy of men dropped to 59.9 years (below the official retirement age), of women to 72.43 years (1999).

Homo sapiens sapiens live on average 37 years in Zambia and on average 81 years in Japan. The oldest age (legitimately) recorded for any human is 122 years, though some people in Asia are reported to have lived over 150 years. The following information is derived from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1961:
Humans by Era, Average Lifespan (in years)
Neanderthal, 20
Neolithic, 20
Classical Greece, 28
Classical Rome, 28
Medieval England, 33
End of 18th Century, 37
Early 20th Century, 50
Circa 1940, 65
Current (in the West), 77-81

As for the bottlenecking, I looked that up too. The bottlenecking of humanity is theorized to have occured due to global environmental change. have you read on the theorized effects of global warming? Same basic principle.
The human population is NOT bottlenecking, if someone is complaining about population problems, its that there are too many people, which is also completely false.

Wikipedia also boasts two graphs that backup my claim on bottlenecking:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4d/World_population_history.png [Broken]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/World_population_increase_history.png [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
Mk
1,984
3
I don't like putting a third post in a row, but find it important to say Entropy was most certainly right about the bottlenecking. I did not read his post directly until now, but misunderstood it through Smasherman's filter.

Geneticists Lynn Jorde and Henry Harpending of the University of Utah have concluded that the variation in the total stock of human DNA is minute compared to that of other species; and that around 74,000 years ago, human population was reduced to a small number of breeding pairs, possibly as small as 1000, resulting in a very small residual gene pool. Various reasons for this bottleneck have been postulated, the most popular being the eruption of a Toba, a volcano.

Knowledge of human prehistory is largely theoretical, but based in fossil, archeological, and genetic evidence, within the last three to five million years, after human and other ape lineages diverged from the hominid stem-line, the human line produced a variety of human species. According to the "Toba catastrophe theory," a massive volcanic eruption changed the course of human history by severely reducing the human population, around 75,000 years ago when the Toba caldera in Indonesia erupted with a force three thousand times more powerful than Mount St. Helens.

According to Ambrose, this led to a decrease in the average global temperatures by 3 to 3.5 degrees Celsius for several years. This massive environmental change is believed to have created population bottlenecks in the various human species that existed at the time; this in turn accelerated differentiation of the isolated human populations, eventually leading to the end of all the other human species except for the branch that became modern humans.

Some geological evidence and computed models support the plausibility of the Toba catastrophe theory, and genetic evidence suggests that all humans alive today, despite their apparent variety, are descended from a very small population. Using the average rates of genetic mutation, some geneticists have estimated that this population lived at a time coinciding with the Toba event.

According to this theory, after Toba, and when the climate and other factors permitted, humans once again fanned out from Africa migrating first to Indochina and Australia, and later to the Fertile Crescent and the Middle East. Migration routes to Asia created population centers in Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and India. Divergences in skin color appeared, due to varied melanin levels, which were adaptations to the varying UV intensities around the world. Europe became populated by migrants from the Uzbekistan region when the last ice age ended and Europe began to be more hospitable.

Most of that was from Wikipedia, not me.

Entropy is right!
 

Related Threads on The Most Egotistical Creature in The World!

Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
45
Views
28K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
9K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
36
Views
8K
Replies
13
Views
258
  • Last Post
5
Replies
101
Views
40K
Top