Is it ethical to press the button?

  • Thread starter KaneOris
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the moral dilemma of having a red button that can either instantly kill all humans in the world, including the presser, or reverse time and erase the existence of humans. The participants have different views on whether to press the button or not, with one arguing that most humans are flawed and it would be better to let everything else live, while the other argues that it's not fair to judge all humans and that there is still good in the world. They also touch on the idea of beliefs shaping one's perception of reality and the importance of understanding one's purpose in life.
  • #1
KaneOris
113
0
You have infront of you, a red button
All you have to do is press it
What the button does is one of either
Instantly kills all humans in the world, yourself included
Or
Instantly reverses time and takes humans out of ever existing.


Do you press the button?
-----------

Personal opinion, i know no one will agree with it, and no I am not just depressed guy

Id press the button without thinking twice
The bad people in this world out weigh the good
And everyone in this world has killed. Wether it be another person or a fly.
We have destroyed our planet, we have decimated it
We destroy life for everything else, why should we get to ruin life for everything else.
Not all are guilty, and deserve to die. But I am sorry, id feel better letting everything else live, and humans dying, rather than letting everything die all together.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
In another thread, Belief and Knowing, we are at a point where we are discussing how beliefs filter our perception of reality. Soo...

If you believe that most humans are flawed or bad, all you will see are flawed, bad humans. Your view is biased.

Personally, I believe that it is healthier to accept the world and we humans as just being. We, objectively, are neither good or bad.

Why push the button and end this beautiful experience??

love&peace,
olde drunk
 
  • #3
Isnt your view also biased?

Why not push the button, and save life for every other living thing
Do you believe we are more important...
Sorry mate you just arent
 
  • #4
KaneOris said:
Isnt your view also biased?

Why not push the button, and save life for every other living thing
Do you believe we are more important...
Sorry mate you just arent
ABSOLUTE-LY! all views of reality are biased.

The trick is to understand why you are here. The better i understand my purpose the closer i get to being objective.

as a gambling man, I be willing to bet that i have seen more of man's flaws than you. But, I have also allowed myself to see all the good. how sad it would be to deprive the world of the next Ghandi or Mohammed or Christ. Pushing the button might even deprive the world of your unique contribution.

I am viewing my reality thru my belief that we are here for a purpose. Albeit, not salvation or social mission. rather, it is a personal purpose to understand self.

You see reality thru your beliefs; we are polluting, causing wars, etc..
You believe killing a sick patient is the best cure for illness. Would you want a doctor to prescribe death when all you would need is an antibiotic to cure your illness?

there are illnesses in the world. I'd rather work on the cures than give up the search.

love&peace,
olde drunk
 
  • #5
olde drunk said:
ABSOLUTE-LY! all views of reality are biased.

The trick is to understand why you are here. The better i understand my purpose the closer i get to being objective.

as a gambling man, I be willing to bet that i have seen more of man's flaws than you. But, I have also allowed myself to see all the good. how sad it would be to deprive the world of the next Ghandi or Mohammed or Christ. Pushing the button might even deprive the world of your unique contribution.

I am viewing my reality thru my belief that we are here for a purpose. Albeit, not salvation or social mission. rather, it is a personal purpose to understand self.

You see reality thru your beliefs; we are polluting, causing wars, etc..
You believe killing a sick patient is the best cure for illness. Would you want a doctor to prescribe death when all you would need is an antibiotic to cure your illness?

there are illnesses in the world. I'd rather work on the cures than give up the search.

love&peace,
olde drunk

Ive thought of you as an intelligent man, but how can you believe without any knowledge that you have seen more of mans flaws than me
Also you have no idea about what my views on the world, I am loving life... Man asumption is the truth greatest enemy, and you seem to be in bed with it

You see reality thru your beliefs; we are polluting, causing wars, etc..
You believe killing a sick patient is the best cure for illness. Would you want a doctor to prescribe death when all you would need is an antibiotic to cure your illness?

What would you know about me? Top line yes, but i also see the good things, yet i stand by my answer
I see all the good and all the evil, yet i still think this would be better for the universe.
Second line, sorry man, you've just got no idea
Last sentence, this is completely different, I am talking All for one or one for all... eh!

About Christ, Mohammed and Ghandi, why are these people so special to you... all they got was the right media coverage... Plus Christ has done more harm than good
 
  • #6
The wish that mankind ceased to exist
KaneOris said:
Id press the button without thinking twice
The bad people in this world out weigh the good
And everyone in this world has killed. Wether it be another person or a fly.
Balancing 'good' versus 'bad'
I don't agree. Firstly I don't think bad acts equilize good acts. One night of having good sex can make up a week without. It's a filter I use purposely. A sun rising can make me more happy, a biting dog less. I am using my own standards to balance 'good' and 'bad', in relation with something absolute it neglects the subjective character of morality. How many bad people do you know? How many good? How do you define bad people?

What is 'good' or 'bad'?
I could have been a Hugo Chavez, or a mother Theresa... I am definitely not in the position to judge others. Would I consider myself as 'bad' or as 'good'? A hamster killing his fellow mate in a small cage, is he 'bad'? Have you read Morris about the similarity of humans in our society and animals in zoos?

Personally
Personally, I wouldn't press the button. The better I understand the value of my subjective view I can prefer the value of my own life, my own decisions (probably you prefer to choose about this situation yourself too :smile:). 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:
 
  • #7
saviourmachine said:
The wish that mankind ceased to exist
Balancing 'good' versus 'bad'
I don't agree. Firstly I don't think bad acts equilize good acts. One night of having good sex can make up a week without. It's a filter I use purposely. A sun rising can make me more happy, a biting dog less. I am using my own standards to balance 'good' and 'bad', in relation with something absolute it neglects the subjective character of morality. How many bad people do you know? How many good? How do you define bad people?

What is 'good' or 'bad'?
I could have been a Hugo Chavez, or a mother Theresa... I am definitely not in the position to judge others. Would I consider myself as 'bad' or as 'good'? A hamster killing his fellow mate in a small cage, is he 'bad'? Have you read Morris about the similarity of humans in our society and animals in zoos?

Personally
Personally, I wouldn't press the button. The better I understand the value of my subjective view I can prefer the value of my own life, my own decisions (probably you prefer to choose about this situation yourself too :smile:). 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:


Well think of it like this I've developed a system that is entirely fair, no ifs no buts, And the Bad out weighs the good.

Also why does everyone insist that they are super special, they are here for a reason. Look i just don't believe it, if our universe is so vast and the entireity is unimaginable... then no i don't think that we are that special, we don't have a greater purpose.
So if we have no greater purpose, and the bad does out weigh the good, then why not press that button, and let everything else live.
The point isn't about killing humans, its about humans ruining life for all other life on earth, this is giving them a second chance, at the expense of a few billion life forms, WE KILL THAT MANY A DAY! NOT INCLUDING BACTERIA. I see myself no greater in purpose than a single celled organism, it deserves every right you do, and if you say it doesn't because it has no conciousness, then what about dolphins... eh! You recking life for them to
 
  • #8
Theres meant to be a w in the 'recking' :(
 
  • #9
hahaha
very nice subject
well, as far as i am concern
i think you can never decide when u r sitting in front of your screen
and just reading meanwhile you are having a cup of tea or analysing a theory or a math formula.. etc... (wether it's about pressing or not)
i think u r talking about anachronism people
you can not even imagine the situation.
so if it truly exists and if you are truly meant to choose
i guess that will be the right time to say, to act in your unconsciousness
because in such things and such decisions your consciousness never works..
did you get me?
 
  • #10
I wouldn't be special for myself?
Also why does everyone insist that they are super special, they are here for a reason.
No not everyone is special, I am special and just for myself. Maybe there is a hidden reason for mine existence, like improving the world or whatever you think that is possible if we should get a second chance. Actually, what do you imagine as reason enough for us to exist? :rolleyes: Helping other species to survive? Saving the world, saving the universe? What kind of goal do you want?

IMHO you are subjective and without hope
So if we have no greater purpose, and the bad does out weigh the good, then why not press that button, and let everything else live.
Everything else that exist has purpose in regard to me. The bad does out weigh the good in your subjective point of view.
Besides, I see increasing (IMHO) moral standards if I'm looking at for example the books of Moses, and think that there is hope for us in the feature.

Second chance
The point isn't about killing humans, its about humans ruining life for all other life on earth, this is giving them a second chance, at the expense of a few billion life forms, WE KILL THAT MANY A DAY! NOT INCLUDING BACTERIA. I see myself no greater in purpose than a single celled organism, it deserves every right you do, and if you say it doesn't because it has no conciousness, then what about dolphins... eh! You recking life for them to
We are not the only killers on earth. Many animals do kill. Sorry, nature itself is build up such that it's about survival. Also the second chance rational life forms will be masters of survival. Okay if you can, tell a bacteria that it has the right to choose (that's where I build my moral system on). Why don't you blame nature for it? :confused: Why wouldn't you try to destroy the whole universe for being without reason? :devil:
 
  • #11
KaneOris said:
You have infront of you, a red button
All you have to do is press it
What the button does is one of either
Instantly kills all humans in the world, yourself included
Or
Instantly reverses time and takes humans out of ever existing.


Do you press the button?
-----------

Personal opinion, i know no one will agree with it, and no I am not just depressed guy

Id press the button without thinking twice
The bad people in this world out weigh the good
And everyone in this world has killed. Wether it be another person or a fly.
We have destroyed our planet, we have decimated it
We destroy life for everything else, why should we get to ruin life for everything else.
Not all are guilty, and deserve to die. But I am sorry, id feel better letting everything else live, and humans dying, rather than letting everything die all together.

UNIVERSALISM says you should not because it not only makes you a very selfish indiviadual, but also your action which is both suicidal and genucidal robs the human race of value. Unversalism is the claim that an action is valueable or good if it benefits everyone. Universalists would argue that your action benefits neither you nor everyone else.

UTILITARIANISM would condemn your action for a comepletely different reason. Although, untilitarianism does not completely rule out pressing that button, but nevertheless it would still condem it for some very calculated reasons. Trust me on this one, no sane human being ever desires applying utilitarian principles in their daily decision makings, but there comes on regular or rare occasions when moral dilemmas force people to resort to thinking and acting in utilitarian ways. In your button-pressing scenario, a utilitarian would only press that button if what results produces the highest good or happiness. In this very case, I don't think killing yourself and everyone else in the whole world fulfills the Utilitarian Principle of the Highest good.

Admittedly, Universalism is currently difficult to achieve. At the moment, the standard debate between the universalists and the utilitarians is whether moral dilemmas are avoidable in the causal and relational structure of the world. The BIGGEST problem with moral dilemmas is that they turm human creatures into calculators. People automatically rationalise on what faces them daily, or what nature throws at them, and act accordingly to overcome it. My study shows that if at all there is anything bad about applying utilitarian calculus in our daily decision makings, then we are all guilty if this charge, because often we all do this, almost unconsciously, without realising that we are doing so. This is why my entire philosophy is aimed and directed at finding ways, by whatever means possible, for the human beings to physically progress from untilitarianism to universalism. At the moment I look at Utilitarianism as a very problematic but unavoidable pathway to universalism.

NOTE: We are all wholly responsible for the INNER AND OUTWARD QUALITY of the people we choose to lead us and run our institutions, and this is one problem that we will carry in our conscience for a very long time to come, unless we start paying more attention to the human education that is fully supported and backed up with full scale scientific aim and action to re-engineer the human reality.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
KaneOris said:
I see all the good and all the evil, yet i still think this would be better for the universe.

You see all good and all evil! You must be a god! Therefore I'll press the button since you seem to think so, and I know you'll have mercy on my soul.

About purpose, people seem to have their own purpose, (only personal not absolute) but do you think a paramecium has that same awareness of self worth? Even if not, that doesn't mean they don't have a right to live.

Nature is very competitive for survival, but humanity clearly oversteps this boundary. We kill other life forms and sometimes entire species for convenience, luxury, etc. Humans are the only species not "playing fair" so they should be ejected from the game. The button needs to be pushed.

I would spraypaint the button green and draw a dollar sign on it, and tell some sucker nearby that it's the free money button (just for liability purposes, I won't be the one to push it).
 
  • #13
False Prophet said:
You see all good and all evil! You must be a god! Therefore I'll press the button since you seem to think so, and I know you'll have mercy on my soul.

About purpose, people seem to have their own purpose, (only personal not absolute) but do you think a paramecium has that same awareness of self worth? Even if not, that doesn't mean they don't have a right to live.

Nature is very competitive for survival, but humanity clearly oversteps this boundary. We kill other life forms and sometimes entire species for convenience, luxury, etc. Humans are the only species not "playing fair" so they should be ejected from the game. The button needs to be pushed.

I would spraypaint the button green and draw a dollar sign on it, and tell some sucker nearby that it's the free money button (just for liability purposes, I won't be the one to push it).

False Prophet why get so angry and sly...you sound as if you've had a bad day. Take it easy...calm down...take a deep breath. Instead of being so sly and engineering someone else to do your dirty work, just igonor the button and punch a tree on your back garden...actually not a tree...I meant to say the fence wall on your back garden...or on the back garden of anyone who has given you a bad day. For heavens' sake why take it out on the whole planet. You are not even a utilitarian, let alone, a universalist...pal, this really bothers me.

Think Nature! May the 'Book of Nature' serve you well and bring you all that is good!
 
  • #14
KaneOris said:
Do you press the button?

No.

What right do you have to press that button and destroy billions of lives? Where do you get the gall to believe that your reasoning powers are perfect, that you have a watertight argument to justify your position on this issue? Have you never plead ignorance? Do you know what it is to be humble? Even if I had a brain as astute and potent as a Wittgenstein or a Dirac, I would never rely on it to make such a weighty decision.

Understand, I'm not attacking your argument, because I'm too dumb to analyse it properly. I'm attacking your breathtaking arrogance, your willingness to eliminate billions of people based on an argument you hatch up in your mind.
 
  • #15
Spot on, Cragwolf.
 
  • #16
A I

Well yes obviously we can't actually know what we would do because we arent in the situation at the moment, but isn't that in all philosphy>
----------
saviourmachine

"We are not the only killers on earth. Many animals do kill."

We also have the choice not to, yet we believe we are more important, and more deserving because we can do things like read and write. Point is, they kill without the conscious thought of doing so, I've never seen any animal kill something unless in defense or for food or for an actual reason.
We don't have to destroy the rain forest and the habitat of thousands of lives, but we do!
----------
Philocrat

We are robbing all other races of value
----------
False Prophet

Yeh ohk, I am a god, i order you to get some intelligence
----------
Cragwolf

Thank you for actually answering the question
But not to well backed up, what right do i have to destroy the lives of billions, as i said, we destroy the lives of billions everyday
 
  • #17
I think the real issue here, Kane, is that you have issues.

Your obviously egotistical, which precludes intelligent discourse. You obviously have a pragmatic view on life. You obviously are not hear to get other's opinions on your ideas, unless they are in complete agreement with your own.

Do you press the button?

For you, non-existence may be the preferred choice, but I would just ask you to speak for yourself.

For me, no I would not press the button, for when there is life, there is a chance, and for all the pain, loss, and evil I have experienced in my life I've also had a number of moments in which just one of them made it all worth it for me. Perhaps you need to search harder for such a moment for yourself.
 
  • #18
KaneOris said:
The bad people in this world out weigh the good
And everyone in this world has killed. Wether it be another person or a fly.
We have destroyed our planet, we have decimated it
We destroy life for everything else, why should we get to ruin life for everything else.
Not all are guilty, and deserve to die. But I am sorry, id feel better letting everything else live, and humans dying, rather than letting everything die all together.


There are countless people who feel as you do and who are actually taking steps to kill just as many "bad guys" as they can. Some are even working on doomsday devices. If you are not depressed, then what is the point in telling us this?
 
  • #19
Deeviant, you are now added to the list of people that have no idea, and make to many asumptions about other people
I didnt just pull this question out of now where, i read it in a book and i wanted to see what others would say, witht eh exception of 2 posts, people have just made attacks on me, and no i don't want to hear what those people say.
 
  • #20
Sorry Philocrat, KaneOris, and anyone else I offended. I couldn't find the neighbor's back garden wall, so I just punched the neighbor instead. I feel much better now.

I'll still push the button, though. I suppose I can do my own dirty work, it won't make much difference. And those people trying to make doomsday devices are different, as they will probably blow up the world for all the creatures, not just the humans.

Lord, have mercy on us all!
 
  • #21
It is sad that disagreement is seen as an attack. That sez all that needs to be said about personal filters.

love&peace,
olde drunk
 
  • #22
KaneOris said:
Ive thought of you as an intelligent man, but how can you believe without any knowledge that you have seen more of mans flaws than me Also you have no idea about what my views on the world, I am loving life... Man asumption is the truth greatest enemy, and you seem to be in bed with it

About Christ, Mohammed and Ghandi, why are these people so special to you... all they got was the right media coverage... Plus Christ has done more harm than good
First, you're attacking me and my statement, I made no assumption! I offered a BET. All you did was sidestep facing your lack of maturity.

I'm glad your enjoying life.

Second, those wise men did not cause the harm. Men and their misuse of power caused the harm. I know, the same men you want to erase from the world. Last time I looked, I saw more good men than bad.

love&peace,
olde drunk
 
  • #23
False Prophet said:
Sorry Philocrat, KaneOris, and anyone else I offended. I couldn't find the neighbor's back garden wall, so I just punched the neighbor instead. I feel much better now.

I'll still push the button, though. I suppose I can do my own dirty work, it won't make much difference. And those people trying to make doomsday devices are different, as they will probably blow up the world for all the creatures, not just the humans.

Lord, have mercy on us all!

Well, your posting suggests that there is a third option to UNIVERSALISM and UTILITARIANISM. What would that be? Since you sound as if you have been badly bruised, could you help us answer the following questions:


1) How many people in the world offended you? Give a numder or names.

2) Is it only your next door neighbour that offended you? If so, why take an offence of one person on the rest of the world?

3) Other than Universalism and utilitirianism that we all know of, what name would you give to the state of mind of someone who wants to kill the whole of humanity? With regards to this, a universalist wants everyone in the world to survive (I am one of them). A utilitarian wants as many people as possible to survive (majority of the world subscribes to this). How many people do you want to survive? Well, your response says zero.


Lastly, how's your neighbour's face or wherever you hit him or her?

Lord, have mercy on us all!

Amen!
 
Last edited:
  • #24
KaneOris said:
Deeviant, you are now added to the list of people that have no idea, and make to many asumptions about other people
I didnt just pull this question out of now where, i read it in a book and i wanted to see what others would say, witht eh exception of 2 posts, people have just made attacks on me, and no i don't want to hear what those people say.



First off all, my statements were based on observation, not assumption. Secondly, is it you who are making the bulk of the attacks. Lastly, you clearly do not care at all about what other people have to say unless they exactely agree with you, and if they say anything even close to contradictory you let loose with a barrage of insult, egotisim, and worthless attitude.

I will add you to the list of people that have nothing to add to this forum.
 
  • #25
KaneOris said:
Id press the button without thinking twice
The bad people in this world out weigh the good
And everyone in this world has killed. Wether it be another person or a fly.
We have destroyed our planet, we have decimated it
We destroy life for everything else, why should we get to ruin life for everything else.
Not all are guilty, and deserve to die. But I am sorry, id feel better letting everything else live, and humans dying, rather than letting everything die all together.
Your basic point is that people are destructive to the Earth's ecosystem and should be terminated. This is flawed logic, since people are part of the Earth's ecosystem. To destroy all humans means to destroy a major part of the Earth's ecosystem. In addition, you'd be pretty hard pressed to show convincingly with evidence that the majority of our influence on the ecosystem has been bad. For example, you may say that clearing trees for a farm is bad because it kills trees. Sorry, I don't agree. You'll need to provide a good argument for why its bad.

As for the basis for the question, I also agree with the others that no one person is worthy of the responsibility of answering that question with a yes. Take that as you will.
 
  • #26
Philocrat said:
Well, your posting suggests that there is a third option to UNIVERSALISM and UTILITARIANISM. What would that be? Since you sound as if you have been badly bruised, could you help us answer the following questions:


1) How many people in the world offended you? Give a numder or names.

2) Is it only your next door neighbour that offended you? If so, why take an offence of one person on the rest of the world?

3) Other than Universalism and utilitirianism that we all know of, what name would you give to the state of mind of someone who wants to kill the whole of humanity? With regards to this, a universalist wants everyone in the world to survive (I am one of them). A utilitarian wants as many people as possible to survive (majority of the world subscribes to this). How many people do you want to survive? Well, your response says zero.


Lastly, how's your neighbour's face or wherever you hit him or her?

Philocrat, you have me all wrong!

1) In my life, I haven't been counting. Probably at least 150. Not as much as some people I'm sure.

2) I'm not holding a grudge at all! I never intentionally displace my anger on others who don't deserve it. My bad mood was reflected in my first post. I issued a genuine apology in my second one. I'm not walking around disgruntled at the world. Everyone gets mad sometimes. My viewpoint on the button is for different reasons.

3) You are right, your two groups are not all inclusive. I don't consider a group affiliation at all for my opinion (it would be a very small group). I just have the personal point of view that humans, despite being so innovative, intelligent, and at the top of the foodchain, have no more right to live than any other animal. Humans are no more "special" than an elephant, nor are they exempt from the laws of nature. I think it's wrong that euthenasia is fought so hard by people who think it's wrong, even if the subject wants it, while you can take your dog to be put to sleep because he doesn't match your new couch.

Lastly) I never punched my neighbor. You suggested to punch something like the neighbor's back garden wall, I just made a bad joke.
----------
Here is my evidence from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

"People can also cause the extinction of plants and animals. The main reason that many species are endangered or threatened today is because people have changed the homes or habitats upon which these species depend."

http://www.epa.gov/espp/coloring/especies.htm
 
  • #27
I have read that before the construction of a large particle accelerator is undertaken, a committee gathers to consider the chances that the particle reactions will set off a chain of events that will destroy the Earth. Also, some people at Los Alamos worried that the first nuclear bomb test would have an effect on the atmosphere that would kill off all life on the planet.
 
  • #28
False Prophet said:
Philocrat, you have me all wrong!

1) In my life, I haven't been counting. Probably at least 150. Not as much as some people I'm sure.

2) I'm not holding a grudge at all! I never intentionally displace my anger on others who don't deserve it. My bad mood was reflected in my first post. I issued a genuine apology in my second one. I'm not walking around disgruntled at the world. Everyone gets mad sometimes. My viewpoint on the button is for different reasons.

3) You are right, your two groups are not all inclusive. I don't consider a group affiliation at all for my opinion (it would be a very small group). I just have the personal point of view that humans, despite being so innovative, intelligent, and at the top of the foodchain, have no more right to live than any other animal. Humans are no more "special" than an elephant, nor are they exempt from the laws of nature. I think it's wrong that euthenasia is fought so hard by people who think it's wrong, even if the subject wants it, while you can take your dog to be put to sleep because he doesn't match your new couch.

Lastly) I never punched my neighbor. You suggested to punch something like the neighbor's back garden wall, I just made a bad joke.
----------
Here is my evidence from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

"People can also cause the extinction of plants and animals. The main reason that many species are endangered or threatened today is because people have changed the homes or habitats upon which these species depend."

http://www.epa.gov/espp/coloring/especies.htm


Thank heavens that you did not hit your neighbour...only a joke! I have tried your link and it doesn't seem to work. What's wrong? On this issue of environment and our careless attitude to it, we all share the responsibility for keeping our planet safe. Persistent and continuous education of politicians, those who run corporations at home and abroad, expert advisers to institutions, and people in general is the key. Academics, especially those within the science disciplines, should do more to put easilly accessible information about this problem on the public domain. The public should be more informed about this. We should use the media more for public education.

But for heavens' sake...don't touch that dial! From a universalist point of view, we cannot afford to lose you, let alone the rest of humanity!


Think Nature! May the 'Book of Nature' serve you well and bring you all that is good!
 
Last edited:
  • #29
I don't know what's wrong. Try this: http://www.epa.gov/espp/coloring
Then click the button that says "learn about endangered species". You can even print out the pages and color them!

I agree with you that education and environmental reform is a much more preferable route. It is everyone's responsibility, but most people, including politicians, may never accept this.

As the question is posed, I figure I have to make the decision immediatly. If I can come back to the button later, when I have at least sincerely tried to change public opinion, I would.

In my heart I think there are lots of people who just aren't aware of the severity of the environmental problems, and would change if they learned how these problems can impact them and their descendents. Then again there are some who would never give up driving their SUV everywhere, and lots of people who don't want to waste five min. of their day to separate paper from plastic. That's a great idea to use the media to reach people. I think these issues deserve some attention.
 
  • #30
KaneOris said:
----------
saviourmachine

"We are not the only killers on earth. Many animals do kill."

We also have the choice not to, yet we believe we are more important, and more deserving because we can do things like read and write. Point is, they kill without the conscious thought of doing so, I've never seen any animal kill something unless in defense or for food or for an actual reason.
We don't have to destroy the rain forest and the habitat of thousands of lives, but we do!

Of course we do not do this with the intention of destroying the rain forest. It is a consequence of satisfying other needs/pleasures.
But anyway, as an example of cruelty in other species, how about young male lions that after having defeated the older male leader of the pride will kill ("butcher" if you like) all the young cubs?

(This is of course understandable from an evolutionary perspective: the genes that built the lion are better off building an individual that makes sure not to spend energy on spreading the genes of the previous leader and that instead makes sure that new cubs will be born that carry their copies.)

KaneOris said:
----------
Philocrat

We are robbing all other races of value

Value is not some objective property that every organism has. I can value the nice swift jump of a salmon in the river and also value the nice taste of a freshly caught and backed salmon. Do you really value all organisms? Even ones like malaria parasites or smallpox?

KaneOris said:
----------
False Prophet

Yeh ohk, I am a god, i order you to get some intelligence
----------
Cragwolf

Thank you for actually answering the question
But not to well backed up, what right do i have to destroy the lives of billions, as i said, we destroy the lives of billions everyday

You do not need a right to do so, you can simply destroy flies if you like without any retribution (you do not need something like "rights", you may need a flyswatter). Rights and laws are arrangements among members of your own species (humans). Of course they may include rules that involve other species, for example many people (me included) would find it terrible and would want to punish you if you would skin a living cat.


To answer your original question:
No, I would not push the button,
I do not feel like committing suicide.
 
  • #31
A reason to kill

saviourmachine said:
We are not the only killers on earth. Many animals do kill.
KaneOris said:
We also have the choice not to, yet we believe we are more important, and more deserving because we can do things like read and write. Point is, they kill without the conscious thought of doing so, I've never seen any animal kill something unless in defense or for food or for an actual reason.
We don't have to destroy the rain forest and the habitat of thousands of lives, but we do!
Animal behaviour
Did you ever mind to read something about the actual behaviour of chimps? Or the behaviour of animals in zoos?

What reason would be enough?
What 'reason' do you expect to find behind 'killing'? Would cannibalism be okay, if it's for food? Is reclaiming territory reason enough? Did you ever read the pensées of Pascal?
Pascal said:
Can anything be stupider than that a man has the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of a river and his ruler has a quarrel with mine, though I have not quarrelled with him?
If the man doesn't have responsabilities towards a leader, this turns out to be even more awkward.

Animals don't choose
What do you know about the choosing behaviour of animals versus mankind? Does a dog choose to come if you call him? Can he obey or disobey?

Reason doesn't justify killing
A reason to kill. : Reason doesn't justify killing. It's an inheritance of the past in which we needed to kill to live. At some time this wouldn't be necessary anymore (I hope so). Even religious rules wouldn't be 'reason' enough to kill. Even god would be denied to kill.

I don't accept your implicit statement, that 'reasoning' would be enough to justify killing mankind.
 
  • #32
Gerben, value doesn't come from humans, if it does, i don't value you.
 
  • #33
KaneOris said:
Gerben, value doesn't come from humans, if it does, i don't value you.

Can you explain where you think that value does come from?

I think it is a human judgement, we simply think/feel that certain things have value and others do not, in a similar way as we do like the taste of some foods and not those of others.


Here are two qoutes from Nietzsche that, I think, fit:

"There is a human being who has turned out badly, who does not have enough spirit to be able to enjoy it [life] but just enough education to realize this; he is bored, disgusted, and despises himself...what do you suppose he finds necessary, absolutely necessary, to give himself in his own eyes the appearance of superiority over more spiritual people and to attain the pleasure of an accomplished revenge at least in his imagination? Always morality; you can bet on that. Always big moral words. Always the rub-a-dub of justice, wisdom, holiness, virtue. "

"Whoever despises himself still respects himself as one who despises."
 
  • #34
Personally, I'd rather not be the one who decides the Fate of all the ife on Earth.
 
  • #35
Did anyone not listen when i said I am not depressed and i got this out of a pyscology book?
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
919
  • General Discussion
Replies
21
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
653
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
8
Views
2K
Back
Top