Humans a Supervirus.

[SubRosa]

So you don't believe that man, as a species, will put his own self-interest above everything else to the complete destruction of habitats and species, as long as the ends are met? That we will prey on everything until we completely erradicate it?

The parallel of us and viruses is quite fitting. A virus multiplies until it eventually kills the host or the host kills it. We are in the process of killing our host. It's just takin' us a long time to do it...it's a pretty big host. Anyone who denies that is practicing a very dangerous form of self-delusion. Just look around the planet at what we are doing to it. Look up the food stocks decling on land and in the ocean. Deforestation, pollution, consumption are all taking a slow, inexorable toll.

Unless we, as a species, decide to do things differently, what do you see as the inevitable outcome?

...and just because I don't have too much faith in our species as a group, doesn't mean I feel compelled to eradicate the rest of y'all. I can be misanthropic without sending you all to Valhalla.

Mark

Think more deeply about your first question. Regardless of what anyone says, we all act in what we perceive our own best interests to be. It's human nature to do so. People like Mother Theresa who dedicate their lives to helping others are every bit as selfish as the most stereotypically greedy capitalist. The difference lies in the perception of what is actually in our own best interest. Mother Theresa didn't help people because they needed it. She helped them because it made her feel good to do so, and because in her belief structure she thought that doing so would provide her an eternal reward. The motivation of the stereotypical greedy capitalist is the same, but his thoughts are confined to the material world, and to a much shorter time span. People will never think as a species, they will think as individuals. Did we as a species prey on the ancestors of modern livestock until they were erradicated? As far as your contentention that the person who thought this up could be a nice guy, ask yourself how nice a person who figured out the greatest possible threat to the planet and then did nothing but whine on the internet about it really is.

 

[SubRosa]

The biggest form of self-delusion I am seeing is the idea that somehow we will be able to outsmart the need for sacrifice, that technology is going to save the world AND keep us as comfortable as we are used to. Sacrifice is an integral part of environmentalism, and technology is no substitute for it...it just delays the inevitable.

The biggest form of our self-delusion is those who delude themselves into thinking that they aren't the most important thing in their own value structure. The mental and verbal gymnastics that people go through to try to convince themselves and others that they aren't selfish is endlessly entertaining.

 

[SubRosa]

The biggest form of self-delusion I am seeing is the idea that somehow we will be able to outsmart the need for sacrifice, that technology is going to save the world AND keep us as comfortable as we are used to. Sacrifice is an integral part of environmentalism, and technology is no substitute for it...it just delays the inevitable.

Sacrifice is not the biggest part of the equation, it's just one of, if not the most abused word in the English language. Sacrifice is by definition giving up something of value for something of less value. As an example let's look at parenthood. It's said all the time how you have to sacrifice for your children to be a good parent. So is it a sacrifice to not go out to the bar every weekend to make sure you can pay for what your children need? Only if you value going to the bar more than the well-being of your children! Any parent who feels that they are sacrificing anything for their children is deluding themself as to how good and suitable a parent they really are. The same goes with the topic at hand. If you value the planet more than driving a car, not driving a car is no sacrifice, it's merely a good trade.

 

[wesleydnunder]

Think more deeply about your first question. Regardless of what anyone says, we all act in what we perceive our own best interests to be. It's human nature to do so. People like Mother Theresa who dedicate their lives to helping others are every bit as selfish as the most stereotypically greedy capitalist. The difference lies in the perception of what is actually in our own best interest. Mother Theresa didn't help people because they needed it. She helped them because it made her feel good to do so, and because in her belief structure she thought that doing so would provide her an eternal reward. The motivation of the stereotypical greedy capitalist is the same, but his thoughts are confined to the material world, and to a much shorter time span. People will never think as a species, they will think as individuals. Did we as a species prey on the ancestors of modern livestock until they were erradicated? As far as your contentention that the person who thought this up could be a nice guy, ask yourself how nice a person who figured out the greatest possible threat to the planet and then did nothing but whine on the internet about it really is.

I completely agree with this sentiment. People always do what they want to do, and since the reasons they do things are for themselves they are by definition selfish.
If a person gets up every day to go to a job they hate, it's because the alternative of not having the money to buy necessities is less desireable to them.

I believe I said the person who made the original statement may be a nice guy. I have no idea either way. He may also be a candidate for protective restraint.

Mark

 

[Khemul]

I'm liking the direction this is heading :evil_lol:

Although I would disagree about humans not thinking as a species. We may not do it consciously but there does seem to be a subconscious species-wide self-preservation system. Self-interest may bring us to the edge of wiping ourselves out, but something seems to kick in to override that self-interest (usually religions give credit here to various deities). The key is whether it kicks in before it is too late. In the case of the predicted resource crisis, there are plenty of options there to hold off disaster. They will just make a lot of people uncomfortable from a moral perspective.

 

[Rbishop]

Sigh..all of you on this planet have some weird conceptions....'tis kewl though....

 

[Fishfriend1]

Think more deeply about your first question. Regardless of what anyone says, we all act in what we perceive our own best interests to be. It's human nature to do so. People like Mother Theresa who dedicate their lives to helping others are every bit as selfish as the most stereotypically greedy capitalist. The difference lies in the perception of what is actually in our own best interest. Mother Theresa didn't help people because they needed it. She helped them because it made her feel good to do so, and because in her belief structure she thought that doing so would provide her an eternal reward. The motivation of the stereotypical greedy capitalist is the same, but his thoughts are confined to the material world, and to a much shorter time span. People will never think as a species, they will think as individuals. Did we as a species prey on the ancestors of modern livestock until they were erradicated? As far as your contentention that the person who thought this up could be a nice guy, ask yourself how nice a person who figured out the greatest possible threat to the planet and then did nothing but whine on the internet about it really is.

The biggest form of our self-delusion is those who delude themselves into thinking that they aren't the most important thing in their own value structure. The mental and verbal gymnastics that people go through to try to convince themselves and others that they aren't selfish is endlessly entertaining.

Sacrifice is not the biggest part of the equation, it's just one of, if not the most abused word in the English language. Sacrifice is by definition giving up something of value for something of less value. As an example let's look at parenthood. It's said all the time how you have to sacrifice for your children to be a good parent. So is it a sacrifice to not go out to the bar every weekend to make sure you can pay for what your children need? Only if you value going to the bar more than the well-being of your children! Any parent who feels that they are sacrificing anything for their children is deluding themself as to how good and suitable a parent they really are. The same goes with the topic at hand. If you value the planet more than driving a car, not driving a car is no sacrifice, it's merely a good trade.

I completely agree with this sentiment. People always do what they want to do, and since the reasons they do things are for themselves they are by definition selfish.
If a person gets up every day to go to a job they hate, it's because the alternative of not having the money to buy necessities is less desireable to them.

I believe I said the person who made the original statement may be a nice guy. I have no idea either way. He may also be a candidate for protective restraint.

Mark

So, basically, humans are greedy little buggers and will never change? Not a happy viewpoint I think. True or not, however, the end result is the same. Whether or not we do so because we're greeding and want to do whats best for us is irrelevent, so long as we do so. Ends justify the reason. If we want to help the planet then we will and the planet (and therefor humans) will survive. A good trade off, INHO, even if it's just a trade off. So, agueing the reasons behind human behavior isn't all that important. Just interesting to watch.

I'm liking the direction this is heading :evil_lol:

Although I would disagree about humans not thinking as a species. We may not do it consciously but there does seem to be a subconscious species-wide self-preservation system. Self-interest may bring us to the edge of wiping ourselves out, but something seems to kick in to override that self-interest (usually religions give credit here to various deities). The key is whether it kicks in before it is too late. In the case of the predicted resource crisis, there are plenty of options there to hold off disaster. They will just make a lot of people uncomfortable from a moral perspective.

You mean take what we need and screw everyone/thing else? That would make people uncomforitable.

I think we've started to sidetrack from the original subject, but hey, so long as no one gets mean about it I'm okay with that.

 

[SubRosa]

I'm liking the direction this is heading :evil_lol:

Although I would disagree about humans not thinking as a species. We may not do it consciously but there does seem to be a subconscious species-wide self-preservation system. Self-interest may bring us to the edge of wiping ourselves out, but something seems to kick in to override that self-interest (usually religions give credit here to various deities). The key is whether it kicks in before it is too late. In the case of the predicted resource crisis, there are plenty of options there to hold off disaster. They will just make a lot of people uncomfortable from a moral perspective.

Nothing ever overrides our self-interest. Sometimes things come along and change our perception of exactly what it is that is in our best interests, and so our actions change.

 

[dundadundun]

1-800-GET-A-LIFE


:evil_lol:

hey, you're reading this thread, too apparently...

:werd:

PETOL? Totally joining :grinyes:

i can't lie. i considered it.

the world is not alive

qualify that statement, please.

 

[oo7genie]

For some reason this thread reminds me of a Bloodhound Gang song...opcorn:

I was thinking the Ballad of Chasey Lain... then again, I've got issues.