The Independent Voice of West Indies Cricket

Message Board Archives

Nature and extinction of the Human race

 
sgtdjones 2022-09-14 19:03:12 

Nature and extinction of the Human race

Nature is amoral. Totally amoral. Animals eat other animals. Invasive species wipe out other species. There have been five mass extinction events that killed off over 75% of species each. The Permian–Triassic extinction killed off 96% of everything 251 million years ago. That, by the way, was a CO2 event. This is the nature of nature. We are a creation of nature. We are a species that has the capability to destroy our habitat so that we could conceivably destroy ourselves. It should be noted that none of the mass extinction events had anything to do with human habitation or practices. There will be more, maybe caused by us, maybe not.

The human species is an anomaly, it does not try to live in harmony with the earth or with the other species on the earth. It has as much as possible separated itself from the trials of living in harmony because it can. This flaw is now catching up with us. Humans also have a brain that is large, it is capable of great things, but in general, it seems to be incapable of relating these great things to the rest of the planet in a way that does the least harm. Our white dominant religion does not come from a relationship with the earth like the native Americans have, its relationship is one of dominance ordained by that religion. We cannot seem to look beyond it. It gives us a license for greed. Most of the main roots of modern-day religious thought are based on false assumptions, such as dominance and the idea that we are at the top of the created world and entitled to rape and pillage of its resources. These basic assumptions may never die completely. We also cling to outmoded ideas. We have great ability, but poor empathy and very little understanding of the natural world and how we fit in.

We're not in a position to know whether nature in the abstract is moral or immoral. However, if human beings are natural, and they constructed morality out of whole cloth, then it follows that morality is natural, even if animals eat other animals and extinctions have occurred. I find this attempt to stand outside morality, which in this case is just a crude term for posting values, and presuming to take the perspective of nature itself, God, the universe, or the whole of evolutionary biology, amusing and philosophically naïve. I make this argument from ignorance with this statement: "One could press the objection here by saying that [human extinction] would only be a loss from a human viewpoint and that that viewpoint would no longer exist if we went extinct. This is true." Au contraire, not necessarily, not if nature has values that humans embody and reflect. We can only be sure that how one comes down on the question this meditation poses, and even the question itself, reveals the inquirer's state of mind, e.g., nihilistic and dejected or hopeful and confident, or some heterogeneous combination of the two (which would only be natural).

I am going to argue semantics, but I mean it as an augment to point, not a counterpoint.No species "tries" to live in harmony with the Earth or other species. It appears as though they do (in the short term) because species evolve to harmonize with their surroundings, but the harmony is instinctual and self-serving. Even truly synergistic species like oxpeckers don't care about the ox; they just want the bugs - for themselves. In contrast, it is hard to argue destructive animals like beavers "mean" to hurt the environment. They are simply doing what they have been doing for millennia. We are the anomaly because of our intelligence. We have transcended basic instincts. We can choose to harmonize. We can see the costs of our destructive actions. We can - and should - view ourselves as caretakers because we are the only ones that have that capacity. We also have the ability to alter our behavior and utilize technology to maintain our existence. That is the issue. Not whether we should continue, but why we don't alter our behavior to insure our continuance. These types of decisions speak to morality and morality has nothing to do with nature. It is a totally human construct. The issue of human extinction should not be compared to a tragedy from the biological aspect because nature has no morality. It should be examined from a behavioral aspect that does concern morality.

Yes, humans do a great deal of damage but so do almost all species when their populations exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat. Elephants strip forests bare and then starve, and elk populations on islands explode and then disappear when food runs out. All species instinctively procreate, compete for resources, kill each other to ensure survival, and consume resources until they’re exhausted unless there is a rival to restore the balance. Humans tend to romanticize other species as being in harmony with nature but all species (including humans) exist by ‘virtue’ of evolution, of survival of the fittest, which is often by tooth and claw, or in our case, the ability to create technology (in the broader sense).I don’t think we are evil or a virus or some ugly species, we just haven’t morally evolved fast enough to go beyond procreating and consuming all in sundry. So as far as nature is concerned, our existence means nothing. How we live does. How we manage the environment does because these actions require "humanity" to be enacted. If not, then we are no better than a volcano. How we live determines our humanity, not our existence. The loss of that "how" would be a tragedy and result in the extinction of our humanity and quite possibly our existence.

To follow the ideas in the two books The Beginning of infinity and Enlightenment Now, humans have the unique ability to improve the world and own the unique accomplishment of having done so already.Our accomplishments since the Enlightenment and especially since WW2 are staggering in almost every meaningful area. More importantly, if any species can make the universe full of consciousness and remove suffering it will have to be humans. We are the only beings capable of consistently creating knowledge and improving the universe with it.Have we always improved the world? No, of course not. But the universe without us would be a dull place with a few semi-conscious creatures who suffer just long enough to procreate. Even if you are the most pessimistic of thinkers you still have to consider human life a tragedy because it's the only chance the universe has at improving.

Tragedy? In the vast, unknowable stretches of time and space, planets, solar systems, and galaxies are created and destroyed regularly without our consideration of the theatrical appeal of this happening. Funny that one would even imagine that the existence of humanity matters in the vastness of the cosmos and the seemingly eternal progression of time. Humans bring to this planet nothing that helps other species. We are, collectively, all about ourselves. That self-importance manifests as arrogance, if not contempt, for most other species. Religion teaches us that planet Earth was put here for our purposes. Philosophy dissects ad nauseam our existence. We are the most wretched species on this planet, by far.And we absolutely are on the path to destroying the ecosystem that sustains all life known to us. More intelligent than other species? I don't think so.

We're "devastating the earth and causing unimaginable animal suffering" and don't forget the suffering we've caused fellow humans--just as horrific and unimaginable. Ask a few biologist who taught evolution and diversity. I am alarmed and saddened on a daily basis over what humans are doing to the earth and everything that lives on it, including plants, invertebrates, and all other forms of life not mentioned --a life that is a wonder and source of joy to me every day. But these days, I just don't believe we deserve to be in the mix. Shame on us for reckless devastation and no apparent regard for how that will, in fact, be the end of us, too. It will be a loss, culturally speaking, but life will move on--it is an amazing force of nature. In all seriousness and without any further sarcasm, the inherent "value" of humanity is pretty much only from a human perspective. Aside from some specific bonds people may form with individual lifeforms (pets and such), the question posed just doesn't strike me as meaningful.Many people, myself included, tend to see life as worth saving for its own sake, but that's a function of human concepts too. I'd rather not wipe out a species.There are all sorts of ecological reasons, but at the end of the day, I don't need much excuse beyond thinking that it's a stupid, juvenile thing to do. In that same sense, I don't know what inherent "worth" humanity has to the world, the solar system, the galaxy, or the universe. It's sufficient to say that I and many others wish to live and to see others live. Again, I could cite human concepts like creativity, morality, etc., but why bother? If humanity were coming to an end right this moment,I would regret it.That should be reason enough to stop hastening our own destruction.

I consider myself to be an optimist but I believe humans are just another failed species. In the 4 billion years this planet has been around, we will not even appear on the pie chart. I don't feel so sorry for us as we have done this to ourselves, but I am very saddened by the horror we are visiting our fellow animals. The silver lining is that earth will revert to its pristine state after we are gone. We inherited paradise and turned it into ash.
Even if you are the most pessimistic of thinkers you still have to consider the extinction of human life to be a tragedy because it's the only chance the universe has at improving. I am thinking of our Native American brethren who honored nature and tried to live in harmony with her. I’m wondering if they’d be so kind as to intervene for us now. It’s a thought. I’m sensing a desperate time for humanity. Of course, I can look at a distant star and imagine a tragedy like ours if a planet circling that star resembles earth at our current evolutionary juncture. I would never, however, suggest that those folks out there look down on us, another distant star from their perspective, and decide they are valueless because my poor species exists.

If humans do go extinct, to all those saying no one would miss the human race, I ask "what about the pigeons and the rats?"

References:

The Beginning of Infinity

Physicist David Deutsch

Enlightenment Now

Steven Pinker

“A Fragile Life: Accepting Our Vulnerability.”

"Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy"

Todd May is a professor of philosophy at Clemson University

 
Barry 2022-09-14 21:11:37 

In reply to sgtdjones
I want to talk to velo . . . I want to evolve him . . .

razz

 
Barry 2022-09-14 21:13:35 

Todd is a third rate Philosopher

Ph.D. The Pennsylvania State University, 1989.
Philosophy Dissertation: Psychology, Knowledge, Politics:
The Epistemic Grounds of Michel Foucault's Genealogy of Psychology
M.A. Duquesne University, 1982. Psychology
B.A. Brown University, 1978 big grin

 
sgtdjones 2022-09-14 21:35:31 

I didn't ask for your comments, I don't rate Professors.

Write your own thread....

 
Barry 2022-09-14 21:39:06 

This is my thread- bring out velo for me

 
sgtdjones 2022-09-14 21:45:30 

In reply to Barry

Would you kindly fck off my thread with your Bull shyt...

Arawak can you note this please...will send a pm Jaydee

If Arawak cannot stop such , I have asked him to tell me and I will gladly leave.