Mankind's Inherent Value

[We Never Know]

Also, setting aside that elevating humans above literally all other life is so abjectly disgusting and abominable it is one of the very few instances where I will use the extreme term of EVIL to describe it...

... humans literally cannot exist without other life. There is no viable hypothetical scenario where that isn't the case. Humans are obligate heterotrophs. They MUST kill other living things to survive. If they don't need to kill others to live, then you are not talking about a human anymore, you are talking about some other life form entirely.

I agree humans depend on other life/species to survive. Most all life does.

However all life would more than likely be better off without humans.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I believe all life is equal but I have the right to protect mine above all others. I believe this is true of all life on the planet which is why survival of the fittest seems to be the standard.

It's one of those realities that many don't like to admit.

 

[The Hammer]

It's one of those realities that many don't like to admit.

The problem more often comes from people having a skewed idea of what "fit" means in an evolutionary context about species survival. Typically liking it to "the strong survive". Which is grossly incorrect.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I believe all life is equal but I have the right to protect mine above all others. I believe this is true of all life on the planet which is why survival of the fittest seems to be the standard.

"Survival of the fittest" refers to having offspring that survive to reproduce. If you get eaten or whatever after that, you're technically still a winner.

 

[The Hammer]

Imagine a scale of inherent value. Directly in the middle of this scale is all of mankind

------ Higher

------ Mankind

------ Lower

Where do you place life outside of mankind on this scale? Do you place all other life on this planet above mankind in importance, does it have the same importance to you, or is everything else less important to you than mankind?

With your answer in mind I want you to answer another question for me. Let's say you were forced to make a decision; you have to either push a button that would wipe out all other life on earth and save mankind only, or push the other button that would wipe out mankind and spare all other life on the planet. In this hypothetical scenario, if one chooses to save mankind then man would be able to persist and thrive without other life existing just fine. What do you choose and why?

Weird dichotomy

 

[We Never Know]

Imagine a scale of inherent value. Directly in the middle of this scale is all of mankind

------ Higher

------ Mankind

------ Lower

Where do you place life outside of mankind on this scale? Do you place all other life on this planet above mankind in importance, does it have the same importance to you, or is everything else less important to you than mankind?

With your answer in mind I want you to answer another question for me. Let's say you were forced to make a decision; you have to either push a button that would wipe out all other life on earth and save mankind only, or push the other button that would wipe out mankind and spare all other life on the planet. In this hypothetical scenario, if one chooses to save mankind then man would be able to persist and thrive without other life existing just fine. What do you choose and why?

A. Push that button and wipe out all other life on earth, mankind will die anyway.

B. Push that button and destroy mankind, all other life will thrive

The right answer is B

 

[dybmh]

@Soandso ,

You're on a role with the philosophy threads. This one's also a winner. You're two-for-two, two days in a row? Whatever you're doing in your life... I vote: It's working.

Where do you place life outside of mankind on this scale? Do you place all other life on this planet above mankind in importance, does it have the same importance to you, or is everything else less important to you than mankind?

I place individual human lives above the individual lives of the others. However, I do not place the individual human life above any other species, category or group.

Please note. My answer is qualified and in the form of two answers in disjunctive with each other: In general BUT in particular cases there are exceptions.

In general: None should become extinct. Everyone and everything has its purpose and has its place.

BUT

In particular: If there is a threat to a human life, I value the human life over any of the others which are threatening it. For me this is purely practical. Human's can do more. Therefore we have the highest value and ultimately need to be protected more than the others.

With your answer in mind I want you to answer another question for me.

You got it, boss!

Let's say you were forced to make a decision; you have to either push a button that would wipe out all other life on earth and save mankind only, or push the other button that would wipe out mankind and spare all other life on the planet. In this hypothetical scenario, if one chooses to save mankind then man would be able to persist and thrive without other life existing just fine. What do you choose and why?

I'd save human life. Eventually we'll be able to recreate the others from our own DNA, skin, bones, blood, etc...

 

[Soandso]

Weird dichotomy

It is, but it's a question aimed at picking people's brains in contrast to anthropocentrism. It's a much more common world view than you may think; especially among certain religious folks

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think you have presented an impossibility here, given that humans rely on alien life within their own bodies to function (bacteria, viruses, etc.), such that if we destroyed all non-human life then we would probably destroy ourselves in the process. And if alternatively we destroyed humans it is highly likely that we would be replaced by some other primate species (eventually) - given that not much else is likely to have the requisite bits to do what we have done - but which perhaps then would inevitably go through the same processes and history (more or less) as we have undergone. Even as to inventing religions, squabbling over beliefs, and killing themselves perhaps. So not really a simple choice here in my view.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If you destroy all other life, you also destroy humanity.

We need all of nature. All of nature doesn’t need us.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

voted to save everything else, but it would not be possible to save humans alone...

 

[Soandso]

@Soandso ,

You're on a role with the philosophy threads. This one's also a winner. You're two-for-two, two days in a row? Whatever you're doing in your life... I vote: It's working.



I place individual human lives above the individual lives of the others. However, I do not place the individual human life above any other species, category or group.

Please note. My answer is qualified and in the form of two answers in disjunctive with each other: In general BUT in particular cases there are exceptions.

In general: None should become extinct. Everyone and everything has its purpose and has its place.

BUT

In particular: If there is a threat to a human life, I value the human life over any of the others which are threatening it. For me this is purely practical. Human's can do more. Therefore we have the highest value and ultimately need to be protected more than the others.



You got it, boss!



I'd save human life. Eventually we'll be able to recreate the others from our own DNA, skin, bones, blood, etc...

Very interesting thoughts! Thank you for sharing them!

Question about this, though...

"Human's can do more. Therefore we have the highest value and ultimately need to be protected more than the others."

To this I'd ask "says who?" Mankind itself? Seems rather self interested to me. Who says intelligence is some kind of evolutionary pillar to attain to rather than an evolutionary culdesac? I can't think of any other animals that could delete each other in an instant with nuclear weapons. If anything, our own intelligence is probably going to be the thing that kills us off in the end

Then you look at other life forms like the humble horseshoe crab and how it's survived virtually unchanged for a very, very long time. Apparently it's body plan is doing something right given how long the thing has been around for

 

[Soandso]

If you destroy all other life, you also destroy humanity.

We need all of nature. All of nature doesn’t need us.

For sure! This is why it's just a hypothetical based on how much an individual values human life over all others

 

[Soandso]

It's not humankind per se that is inherently valuable, it's conscious awareness. So to the degree that any life form is consciously aware, it is inherently valuable to the rest if existence. Because it is through such life forms that existence becomes aware of itself.

Hmmm... What makes self awareness inherently more valuable than not being able to be self aware in the grand scheme of things? Single celled organisms seems to be surviving just fine without self awareness

To me it seems that humanity places far more importance on intelligence than it might just warrant

 

[Soandso]

I voted destroy mankind and leave nature alone

Maybe another species would evolve to become civilised and take our place?

I think you have presented an impossibility here, given that humans rely on alien life within their own bodies to function (bacteria, viruses, etc.), such that if we destroyed all non-human life then we would probably destroy ourselves in the process. And if alternatively we destroyed humans it is highly likely that we would be replaced by some other primate species (eventually) - given that not much else is likely to have the requisite bits to do what we have done - but which perhaps would inevitably go through the same processes and history (more or less) as we have undergone. Even as to inventing religions, squabbling over beliefs, and killing themselves perhaps. So not really a simple choice here in my view.

You know, I think it may be possible that given enough time another species may fill the evolutionary niche that humanity currently holds as per convergent evolution. We aren't the first ones to hold the current role, we are just the most crazy and creative ones to do it so far. If we do end up wiping ourselves out, it would be interesting to think of some other animals eventually filling that same role. Who knows!

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

You know, I think it may be possible that given enough time another species may fill the evolutionary niche that humanity currently holds as per convergent evolution. We aren't the first ones to hold the current role, we are just the most crazy and creative ones to do it so far. If we do end up wiping ourselves out, it would be interesting to think of some other animals eventually filling that same role. Who knows!

I vote for raccoons...

 

[Soandso]

What about womankind and nonbinary kind?

(yes, I'm going to be that person - I have a major pet peeve about referencing the human species as "mankind" - this ain't the 20th century and prior)

No offense intended, and I see your point! Maybe "Humanity" would be more apt and accurate

Also, setting aside that elevating humans above literally all other life is so abjectly disgusting and abominable it is one of the very few instances where I will use the extreme term of EVIL to describe it...

Ehhh... I do believe that it's a world view that has led to very evil behavior by human beings for sure, and it doesn't even take much of a stretch to go from valuing the importance of all human beings over everything else to some human beings over everything else. I'm not sure if "evil" is the word I'd use personally, but it's a worldview that is at best indifferent towards the natural world and at worst incomprehensibly destructive and theriocidal

 

[Soandso]

I vote for raccoons...

Humanity has had it's time in the sun - it's time for racoons to rise up and take the crown with their tiny little racoon hands

 

[Eddi]

Humanity has had it's time in the sun - it's time for racoons to rise up take the crown with their tiny little racoon hands

I'd love to see a civilisation of racoons!

 

[Debater Slayer]

By the way, this comes to mind every time I look at the thread title:

Of course Mankind has a lot of inherent value! (So does his sock.)