Mankind's Inherent Value

[Soandso]

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?

 

[bobhikes]

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?

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.

 

[Eddi]

I voted destroy mankind and leave nature alone

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

 

[PureX]

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.

 

[Quintessence]

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)

 

[Quintessence]

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.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What about womankind and nonbinary kind?

 

[Secret Chief]

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?

Equal.

if one chooses to save mankind then man would be able to persist and thrive without other life existing just fine

Yes, hypothetical since it's nonsensical.

Save all other species. No single species is "more important." Any one species can become extinct and of course they do, but only one could become extinct which would result in a reversal of the ongoing destruction of the biosphere. So yes let's get rid of that disastrous infestation.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What do you choose and why?

While noting the "value" is a nontrivial concept. I value diversity over humanity.

 

[Secret Chief]

I voted destroy mankind and leave nature alone

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

"take our place" ? In what way? Major planetary ****wits?

 

[Eddi]

"take our place" ? In what way? Major planetary ****wits?

Beings who build skyscrapers and write books and stuff

 

[Secret Chief]

Beings who build skyscrapers and write books and stuff

meh

I like the species we have

 

[Debater Slayer]

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...

What context do you have in mind here? For instance, I'm fairly sure you have friends or acquaintances who eat meat, but would you equally be okay with befriending or being acquaintances with a bunch of cannibals?

That and, of course, humans' sustenance inevitably entails one degree or another of death or suffering to other life forms, as you well know. Even the most eco-friendly diets and lifestyles can't prevent this; they merely reduce it. So when we inevitably sustain ourselves at the expense of other life forms, are we necessarily elevating our value above theirs?

Parenthetically, I will note that I don't believe in ranking the perceived value of different species, as I believe such a question is ultimately bound to be subjective. I believe humans should definitely do much more to respect other life and not see ourselves as "superior" or "more valuable" than other life such that we routinely feel justified in destroying their habitats, subjecting them to preventable death and suffering, or driving them to extinction.

 

[Eddi]

meh

I like the species we have

View attachment 92949

Is that a snow leopard?

Maybe its ancestors will build cities and drive cars?

 

[Secret Chief]

Is that a snow leopard?

Maybe its ancestors will build cities and drive cars?

Yes.
You mean descendents I think!
I hope not, cos then it'll be them creating global warming and wiping out species!

 

[Eddi]

You mean descendents I think!

Yes!

I hope not, cos then it'll be them creating global warming and wiping out species!

Not necessarily

They may live in balance with nature

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I see all life as sacred and worth protecting. I personally view the scenario presented in the OP as unnecessary. All we have to do is build somesort of genetic ark where we stored the genetic material of all species on this planet. So if something happens and they go extinct, they can be brought back later in a lab. So even if we had to do something as horrendous as killing all the life on Earth, the species won't be lost forever. But I don't like those sorts of hypotheticals as they try to force you to choose between two equally disagreeable choices.

 

[Left Coast]

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?

This is a strange hypothetical because humans depend on other life to survive. So you'd have to somehow radically alter human nature for us to survive in the absence of all other life.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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 don't tend to think in those terms; I believe all life is important to the ecosystem we live in. I think it would be the height of hubris to say that humanity should be able to wipe out all other life on Earth. We're merely another animal species in a vast ecosystem, and I believe we should respect other life and not encroach on it just to expand our consumerist luxuries.

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?

In both scenarios, I would feel utter despair and distress after pushing the button. I'm glad there isn't and will never be such a scenario in reality.

I can't give an answer to the hypothetical because I have none other than the above.

 

[We Never Know]

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)

Would human kind be more sufficient. That would umbrella everyone under it.
Even though mankind essentially means all humans.