do you think humanity is worth saving?

[Genevieve]

how the fuck is it shitty for a planet to evolve naturally???

It's not. "Shitty" is a human concept. The planet can only be "shitty" whilst humans are present.

so on an unpopulated island it will be the same for an ant to meet or not the anteater, huh? they needed the humans to grow and explain ants the anteater is boo-boo? aka shitty aka bad...
are the zebras running from lions because they don't have "the concept" of good and bad?
smart humans, save all of them! but i bet it won't happen, they're so fucked up they don't understand the concepts of good and bad, despite inventing them

You're assuming that death or 'killing' is 'inherently bad'. It's not, it's apart of nature.

Sooo if zebras dying at the hand of lions is 'inherently bad', what about lion cubs starving to death because they can't eat?

The reason zebras run from lions is simple. Natural selection selects the organism that is more likely to breed to gets its genes into the next generation and selects animals that are less likely to breed to not get their genes into the next generation.

Natural selection picked zebras, or zebras' ancestors that naturally shy away from other animals because these were less likely to get killed in the process.

That's all there is to it. Natural selection does not work on the human construct of 'good or bad', but on the basis of 'what's more likely to breed'. In the zebra's case, the zebra more likely to run away from predators gets to breed more than the zebra less likely to run away from a predator. With time, zebras that didn't shy away from predators were weeded out of the gene pool, what's left is zebras who do run away from predators. This behavior fully nestled itself into the zebra's instict. It's an instinct call, not a judgement call (like it is in humans). The only reason they do this is to get their genes into the next generation.

Does this mean that 'getting your genes into the next generation' is good? Well, to me it is, but that's my personal judgement as a human. The reason we think that 'death is bad' and 'life is good' is because we as humans feel complex emotions that we associate with basic instincts. But if you take humans out of the picture, there is no such thing as 'bad' or 'good'. Hence why whiping out creatures and habitats, from a purely natural and evolutionary standpoint, isn't a bad thing. It's not 'worse', nor is it 'better', since nature does not deal in absolutely judgement. It is however, 'different', and 'different' means new selection pressures and new habitats that OTHER organisms may benefit from.

Just like I said, our landfills are a haven for seagulls hundreds of miles removed from the ocean, our houses are a walhalla for cockroaches, even in North America and Europe, where cockroaches would not be able to survive without humans.. etc.
From a completely natural standpoint, we're not making nature 'worse', merely different. The only ones who judge whether that is 'good' or 'bad' is humans, but from a purely natural standpoint, it's just 'different'.

change the predator for fire or a falling tree, animals perceive the negative aka shitty potential of that. and nature taught them to run from it, but also to run for food and sex. is there any more need to prove nature/universe make a distinction between the poles and doesn't let animals sit apathetic in front of extinction for example?!
a part of nature is also the need to live longer to multiply more. whatever contradicts this need is shitty for the one who's goal is survival, no matter what other details you might feel the need to bore yourself with.
life is the balance between the opposites on the axis of will/need/intention, just english speaking people happen to call them good/bad, but the intrinsic idea of good/bad doesn't need people to "conceptualize" it, it just is

The lion example can be applied to anything. You're using the same words again. 'Negativity', that's faulty since the perception of 'negative' changes from person to person. There were cultures where it was a positive thing to die. It's all between our ears.

Earthquakes, forrest fires, any natural disaster is an abrupt change to the environment that an animal evolved to coexist with, that's what they're responding to.

Nature hasn't 'taught' anyone anything, all the animals that didn't respond to a sudden change in their environment were dead and didn't get to breed, that's why you see animals running away. We have no evidence supporting your point of view. That point of view is actually religious and is based on the fact that there is a god watching us and has decided what is 'good' or 'bad', but if you take away the sentient (god, human, etc) what you're left with is a constantly changing environment, with animals adapting to it, who make no subjective judgement calls on quality, but react to what their instincts tell them and when an animal that is used to living in a temperate climate feels the heat of forrest fires, it's going to do anything in its power to go back to the temperate climate, because that's what it evolved into.

[nousd]

im a serious believer that the human race that we have today is a hybrid of an alien race.
they bred with the homos,
this brings about the creation of half the dickheads we have in the world
..... im made of pure energy,
im a being of vibrations,
shit like this doesnt matter.
fact is.... i like touching ma cock,
i like it when others touch it.... it feels good,
i like tittys.. they are great to nibble & suck on.
without humans i cant get off!!
FUCKING IS THE TRUE MEANING OF LIFE!!!!!!
ahahahahahhhahhahahhahhahhahahhahhahahh

I hope yu don't live near me nor my kids.

I changed my mind, some humanity is worth saving.

[alien pimp]

The lion example can be applied to anything. You're using the same words again. 'Negativity', that's faulty since the perception of 'negative' changes from person to person. There were cultures where it was a positive thing to die. It's all between our ears.

who cares about cultures and what some people's opinions? fuck opinions, i'm about relevant facts as always

Earthquakes, forrest fires, any natural disaster is an abrupt change to the environment that an animal evolved to coexist with, that's what they're responding to.

Nature hasn't 'taught' anyone anything, all the animals that didn't respond to a sudden change in their environment were dead and didn't get to breed, that's why you see animals running away.
We have no evidence supporting your point of view. That point of view is actually religious and is based on the fact that there is a god watching us and has decided what is 'good' or 'bad', but if you take away the sentient (god, human, etc) what you're left with is a constantly changing environment, with animals adapting to it, who make no subjective judgement calls on quality, but react to what their instincts tell them and when an animal that is used to living in a temperate climate feels the heat of forrest fires, it's going to do anything in its power to go back to the temperate climate, because that's what it evolved into.

why do most animals react same way to a certain change, if all changes are equally bad or good? because nature generated a way to pass on to next generations the survival techniques. why did nature do that constantly if it has no preferences?
seems to me nature/life has preferences. those preferences mark the positive direction, what opposes them is negative.
that's also why life opposes some changes, even tries to undo them sometimes: it makes a difference between positive and negative change. stones don't care because they seem to have no goal.
the goal/preference is what makes the difference between + and - , and also the difference between living and dead.
well, maybe the "dead" matter has its goals too that we don't understand just yet, but that's indeed something we can't prove
sentience brings in just the awareness and determination, but the law of good and bad was here before, same way gravity is here with or without us being aware of it.
furthermore, if we agree life, love, health, mutual support and harmony makes us flourish, feel good and be congruent with our nature [as proved by experience and logic], we have our goal/preference, that's positive.
most of the people today set for themselves goals that contradict the natural/positive imperatives, that's negative and makes them a failed race. nothing debatable, not even about feeling good, because we know feeling good mechanisms in our body are actually objective and explainable. if you have all the data about a person you can scientifically explain why it likes dubstep more than trance and you can even change that. so opinions and subjectivity have no place in my demonstration about good and bad.

not sure what more proof you need, i don't understand at all the reference to religion and god and how did you get to it, seems to me like random generated text that part.

[nousd]

The lion example can be applied to anything. You're using the same words again. 'Negativity', that's faulty since the perception of 'negative' changes from person to person. There were cultures where it was a positive thing to die. It's all between our ears.

who cares about cultures and what some people's opinions? fuck opinions, i'm about relevant facts as always
I do
I care about my opinion
and it's constraint of reality

Earthquakes, forrest fires, any natural disaster is an abrupt change to the environment that an animal evolved to coexist with, that's what they're responding to.

Nature hasn't 'taught' anyone anything
We have no evidence supporting your religious belief
that there is a god watching us and has decided what is 'good' or 'bad'

but if you take away the sentient (god, human, etc)
what you're left with is a constantly changing environment,
with animals adapting to it,
making no subjective judgement calls on quality,
but reacting to what their instincts tell them
and when an animal, used to living in a temperate climate
feels the heat of forest fires,
it's going to do anything in its power
to go back to the temperate climate.
That's what it evolved into. (within?)

I got up to here
why do most animals react same way to a certain change, if all changes are equally bad or good? because nature generated a way to pass on to next generations the survival techniques. why did nature do that constantly if it has no preferences?
seems to me nature/life has preferences. those preferences mark the positive direction, what opposes them is negative.
that's also why life opposes some changes, even tries to undo them sometimes: it makes a difference between positive and negative change. stones don't care because they seem to have no goal.
the goal/preference is what makes the difference between + and - , and also the difference between living and dead.
well, maybe the "dead" matter has its goals too that we don't understand just yet, but that's indeed something we can't prove
sentience brings in just the awareness and determination, but the law of good and bad was here before,same way gravity is here with or without us being aware of it.
furthermore, if we agree life, love, health, mutual support and harmony makes us flourish, feel good and be congruent with our nature [as proved by experience and logic], we have our goal/preference, that's positive.
most of the people today set for themselves goals that contradict the natural/positive imperatives, that's negative and makes them a failed race. nothing debatable, not even about feeling good, because we know feeling good mechanisms in our body are actually objective and explainable. if you have all the data about a person you can scientifically explain why it likes dubstep more than trance and you can even change that. so opinions and subjectivity have no place in my demonstration about good and bad.

not sure what more proof you need, i don't understand at all the reference to religion and god and how did you get to it, seems to me like random generated text that part.

there is no more to be said
just needs an edit.

[alien pimp]

The lion example can be applied to anything. You're using the same words again. 'Negativity', that's faulty since the perception of 'negative' changes from person to person. There were cultures where it was a positive thing to die. It's all between our ears.

who cares about cultures and what some people's opinions? fuck opinions, i'm about relevant facts as always

I do
I care about my opinion
and it's constraint of reality

of course you care of your opinions, you've been schooled to believe they matter as much as the truth, because it's a good way to confuse people about the truth.
nothing there is a constraint

confused innit?
well, you can always sort that out with an opinion and sleep on it, who cares if it's not true?

[nousd]

aw..you didn't get it Pimp
yu have different reactions to my instincts
but , as you say,
what does it matter?
we are individual beings
but we have networks
that, sometimes, surprisingly
open into verdant commons.
i try to remain appreciative
of that which i do not
and perhaps never will
know

[sigbowls]

i dont know what this thread is about

[alien pimp]

aw..you didn't get it Pimp
yu have different reactions to my instincts
but , as you say,
what does it matter?
we are individual beings
but we have networks
that, sometimes, surprisingly
open into verdant commons.
i try to remain appreciative
of that which i do not
and perhaps never will
know

i still don't get it and i try to remain appreciative to what makes sense and contributes something good

[parson]

I ATE ENOUGH DRUGS TO NOT REMEMBER THIS POST

[alien pimp]

I ATE ENOUGH DRUGS TO NOT REMEMBER THIS POST

but not enough to forget posting in it...
it doesn't matter anyway, the post is here

[magma]

how the fuck is it shitty for a planet to evolve naturally???

It's not. "Shitty" is a human concept. The planet can only be "shitty" whilst humans are present.

so on an unpopulated island it will be the same for an ant to meet or not the anteater, huh? they needed the humans to grow and explain ants the anteater is boo-boo? aka shitty aka bad...
are the zebras running from lions because they don't have "the concept" of good and bad?
smart humans, save all of them! but i bet it won't happen, they're so fucked up they don't understand the concepts of good and bad, despite inventing them

Most animals have a concept of "good" and "bad" at some level... even tiny organisms will move towards areas with better air or food present, but the ability to judge the planet as a whole is a purely human concept and something we've only learnt to do over the last couple of centuries.

When humans have left, the planet will not be "good" or "bad" because nothing will think about it as a whole environment anymore... non-human animals are only interested in their immediate habitats and no intelligent animal has as wide a dominion as humans.

The Earth will change and habitats will change, but life will also adapt to those habitats and continue. The Earth, being a rock, won't think once, let alone twice about it.

Humans should do all in their power to save the Earth for themselves. The "saving" we talk about is, essentially, keeping the environment suitable for human life... that includes keeping most animal and plant life healthy. But it's childish to think we would do it for any other reason than for us.

Parson resorting to insults shows up his level of debate better than I ever could. Accusing me of autism whilst posting 5 or 6 posts in a row to himself... bizarre behaviour.

[hackman]

have you never gone and listened to the wind in the trees, the song of the earth, felt the life force that is everywhere.....

na not in london innit

[alien pimp]

how the fuck is it shitty for a planet to evolve naturally???

It's not. "Shitty" is a human concept. The planet can only be "shitty" whilst humans are present.

so on an unpopulated island it will be the same for an ant to meet or not the anteater, huh? they needed the humans to grow and explain ants the anteater is boo-boo? aka shitty aka bad...
are the zebras running from lions because they don't have "the concept" of good and bad?
smart humans, save all of them! but i bet it won't happen, they're so fucked up they don't understand the concepts of good and bad, despite inventing them

Most animals have a concept of "good" and "bad" at some level... even tiny organisms will move towards areas with better air or food present, but the ability to judge the planet as a whole is a purely human concept and something we've only learnt to do over the last couple of centuries.

When humans have left, the planet will not be "good" or "bad" because nothing will think about it as a whole environment anymore... non-human animals are only interested in their immediate habitats and no intelligent animal has as wide a dominion as humans.

The Earth will change and habitats will change, but life will also adapt to those habitats and continue. The Earth, being a rock, won't think once, let alone twice about it.

Humans should do all in their power to save the Earth for themselves. The "saving" we talk about is, essentially, keeping the environment suitable for human life... that includes keeping most animal and plant life healthy. But it's childish to think we would do it for any other reason than for us.

again, a reality is not validated by someone thinking about it
your mind is stuck in that mousetrap metonymy about the planet meant as the human's home. you're like a dispenser that needs a punch for the coin to drop in its slot
the saving we talk about is, essentially, keeping this civilization from killing itself
so the level of discussion is not much in your case either this time, which also proves it has more to do with sense than insults

[magma]

the saving we talk about is, essentially, keeping this civilization from killing itself

This I wholeheartedly agree with. Saving the planet is a misnomer; saving civilisation should mean everything to everyone and saving civilisation massively involves stabilising the planet's environment to how it's been for the last few thousand years.

For most species the world is "ok".. that's what evolution tends to leave, animals that are adapted to their environments and survive on the margins of comfort; not many animals live in luxury. Well, unless they've adapted to live in luxury alongside humans like dogs have.

Only humans have standards so high that in large parts of modern society we consider it to be a social failing for a man to die of cancer or even for one man to miss one meal because of poverty. A species with the capability for that sort of society and civilisation should be protected at all costs... do Otters run hospitals? Do Dolphins run vetenary surgeries to heal Sharks?

Humans do... and we're not anywhere near perfect yet, but we've only been honing our existence for the blinking of an eye in planetary terms. 2010 is not the zenith of human civilisation, there are hopefully millennia of improvements still to come.

[hackman]

Humans do... and we're not anywhere near perfect yet, but we've only been honing our existence for the blinking of an eye in planetary terms. 2010 is not the zenith of human civilisation, there are hopefully millennia of improvements still to come.

in your opinion
on a soul level, we've been honing our existence since the creation of the universe

[magma]

Humans do... and we're not anywhere near perfect yet, but we've only been honing our existence for the blinking of an eye in planetary terms. 2010 is not the zenith of human civilisation, there are hopefully millennia of improvements still to come.

in your opinion
on a soul level, we've been honing our existence since the creation of the universe

I did say "hopefully". It's difficult to talk in absolutes when the future is even more unclear than the past.

[nousd]

i try to remain appreciative of what makes sense and contributes something good

I believe you,
however much you fail in the endeavour to make sense.

Hackman: on a soul level...please explain.
Magma: absolutes...please explain

The suggestion is that reality is relative....ie no absolute truth
rationally suggests that any judgement, as to whether humanity is worth saving, would be spurious,
leaving us with the apparent reality that we survive whilst we do.

[hackman]

past lives an ting

[nousd]

so you are a continuous consciousness?
(even if unaware of previous incarnation?)

[hackman]

yes as are you

you only aren't aware because your higher self is separate from your physical

hypnosis also leads to past life regression if done right