Dubstepforum.com

DRTY wrote:

64hz wrote:
don't get me wrong i'm not saying any of that stuff doesn't have any relevance to our lives.
i love mdma and i study physics

but all i'm saying is that none of these things (not even marmite) have any value outside of our lives. we give them value, but more than that, we give ourselves value.

you BASTARD.

I wish I did physics or something cool, must be such a good thing to study. What you gonna do after it?

well im only at A level now, then ive got a gap year to decide what to do next lol. i doubt i'll take physics at uni though, some shit is mindblowing at this level. its funny when you ask a question in class and the teacher is like 'well actually thats what the LHC hopes to discover'.

parson wrote:we're the only species that extinction would be beneficial for the planet

This brings to mind one of Plato's dialogues. He logically asserts that what defines whether somehing's good is whether the action or perspective is considered beneficial to yourself and the general group of humans who may be effected by it. Evil is defined as an action/perspective that causes harm.

Since it's more beneficial for us if the planet is doing better, if we're harming the planet, we shuld be defined as an 'evil' species at the moment. Along with cows (because lets be honest; cows = greenhouse gases = bad for cow) we are one of the only inherently evil species' on earth at the moment. It's only the potential for good that makes humanity worth saving.

xarcane wrote:

parson wrote:we're the only species that extinction would be beneficial for the planet

This brings to mind one of Plato's dialogues. He logically asserts that what defines whether somehing's good is whether the action or perspective is considered beneficial to yourself and the general group of humans who may be effected by it. Evil is defined as an action/perspective that causes harm.

Since it's more beneficial for us if the planet is doing better, if we're harming the planet, we shuld be defined as an 'evil' species at the moment. Along with cows (because lets be honest; cows = greenhouse gases = bad for cow) we are one of the only inherently evil species' on earth at the moment. It's only the potential for good that makes humanity worth saving.

that bring to my mind (dont know why it dose)

"Being a pure positive force, it drives the environment negative. Jesus was executed at 33."

death 2 cows

failed race

Eeeeehhhhh, we have our moments. I guess. From time to time. Once in a blue moon. Ok, the real answer is no.

Tell you what, you can do whatever you want with the world after I'm dead.

Until then, I've got a checklist of goals I need to cross off.

I'd appreciate it.

I say we are worth saving...We can do MUCH better than this.


And we will.

parson wrote:we're the only species that extinction would be beneficial for the planet

http://www.vhemt.org - The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

I saw a booth of theirs once at a university and got some pamphlets & stickers which I still have somewhere haha.

Humanity needs to make several major changes in the next few decades if we even stand a chance at surviving. To be honest I don't think the majority of the population will survive that long the way things are going. I do hope we can survive into the distant future, but most of "modern" society seems dedicated to destroying itself.

the rosicrucians are expecting apocalypse

I realised 1 night that we are apart of the earths natural order. We are in the earths carbon stage. our mission is to unbalance the natural order & let the earth reach its next stage.... which could be destruction. every planet needs to die, they were born to die. so if we were to exterminate ourselves WE would fuck up the natural order!! like we are here for a reason... its not a random event. its taken over a billion years to cultivate us. we are the primer, the earth is a bomb!

parson wrote:we're the only species that extinction would be beneficial for the planet

There's no such thing as "beneficial" or "non-beneficial" for the planet, you're making stuff up.

Genevieve wrote:

parson wrote:we're the only species that extinction would be beneficial for the planet

There's no such thing as "beneficial" or "non-beneficial" for the planet, you're making stuff up.

Of course there is. Destroying natural habitats, causing species extinctions, and filling up the air nd water with pollutants, is not beneficial for the planet.

Genevieve wrote:

parson wrote:we're the only species that extinction would be beneficial for the planet

There's no such thing as "beneficial" or "non-beneficial" for the planet, you're making stuff up.

lol

it is beneficial for the planet, we will help it blow up & give its energy to the universe! what else is a planet for??

he may have a point, extinctions are the food for evolution

You cannot comment on this thread (nor create it) if you have no grasp on the history of the planet and the role people play on Earth.

Yes, we're making the planet 'different'. We're the dominant clade of animals on this planet which obviously means that we're having some sort of impact on the flora and fauna and obviously, some animals thrive in that. Makes perfect sense. And obviously, some don't, also makes perfect sense. But if history has taught us anything is that lifeforms will find ways to co-exist with this new environment and they already are. Some more successfully than others. To quote, out of all movies, Jurassic Park; "Life will find a way".

But, who cares? Now I am not promoting the dumping of toxic waste into the tropical rain forest and god knows what else. But human dominance has created habitats as much as it has destroyed them. Not just for humans but for other animals as well.

Basically, we're just a clade of animals doing their thing, like other animals have done before them. Many animals have "destroyed" the environment around them before, out of this a new environment grew that other animals and lifeforms learned to co-exist with it. Human presence has created many habitats for coral (and all the foodchains involving coral reefs), various birds (there are even seaguls hundreds of miles removed from the ocean because they've found new resources, due to human presence, far away from the sea), rats are everywhere and cockroaches, a tropical species, have learned to live in an environment far from their natural geographic range, all because of humans. Then there all the animals we have domesticated and plants we're breeding. Now if you were to judge the success of a lifeform based on biomass, a lot of life has actually profited from human interference. Especially when you consider that the goal of a species is to get its genes into the next generation. Human interference has helped a lot of animals greatly when it comes to that.

We're not doing anything that other animals haven't done in the past. The mere presence of bees and butterflies itself has changed the way the environment looked and interacted with animals. The emergence of leafy trees and flowers meant the demise of some animals and likewise meant the thriving and emergence of others. Does this mean that bees and butterflies destroyed the environment because it was different before?

To make a point, the Earth's atmosphere has been far more toxic in the past (while animals and plants thrived and made great leaps in evolution) milllllions of years before humans even evolved.

And to conclude philosophically rather than scientifically: a world with no human life would be a world without the appreciation of life itself. Which itself makes the whole point of this thread moot seeing as the basis of this thread is, funnily enough, very anthropocentric thinking and a very subjective point of view.

The only thing that sets humans apart from other lifeforms is the pretense of our minds. We make a big deal out of everything. Animals are purely instinctive when it comes to survival and caring, whereas humans are too, our additional brainmass processes those instincts until they are something more (not 'better', just more than just instincts). This in some cases makes people believe that there is some sort of 'benefit' to life, but there isn't. If there was no such thing as life on Earth, the universe would be pretty much the same. And if there was no such thing as Homo sapiens, there would be nothing to worry about the existence life. Seeing the circular reasoning of this thread yet?

very interesting 'essay' genevieve... what do you study?

might try to respond with contra-arguments later... depends on how far i get with my english
tho i wouldn't do it on a scientific base but on a philosophical, as i had this very point touched in some scripts i read recently.

I'm guessing ethics/philosophy

Genevieve wrote:Many animals have "destroyed" the environment around them before, out of this a new environment grew that other animals and lifeforms learned to co-exist with it.

examples please