the value of human life vs all other life on earth

[Tree_Hugger]

i value human life equally to animals life, insect life, plant life, etc. does anyone else? In the sixties (in the US) there was a philosophy called deep ecology that i think centered around this belief. any thoughts? everyone i know thinks im schitzo or retarded. it's actually pretty depressing. . .

[Nachie]

Saying a human life = an insect life is going to get you called a lunatic on these forums and a lot of other places.

But I definitely identify with deep ecology, Earth First! Green Anarchism, etc.

Simply put, I am against anthropocentrism.

[bunk]

No, i think humans come first. Loads of money being donated to animal charities pisses me off when it could be given to childrens or cancer charities.

[which doctor]

Isn't this also known as bio-centrism?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Believing in Deep ecology and valuing life is no reason at all to be called a shitzo or retarded. However I do not completely believe in it. I think that the problems with humans like cancer need to be tended to first.

[Tree_Hugger]

i think it's cool ppl on this website are so sophisticated and politically involved, hats off to all of you. thanxs for considerate replies, it's awesome to discuss politics with intelligent, involved people. Every one i know is apethitical or fascist right wing. it sucks and it makes me want to go hang myself. thanx for not being unintelligent conservative morons :)

a little off the topic but oh well. . .

[Hegemonicretribution]

Hey, I stuck this here because politics is generally to do with current affairs...

Anyway, I think there is a definite environmental streak amongst parts of the left, although I am not sure if it is as radical as your's.

Personally I don't see ecology and human development as being something seperate, but rather complementary. If we are to establish a sustainable society we need to be in tune with are surroundings. That said our surroundings are also durable to some extent, and I think that developing the technology to allow ourselves to live advanced, low-environmentally impacting lives is fundamental. Under capitalism profit incentive negates this possibility, which is why a more social doctrine is much more conducive to environmentalism.

As for life being equal? Well in one way perhaps...but I suppose humans can best deal with their own problems and reduce their own harm, so our focus should be on ourselves.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 04:21 PM
i value human life equally to animals life, insect life, plant life, etc. does anyone else?
No :)

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 02:21 PM
i value human life equally to animals life, insect life, plant life, etc. does anyone else? In the sixties (in the US) there was a philosophy called deep ecology that i think centered around this belief. any thoughts? everyone i know thinks im schitzo or retarded. it's actually pretty depressing. . .
Well can't be TOO surprised seeing as your tag is "Tree Hugger" :P.

Nah seriously though what real contributions do bugs make? Ok so bees help polinate but other than that what? Even some animals make contributions and some humans do. Not too sure about plants however.

[Zero]

Coming from an extremely 60's hippie-left family, I am very eco friendly... I don't put trees as important, or more important then people; however there is little speculation to the fact that if we don't do something to curb emissions, and greenhouse gasses along with particle polution and global dimming we're all fucked!

Who cares about a revolution if we're all too sick to see it?

C_Rasmussen, you should value every aspect of the environment equaly. If you don't, you can be condeming entire ecosystems (as well as water supplies, rainforest growths, and general ecology) to disaster.

[Tree_Hugger]

yeah, humans definetely need to wake up to the worsening environmental problems that are occuring right now. if i had to choose a creature on earth that i liked the least, IT WOULD BE PEOPLE. Humans are the only creature that fight on the scale of wars, that kill and murder one another for no reason, and that fuck up the environment so badly(maybe that's why people think im kinda weird. . ). Just to clarify, though (for your benefit), i'm not a homicidal terrorist who advocates killing people in order to save the environment. most of the time. :)

[Armed_Philosopher]

I have Vegan diet. figure that if it isnt nessisary to inflict suffering to sustain myself then I probibly shoudlnt.

[Maximicus]

.

[Tree_Hugger]

and i do hug trees. . . occasionally ;)

[which doctor]

I don't see how any one aspect of the world is any less important than any other less important than another aspect.

I do eat meat. I don't see how eating plants is any better than eating animals. Are plants nor living growing things too?

Humans were given the remarkable gift reason, the ability to build upon our previous society. I view this gift as both a curse and a blessing. I am very thankful to be a human, as opposed to a plant cell or an animal.

[Tree_Hugger]

i am a vegetarian not because i desire to eat plants over animals, but because factory farms in the US are cruel, inhumane, unclean and disgusting. I also eat plants because most plants do not have to be killed in order to be eaten. Meat creeps me out, too; i always think that animal meat looks just like human flesh and then i imagine eating a person and killing a person to eat them and butchering their body. . . . that creeps me out more. . .*twitch* *twitch* gross :(

[Brekisonphilous]

Ah, I like this topic.

I Identify myself with green and environmentally friendly politics, like Nachie said, Green anarchism, or green sydicalism.

I view the whole situation of human life vs. everything else as we are all in this together, we are all important, and we can't live without eachother. Animals, insects, and plants certainly could, but we couldn't. So I think it is EXTREMELY important to make sure the environment is always healthy, and all life forms are being treated fairly. I wouldn't put an insect before a human if I had to save one, but you know, it is within reason. I do not believe in exploiting animals for anything, especially not to test on. I have recently been reading about ALF, and definitely sympathize with the movement.

And for the record, I do hug trees. They are worthy of hugging because without them, you wouldn't be here. Face the facts.
In my opinion, Animals just don't deserve to suffer for any of humans benefits. After all they were here first. That is like when the Europeans came to america and saw the indians as lesser than themselves, and took their land and exploited them because they were not "worthy" enough in comparison with the white man.. And the Japanese using the Chinese for medical experinments, and the same with the Nazis and jews. I think one day this will be realized that it really is no different.

[saint max]

I don't really believe in equality per se, but I view life--of human and non-human forms, in the same meaningless and yet aesthetic value. To whom ever mentioned bees...If bee's became conscious of their power or went extinct, they could starve agricultural-dependent civilization. Nonetheless, all life is united in it's beautiful meaninglessness drama and cruelty. Perhaps I might feel it is totally inline with wild nature to exert my will and attempt to hunt and kill a non-human animal or gather plants, but to exert "Our" (read humanity or the civilized/domesticated), will of domestication and agriculture and all the other nonsense is both oppressive and suicidal.

kisses,
-t

[Hegemonicretribution]

Actually "wars" do happen between species and human wars seldom occur "without reason."

Ants often battle other colonies of ants, and you can always bet there is some cause that a war is being thought over, the reason is seldom a good one though.


i'm not a homicidal terrorist who advocates killing people in order to save the environment. most of the time.
I should hope not any of the time!

We need not adapt a philosophy of equal worth to support environmental issues, just as we need not adopt a purely utilitarian view to accept communism as a good idea. Both of them suit our own selfish ends by providing us with a viable, sustainable and desireable condition in which to live.

[RevolverNo9]

Hmm... I think there are some points that need to be made here.

As a materialist I reject any notion of inherent (and in particular of God-given) value. The only value that exists is that arteficially and arbitrarily imposed upon material existence by subjective human experience. There is absolutely no inherent or absolute value that can raise human beings to a level above that of animals, plants, fungi or bacteria. Furthermore, from the same principal, no organic matter can be said to be inherently 'superiour' to inorganic matter. We are - as a complex collection of particles - not fundamentally different to rocks, tree-trunks or brass-nobs.

Yet it is imperitive that we do impose our humanist value-judgements upon the rest of existence. Human discernment is what allows us to progress as social-beings. The collective social conventions that facilitate us passing different judgements on one who murders and one who carries out medical obligations - for example - mean that, as a community, we as individuals are able to thrive and live fuller, richer lives. A recognition of this principal is what leads to an acceptance of the aims of a communistic society, for it is the science of a community deciding upon - rationally - those collective descisions that endow the majority of its members with the richest lives.

As a result, to compromise this rational project (the construction of those social conventions that most benefit the community) is reactionary. Not to discern critically between human-beings and other forms of life (or rocks for that matter) is just such an example of reaction. This is not anthropocentrism (which is irrational) but simply the expression of a commitment to the human social project. To value equally insect and tree life with human life is just as equally an arbitrary action as to value most highly our own lives (do these 'bio-centrics' value bacterial diseases as equally as they do rabbits and babies? If not... oh the contradictions!)

I of course am not in anyway denying the importance of environmental protection. I'm sure I do not need to argue here for why such concerns are so vitally important. Yet I will not stand for the undermining of human interest by fallacious and inconsistant theories of nihilism.

[drain.you]

I guess I agree, I been thinking about this recently. All life is life, right? How can one life be worth more than another?
If anything then maybe we are worse than other life, I mean, humans are single-handedly destroying the planet. I guess our state of mind and technology can give us the feeling of our lives meaning more.
Of course I would be more inclined to risk my life to save another human than a goldfish but I believe that we shouldn't cause any living creature any unnessecary harm. I accept that theres a heirarchy of life, in the sense that owls eat mice, bird gets the worm, humans kill the cow or whatever. So I'm not saying that we should abstain from killing animals for food but I dont think we should go hunting for 'fun' or cause them pain by using them in science experiments or whatever.
We should respect all life. Its beautiful, it really is.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Maximicus+May 14 2006, 08:06 PM--> (Maximicus @ May 14 2006, 08:06 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 01:03 AM

[email protected] 13 2006, 02:21 PM
i value human life equally to animals life, insect life, plant life, etc. does anyone else? In the sixties (in the US) there was a philosophy called deep ecology that i think centered around this belief. any thoughts? everyone i know thinks im schitzo or retarded. it's actually pretty depressing. . .
Well can't be TOO surprised seeing as your tag is "Tree Hugger" :P.

Nah seriously though what real contributions do bugs make? Ok so bees help polinate but other than that what? Even some animals make contributions and some humans do. Not too sure about plants however.
Wow. Holy shit, man. You have absolutely no idea how the ecosystem works, do you? Watch the fucking Lion King or something, man. Even the most right-wing, fascist, anti-evolutionist, nutjobs know that plants and animals are entirely vital to human existence. Not to sure about plants? WTF would you plan to eat without them? What would you breathe? Try living on Mars without any life support systems to see just how valuable life outside the human species is.

I'm no tree hugging nut job. I'm not a vegan, or vegetarian, or even a light meat eater. But damn, you need some knowledge. [/b]
Well fuck you dont have to make a big fucking deal over some misunderstanding I had <_<. To be very honest I have no idea about the ecosystem AT ALL.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Personally, I only think we should maintain the environment insofar as it provides a viable habitat for human beings. So if there is ever a choice between improving the human condition or maintaining the environmental status quo, humans come first.

Of course, if you&#39;re going to chop down that forest in order to provide farmland, be sensible about it; make sure that the soil maintains it&#39;s richness by planting hedgerows to anchor the soil, make sure the furrows follow the contours of the land rather than simply being straight lines or running up and down the hill, utilise crop rotation etc etc. It&#39;s an exercise in futility if by developing some land in any manner it&#39;s rendered useless a couple of decades later.

I contend that as we learn more and more about the relationships that need to occur within a viable biosphere, there is less need for us to worry about whatever environmental impact we might have on the old biosphere - nature doesn&#39;t need intelligence in order to tick along nicely, and artificial processes are always more effecient than their natural counterparts. A well-maintained farm produces tons more food than it&#39;s equivalent area in natural land.

[Tree_Hugger]

But what evidence supports your belief that the sustainement of humans is more important than that of animals or plants? how are you measuring that value system?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 01:35 AM
But what evidence supports your belief that the sustainement of humans is more important than that of animals or plants? how are you measuring that value system?
The fact that I am human. What&#39;s good for my species is ultimately good for me.

[MrDoom]

I agree with the envoronmentalist-humanist trends posted here:

Protect the environment in all ways reasonably possible, but place human needs at the forefront.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "NoXion"
What&#39;s good for my species is ultimately good for me.

How Utilitarian of you :P .

[Tree_Hugger]

The fact that I am human. What&#39;s good for my species is ultimately good for me.

But is that really any justification? would you think it was okay if another animal species started to dominate earth and slaughter people for the same reason humans do? i honestly can&#39;t comprehend your reasoning at all, i dont understand how you can belive humans are more important than anything else just because they are smarter (or meaner). . . .

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But is that really any justification?

It&#39;s the only justification that makes sense. Most of the time, protecting the environment is in our own interest because to do so would increase the comfort and safety of the local/global population of humans. But there are times when it is not in our interest to protect certain aspects of the environment, such as this example you gave:


would you think it was okay if another animal species started to dominate earth and slaughter people for the same reason humans do?

No I don&#39;t, because any animal smart and/or dangerous enough to do that represents a threat to human survival.


i honestly can&#39;t comprehend your reasoning at all, i dont understand how you can belive humans are more important than anything else just because they are smarter (or meaner). . . .

Humans are more important because they are human - no species that puts other species before itself would last long. Even if we completely dismantled our civilisation and committed mass species suicide, we would still leave a footprint on the environment. The only smart thing to do is make sure what we do to the environment doesn&#39;t come back to bite us in the ass.

[midnight marauder]

Are plants nor living growing things too?

Plants don&#39;t feel pain. As the popular Bentham saying goes, "The question is not, ‘Can they reason?’ nor, ‘Can they talk?’ But rather, ‘Can they suffer?’". This is the entire crux of the vegan/enviornmental/tree hugger philosophy.

That said, RevolverNo9 brings up a great point. Value, at least in my humble opinion, isn&#39;t given to us by god, and we aren&#39;t born with some inherent worth. However, it&#39;s absolutely vital that humans impose this value on ourselves, and upon other entities in our enviornment. It is in the best interest of a society to place some type of value system upon their speices; in fact, it&#39;s the only way we can actually have any semblance of a criterion with which to judge our world. This value system includes man made ideals like equality, liberty, opportunity, life, etc.

But why should these ideals stop with humans? Do plants and animals not have interests as well?

Well, to start off, plants are a different subject than animals being that they don&#39;t experience emotions, nor can they suffer. That said, exploitation (for a lack of a better word) in the form of consuming them or otherwise can be justifieable. But plants, as a collective, do have certain rights (once again, for lack of a better word). Obviously it&#39;s in our best interest to protect and perserve our enviornment, and to keep certain plant populations thriving. Afterall, without plants, the human race would never have came about in the first place, and would certainly fall to extinction if "mass plant genocide" (:lol:) were to occur today. This isn&#39;t to say that humans should never consume plants or anything like that, but rather that humans have at least some obligation that we must place upon ourselves to respect and perserve them.

Animals, on the other hand, are an entirely different story. Back to the Jeremy Bentham quote regarding suffering, this is key thing we must realize when analyzing animal-human relationships. Humans not only should place a similar obligation to protecting animals as we do plants, beacuse animals are vital to human existence, but furthermore, the ability to suffer and experience emotion grants other rights, similar to humans. Obviously, it is hardly ever in one&#39;s best interest to suffer. No one (practically) wants to live their lives in pain, no one wants to live their lives as mere tools to be used by expoitative rulers. Isn&#39;t that what communism is all about? Animals do experience pain, and do, as such, have some sort of rights to prevent such from happening to them. After all, the only thing we can blame for the fact that animals cannot defend their own rights is evolution (or if you&#39;re the superstitious type: God). Why hold them accountable for that?

Basically, as said before in this topic, why cause unnecessary harm to something that feels pain? Why cause unneccessary harm to something when it will, in turn, harm us?

[Dark_outlook 06]

simply I see human and animal life as this if it doesnt have instinct to survive it shouldnt be around wasting our air and I dont mean kill cripples and retards either I mean if you&#39;re standing next to an animal like a pidgeon that is instinctivly afraid of human kill it because if it&#39;s stupid enough to stand next to you it is probably too stupid to eat so save it the trouble of starving to death idk maybe I just dont like pidgeons oh well :lol: