CJC@psuvm.BITNET (09/21/85)
Human beings are the most destructive life form on Earth
and
There are more than 4.7 Billion* of them
In the light of these two facts, could some pro-human-lifers please supply
some reasons for their belief that each and every living organism that can
be somehow defined as 'human' is 'valuable' and must be preserved.
(* 4,762. million - according to the Encyclopedia Americana 1984 Yearbook)
--Carolyn J. Clark
Bitnet: CJC at PSUVM
UUCP : {allegra, akgua, ihnp4}!psuvax!CJC@PSUVM.BITNET
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (09/24/85)
CAROLYN J. CLARK writes: > Human beings are the most destructive life form on Earth > > and > > There are more than 4.7 Billion* of them > > In the light of these two facts, could some pro-human-lifers please supply > some reasons for their belief that each and every living organism that can > be somehow defined as 'human' is 'valuable' and must be preserved. What does Carolyn Clark mean by "destructive"? If she means the destruction wrought by real-estate developers and industrialists in clobbering wilderness to make room for human habitation and commerce, then humans are merely doing what every species does: providing for themselves at the expense of whatever other animal and plant species they can take advantage of. In that case, an argument against human multiplication is an argument against the multiplication of any life form. Rocks don't destroy anything -- do we want a world with nothing in it but rocks? Or maybe she means the destruction wrought by war, wherein humans destroy vast areas of other life in their attempt to destroy one another? But wars are caused by a small minority of people. How many of the 1.5 million American fetuses aborted last year would have caused a war? Do we want to smear all humans as "the most destructive life form on Earth" because of the activities of the destructive few? Does Carolyn Clark herself feel that she personally is a "destructive life form"? I detect a strain of nihilism in Carolyn Clark's anti-human argument, and in Charles Forsythe's conception of population growth as mere wage-slaves and cannon-fodder for the capitalist imperialist swine warmongers. And I say, Be proud of what you are, not ashamed!! Stand up tall and say, "I am a human being!" -- Matt Rosenblatt
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/24/85)
> > > > Human beings are the most destructive life form on Earth > > and > > There are more than 4.7 Billion* of them > > In the light of these two facts, could some pro-human-lifers please supply > some reasons for their belief that each and every living organism that can > be somehow defined as 'human' is 'valuable' and must be preserved. > > (* 4,762. million - according to the Encyclopedia Americana 1984 Yearbook) > > > --Carolyn J. Clark > > Bitnet: CJC at PSUVM > UUCP : {allegra, akgua, ihnp4}!psuvax!CJC@PSUVM.BITNET > > True, we are a destructive race. But we also have the capacity to do more good for the planet and each other than any other race. Once our deceit for each other becomes more dominant than our love for each other, we well see a wholesale destruction never before seen. Regardless of our past record, we must maintain a strict discipline concerning the capacity to preserve life as something precious and worth saving. Again we can look to history and see in the guise of Hitler and his types what happens when human life is deemed worthless. If his value system had been alowed to propagate to world wide dimensions then no one, not even one person would have been safe from being labeled expendible as just so much garbage. I believe we are capable of much more destruction than we are guilty of in the past, and given the right catalyst we can become darker than the darkest night. I also believe we can show much more concern and much more love for each other than our past record indicates. So far the choice is ours, but once you reach a 'Mad Max' type of existence you have no choice because you no longer own your life just as garbage can't own gargage. Who could heed garbage, as anything more than an unfeeling, unloving, worthless pit of throw-aways.
st175@sdcc13.UUCP (st175) (09/26/85)
In article <2271CJC@psuvm>, CJC@psuvm.BITNET writes: > Human beings are the most destructive life form on Earth > and > There are more than 4.7 Billion* of them > In the light of these two facts, could some pro-human-lifers please supply > some reasons for their belief that each and every living organism that can > be somehow defined as 'human' is 'valuable' and must be preserved. > > (* 4,762. million - according to the Encyclopedia Americana 1984 Yearbook) I'll give you an example...say a person held a gun to your head, and said "there are 4.7 billion people in this world, and they are the most destructive life form on earth.....why shouldn't I help this problem by lowering the number to 4 billion 6 hundred 99 million, 999 thousand 999? after all you've got to start at the bottom and work your way to the top." What would you say, "go ahead, make my day?" The fact that you continue living indicates you wouldn't help eleviate the "destructive" 4.7 billion people problem. As it is, *you* are a living organism, why should you get to live.....did you earn it? do you deserve it? It's interesting that we spend million protecting animals, putting seasons on different game, but human life is always in season, and there is no limit....... priorities, people...
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (09/26/85)
Matthew Rosenblatt writes: >CAROLYN J. CLARK writes: >> Human beings are the most destructive life form on Earth >> and >> There are more than 4.7 Billion* of them >> >> In the light of these two facts, could some pro-human-lifers please supply >> some reasons for their belief that each and every living organism that can >> be somehow defined as 'human' is 'valuable' and must be preserved. > >What does Carolyn Clark mean by "destructive"? [Assertion that >destroying the wilderness is man's way of "providing for themselves"] Your example is good, but here's the flip side: while every `thing' on Earth tries to do it's best to provide for itself, man does something that sets him apart. Man also works on ways to destroy himself, too. Sure you can make an argument about some species that eats its entire food supply and dies out, but they have an excuse: they didn't know any better. Man is likely to do things such as say,"I know putting this waste dump here will poison the water, but I don't care," or "I can graze my cattle on this field until its a hopeless desert, but that's the next guys problem," or "I can create a population explosion until everybody is starving and society is hopelessly crumbling because my religion tells me to." Read some anthropological studies on over-crowding. It has been conclusively linked to rates of: murder, theft, homosexuality*, suicide, ect. But, hey, we're all G-d's children. *Note:I personally don't consider homosexuality as a social ill, and I realize that it is not unnatural, but it tends to increase in crowded situations. Flames to net.motss. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "Ordinary F___ing people -- I hate 'em. Ordinary people spend their lives avoiding tense situations; repo man spends his life getting into tense situations."
kowack@ccvaxa.UUCP (10/04/85)
Ray of Rochester states that humans are capable of doing more
good for the planet and each other than any other race.
How does one possibly help a planet?
I am nonplussed.michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (10/08/85)
[line eater fodder.] > Ray of Rochester states that humans are capable of doing more > good for the planet and each other than any other race. > > > How does one possibly help a planet? > > I am nonplussed. > > From: kowack@ccvaxa.UUCP I'll give just one example. (It's an example that Ray Frank might not care for.) The help I'm talking about involves saving much of the *life* on Earth, not the planet itself, as Earth will continue along her ponderous course -- with or without the life aboard her. It may seem odd to talk about saving living things from extinction, when humans are killing off species at a high rate. Nevertheless, the opportunity may arrive when we can provide redress for life. There is now strong evidence that 60 million or so years ago an extraterrestrial object, thought to be a small asteroid or comet, struck the Earth and *laid her waste*. Although some still argue that the sudden demise of *three-quarters of all species alive* at the time was mere coincidence, to many the coincidence seems entirely too forced, and the actual impact of the alien object seems to be well established by evidence from all over the world. It was hypothesizing about the effects of this cometary invader on the known extinctions which led to the recent "nuclear winter" theory regarding the cataclysmic effects of a *nuclear* holocaust. An asteroid or comet could well come again. Smaller impacts, which would occur much more frequently, might not do as much damage but could still be massively catastrophic to human society and much of the rest of life. We can see these bodies floating around us -- some come very near the Earth. Periodic impacts are inevitable. There is not much incentive for living things to adapt themselves to extremely rare but totally catastrophic events. The events occur as smashing disasters -- but then, after a period of recovery, the sun shines again, the rain falls, life grows, and the equipment needed to survive during the catastrophe becomes so much excess baggage, which is not only superfluous but actually *must* be discarded in order to compete successfully with other, less encumbered species. It's now thought that the mass extinction some 60 million years ago which is associated with the asteroidal/cometary impact destroyed every living animal species weighing more than some 10 kilograms (22 pounds). If such an impact occurs again, life on Earth is no better prepared biologically, and would die just as mightily. However, now there is us. *Alone* among all life on Earth (at least as far as taking any action is concerned), we humans are capable of recognizing what an asteroid is, we alone are capable of locating the potentially troublesome objects, and we alone are capable of going out there and nudging the offending bodies aside, years before any actual collision with the Earth could take place. So, if we can manage to avoid creating *our own* "nuclear winter," and if we learn to preserve and don't continue to destroy the life that the Earth now has, we may someday perform a service for life far greater than any destructive capabilities we have carelessly exercised. It is a new *constructive* capability, which life has never before possessed, that humans bring to life on Earth -- the ability to detect, predict, and circumvent very rare disasters. -- Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation "All disclaimers including this one apply" (415) 960-9367 ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm Life, even cellular life, may exist out yonder in the dark. But high or low in nature, it will not wear the shape of man. That shape is the evolutionary product of a strange, long wandering through the attics of the forest roof, and so great are the chances of failure, that nothing precisely and identically human is likely ever to come that way again. Loren Eiseley, *The Immense Journey*, 1946
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/08/85)
> > Ray of Rochester states that humans are capable of doing more > good for the planet and each other than any other race. > > > How does one possibly help a planet? > > I am nonplussed. Make sure it has regular dental check ups and brushs between wars! Hmmmm!
crs@lanl.ARPA (10/09/85)
I don't know if this really belongs in all (or any) of these groups but I am at a loss to say where it may belong. Is there a net.philosophy? I don't know about the original postings, which I didn't see, but some things in the follow-up to which this is a follow-up interest me and may form a base for some interesting discussion. Has anyone a suggestion for a good *single* news group in which to do so? > > Ray of Rochester states that humans are capable of doing more > > good for the planet and each other than any other race. > > > > How does one possibly help a planet? > > > > I am nonplussed. > > I'll give just one example. (It's an example that Ray Frank might > not care for.) The help I'm talking about involves saving much of > the *life* on Earth, not the planet itself, as Earth will continue > along her ponderous course -- with or without the life aboard her. > > It may seem odd to talk about saving living things from extinction, > when humans are killing off species at a high rate. Nevertheless, > the opportunity may arrive when we can provide redress for life. As I recall, the greatest single cause of this "killing off" is destruction of habitat. Of course a nuclear disaster or the cosmological disaster (is that the right term?) would certainly leap into the lead but I'm talking about existing conditions. This habitat destruction is largely caused by what we (often, euphemistically) call progress. Every time a piece of vacant land is developed whether for construction of a city, a shopping center, an oil field, strip mining, a private home, a wheat field, etc., habitat is destroyed. The question, I think, is are we willing to limit "progress" so that we may retain some of this habitat and the living things there in? Pollution is another way of "killing off species"; acid rain is a notable example. Again are we willing to limit "progress" and insistence upon adequate pollution abatement equipment is certainly a limit because the more this "progress" costs, the less of it we can have. Many people believe that hunting and fishing are "killing off species at a high rate." I don't believe that this is true. Hunters and fishermen insist upon large game populations. This requires *habitat* for which, directly and indirectly, they provide large sums of money. This habitat is, of course, usable by non-game species as well. The big question, then, is will there be any species left to protect from the colliding asteroid mentioned below? Is the human species willing to practice the self restraint that will be needed to allow other species to coexist with us on this planet? > There is now strong evidence that 60 million or so years ago an > extraterrestrial object, thought to be a small asteroid or comet, > . > . > . > An asteroid or comet could well come again. Smaller impacts, which > would occur much more frequently, might not do as much damage but > could still be massively catastrophic to human society and much of > the rest of life. We can see these bodies floating around us -- > . > . > . > If such an impact occurs again, life on Earth is > no better prepared biologically, and would die just as mightily. > > However, now there is us. *Alone* among all life on Earth (at > least as far as taking any action is concerned), we humans are > capable of recognizing what an asteroid is, we alone are capable > of locating the potentially troublesome objects, and we alone are > capable of going out there and nudging the offending bodies aside, > years before any actual collision with the Earth could take place. > > So, if we can manage to avoid creating *our own* "nuclear winter," > and if we learn to preserve and don't continue to destroy the life > that the Earth now has, we may someday perform a service for life > far greater than any destructive capabilities we have carelessly > exercised. It is a new *constructive* capability, which life has > never before possessed, that humans bring to life on Earth -- the > ability to detect, predict, and circumvent very rare disasters. -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa