If the human population dropped by 40% would you be concerned?

[Jonathan6303]

Jonathan, every single reason you named is a reason that only humans care about. Can we really set a standard using only metrics we care about and then proclaim ourselves superior objectively? "No" is the answer. You've got to at least define what we're superior at to say we're objectively superior. I can't grow fur. My cat is superior in that way.

Your climate comments lack credibility.

Humans are the only ones who would care because humans are the only ones who can. No animal can process or judge the superiority of different species. Yes different animals have biological differences which can give them a advantage to certain situations that human bodies can’t physical replicate. You talked about fur on a cat. Humans may not be able to grow fur like a cat but we have fur coats. Here are our biological advantages, extreme intelligence also we have a soul. What determines superiority in my opinion. Power over all other species. You can feel that my comments are untruthful our not. I simply haven’t seen any convincing evidence that the world is ending or that climate change is a big issue.

 

[ratluvr76]

besides that, humans are the only animals that take and take, build and build, without need. Look how many homes are built in America and Canada alone that sit empty because landlords would rather collect huge rents then allow these same homes to be rented affordably to lower income individuals to prevent homelessness. There are more empty homes than there are homeless people on the North American continent... how is this "smart"? in ANY way?

 

[Jonathan6303]

besides that, humans are the only animals that take and take, build and build, without need. Look how many homes are built in America and Canada alone that sit empty because landlords would rather collect huge rents then allow these same homes to be rented affordably to lower income individuals to prevent homelessness. There are more empty homes than there are homeless people on the North American continent... how is this "smart"? in ANY way?

Well if the revenue they receive doesn’t give them losses but benefits, then I don’t see any reason to change it on a intelligent level. If there not making profit or losing to much then they will change there prices. Now if they lowered there prices so that a homeless person can afford the housing then what would there profit be compared to the previous system. Assuming that most of the homeless is unemployed and using some kind of welfare system, then the retailer would essentially be paying for the housing the homeless are receiving. Also, he would have to make sure that he can still balance taxes and expenses with a lower price. As far as intelligence, I think the first option would be better. If we’re talking about morals. One I don’t think just providing shelter to someone homeless will really help them. Two I would say greed is a species of the genus evil.

 

[ratluvr76]

Well if the revenue they receive doesn’t give them losses but benefits, then I don’t see any reason to change it on a intelligent level. If there not making profit or losing to much then they will change there prices. Now if they lowered there prices so that a homeless person can afford the housing then what would there profit be compared to the previous system. Assuming that most of the homeless is unemployed and using some kind of welfare system, then the retailer would essentially be paying for the housing the homeless are receiving. Also, he would have to make sure that he can still balance taxes and expenses with a lower price. As far as intelligence, I think the first option would be better. If we’re talking about morals. One I don’t think just providing shelter to someone homeless will really help them. Two I would say greed is a species of the genus evil.

You're just proving my point man. Most Animals are "intelligent" enough in general to "realize" that there are certain behaviors that hinder chances of remaining a species that lives, and behaviors that improve hances species continuation. As humans, we are the one of the very few species who hoards wealth and resources to the point of causing others their deaths due to withholding LIFE SUSTAINING resources in the name of profit. And your whole cost/profit crap argument is nil ... have you ever the expression "fewer dollars is better than No dollars"???

Also, I feel like your trolling. Is this a troll thread??

 

[Jonathan6303]

You're just proving my point man. Most Animals are "intelligent" enough in general to "realize" that there are certain behaviors that hinder chances of remaining a species that lives, and behaviors that improve hances species continuation. As humans, we are the one of the very few species who hoards wealth and resources to the point of causing others their deaths due to withholding LIFE SUSTAINING resources in the name of profit. And your whole cost/profit crap argument is nil ... have you ever the expression "fewer dollars is better than No dollars"???

Animals are not intelligent enough or care to protect any species of animal or even others of there same species. The only reason animals don’t kill each other or destroy each other’s environment is because we have a somewhat homeostasis in nature that for the most part balances each species growth. In fact humans are the only one who campaigns to regulate highly productive animals that are invasive such as the monitors in Florida. Animals don’t care about others but only look after themselves. There survival, there thriving, there colonies. Tetramorium immigrans doesn’t care about the numerous native ant pollution it’s outcompeting or killing in the U.S. A wolf spider doesn’t care about her siblings as she munches on her sister. Your blaming humans for being just like animals. Your saying that we shouldn’t just care about our self but care about others. We shouldn’t just look after number one. My cost/profit argument was relevant because you were arguing that care about your own profit instead of caring about the homeless was not smart. On a survival view it is smart because your providing more profit to yourself so that you can live a more comfortable life. Your saying that humans should be better then animals and care about others and help others and I would agree with you. Humans are vastly superior and thus have a responsibility to act above selfish animals. Here is the problem. We as humans are flawed and do evil. We are host of a nature that is evil and compels us to do wrong. Humans are superior and a given the responsibility to be healthy and good and to preserve all life on this earth. Stuarts of the earth.

 

[ratluvr76]

Animals are not intelligent enough or care to protect any species of animal or even others of there same species. The only reason animals don’t kill each other or destroy each other’s environment is because we have a somewhat homeostasis in nature that for the most part balances each species growth. In fact humans are the only one who campaigns to regulate highly productive animals that are invasive such as the monitors in Florida. Animals don’t care about others but only look after themselves. There survival, there thriving, there colonies. Tetramorium immigrans doesn’t care about the numerous native ant pollution it’s outcompeting or killing in the U.S. A wolf spider doesn’t care about her siblings as she munches on her sister. Your blaming humans for being just like animals. Your saying that we shouldn’t just care about our self but care about others. We shouldn’t just look after number one. My cost/profit argument was relevant because you were arguing that care about your own profit instead of caring about the homeless was not smart. On a survival view it is smart because your providing more profit to yourself so that you can live a more comfortable life. Your saying that humans should be better then animals and care about others and help others and I would agree with you. Humans are vastly superior and thus have a responsibility to act above selfish animals. Here is the problem. We as humans are flawed and do evil. We are host of a nature that is evil and compels us to do wrong. Humans are superior and a given the responsibility to be healthy and good and to preserve all life on this earth. Stuarts of the earth.

still say you're trolling.

but again, you are proving your own point. How are we "superior" when we are only doing what, in your own words, is engaging in taking care of yourself over others as animals do??
" Animals don’t care about others but only look after themselves. There survival, there thriving, there colonies."
*THEIR survival *THEIR thriving and *THEIR colonies... it can be argued that yes, we are concerned about our own individual survival and thriving, however, we as humans are definitely subpar when it comes to how we care - or don't care - for our own "colony" evidenced by the deplorable way we treat each other.

 

[Jonathan6303]

still say you're trolling.

but again, you are proving your own point. How are we "superior" when we are only doing what, in your own words, is engaging in taking care of yourself over others as animals do??
" Animals don’t care about others but only look after themselves. There survival, there thriving, there colonies."
*THEIR survival *THEIR thriving and *THEIR colonies... it can be argued that yes, we are concerned about our own individual survival and thriving, however, we as humans are definitely subpar when it comes to how we care - or don't care - for our own "colony" evidenced by the deplorable way we treat each other.

The continuous claims of trolling makes your argument appear flimsier than a leaf. If you read the bottom part of my of my post, you see I talk about the evil nature present in humans. I never said all humans all the time are selfish. There are many people who take time out of there day to go travel thousands of miles to build wells in extremely primitive areas so natives can have clean drinking water. There are plenty examples of a selfless acts that humans commit. I said that humans are beyond animals and that we are stewards of all life. I shamed the idea that we should have just a survival/self preservation mentality. Humans should be stewards of all life humans and the other animals. I said that we don’t do that because of our evil nature. I am proving my point. My point I am proving is that humans are superior and thus have thus obligation to be better. The context of the statement you quoted was me rebutting your statement which is “Most Animals are "intelligent" enough in general to "realize" that there are certain behaviors that hinder chances of remaining a species that lives”. This is false I argued. You also said “How are we "superior" when we are only doing what, in your own words, is engaging in taking care of yourself over others as animals do”. This is objectively false from what I said which is “In fact humans are the only one who campaigns to regulate highly productive animals that are invasive such as the monitors in Florida”. My point being that Florida is trying to protect native reptiles over the invasives to preserve their native species. The monitors aren’t going to decide to not breed and eventually die off. they don’t care that there destroying native populations. We humans do.

 

[ratluvr76]

The continuous claims of trolling makes your argument appear flimsier than a leaf. If you read the bottom part of my of my post, you see I talk about the evil nature present in humans. I never said all humans all the time are selfish. There are many people who take time out of there day to go travel thousands of miles to build wells in extremely primitive areas so natives can have clean drinking water. There are plenty examples of a selfless acts that humans commit. I said that humans are beyond animals and that we are stewards of all life. I shamed the idea that we should have just a survival/self preservation mentality. Humans should be stewards of all life humans and the other animals. I said that we don’t do that because of our evil nature. I am proving my point. My point I am proving is that humans are superior and thus have thus obligation to be better. The context of the statement you quoted was me rebutting your statement which is “Most Animals are "intelligent" enough in general to "realize" that there are certain behaviors that hinder chances of remaining a species that lives”. This is false I argued. You also said “How are we "superior" when we are only doing what, in your own words, is engaging in taking care of yourself over others as animals do”. This is objectively false from what I said which is “In fact humans are the only one who campaigns to regulate highly productive animals that are invasive such as the monitors in Florida”. My point being that Florida is trying to protect native reptiles over the invasives to preserve their native species. The monitors aren’t going to decide to not breed and eventually die off be a they don’t care that there destroying native populations. We humans do.

okey doke.

 

[DomGom TheFather]

Humans, by and large, seem to be the only animals capable of self-loathing. I'm not so sure it's a good thing but we got it in spades.