[quote]ds1973 wrote:
TDub301 wrote:
The world does not have any intrinsic value without man to give it value. It is only the use of the resources of the world to further the life of man that allows it to have value. What man creates from the environment to further the life of man is what gives the “environment” value.[/quote]
Value to man, you’re looking at this from a very humanistic angle, buddy. Now I’m not trying to defend PETA in any way or any Al Gore wannabe saying we’re destroying the world. My point is that some people care about non-human life that is being destroyed by us (collectively). They care either because they care about life in general and also because it’s in OUR best interest. To say things like we give it intrinsic value is missing the point. Like it or not, humans have to find a way to coexist with the other life on the planet, if we continue to destroy everything, eventually the world will be uninhabitable. So even in your terms, as resources are diminished, the world is still losing value anyway. But there are ways to keep the resources from being extinguished, we just need to figure them out. Once again, not trying to defend PETA or any other crazy organization that takes it too far. I feel like I’m playing devil’s advocate at this point, but just offering a rebuttle.
[quote]Artem wrote:
TDub301 wrote:
ds1973 wrote:
Yes, but better for whom? Hopefully, within 100 years, we’ll be a Type 1 civilization and can move on to harvest the natural resources of other planets.[/quote]
Maybe even sooner, but will our planet last that long with us destroying it? (speaking hypothetically) and even if it does, wouldn’t you still like Earth to be good so people don’t HAVE to leave? There’s no place like home, right? or do you think we should turn into the aliens from Independence Day?
[quote]TDub301 wrote:
Value to man, you’re looking at this from a very humanistic angle, buddy. Now I’m not trying to defend PETA in any way or any Al Gore wannabe saying we’re destroying the world. My point is that some people care about non-human life that is being destroyed by us (collectively). They care either because they care about life in general and also because it’s in OUR best interest. To say things like we give it intrinsic value is missing the point. Like it or not, humans have to find a way to coexist with the other life on the planet, if we continue to destroy everything, eventually the world will be uninhabitable.[/quote]
Please provide support for your assertion that human beings are “destroying everything.” I contend that such language is nothing more than doomsday rhetoric, and its proper place is on a sandwich board carried by an eschatologist.
The sky is not falling, the world is not burning, and in the grand scheme of things, we have bigger fish to fry than an imaginary looming environmental catastrophe. Like treating and feeding millions of diseased and starving people, to start.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I wonder if the Peta people drive cars. I know I kill A LOT of bugs when I’m driving. You don’t see 'um bitching about cars.[/quote]
[quote]Demo Dick wrote:
TDub301 wrote:
Please provide support for your assertion that human beings are “destroying everything.” I contend that such language is nothing more than doomsday rhetoric, and its proper place is on a sandwich board carried by an eschatologist.
The sky is not falling, the world is not burning, and in the grand scheme of things, we have bigger fish to fry than an imaginary looming environmental catastrophe. Like treating and feeding millions of diseased and starving people, to start.
Demo Dick[/quote]
See, I was afraid of this, shoulda just let it go. I’m not trying to get into any type of political argument over any of this. I didn’t provide support because I don’t care enough to look for it. With that being said, I thought that deforestation was fairly common knowledge by now, just as an example. I do THINK the world is being destroyed, but on a very small scale, at a slow rate. A catastrophe would indicate that it is a lot quicker, I just think that eventually, down the road, there won’t be any more resources to draw from and that’s pretty logical in my opinion. I feel like to think that the world is going to be in this same condition in 20, 30, or more years down the road is pretty naive. If you disagree, then that’s your right, I guess. If you feel so strongly about it, then let’s see your support.
I just wanted to say that even though I don’t engage in or agree with killing bugs (with a few exceptions), I didn’t care when Obama killed the fly and agree with the OP that PETA takes things way too far.
[quote]TDub301 wrote:
See, I was afraid of this, shoulda just let it go. I’m not trying to get into any type of political argument over any of this. I didn’t provide support because I don’t care enough to look for it. With that being said, I thought that deforestation was fairly common knowledge by now, just as an example.[/quote]
Be careful accepting “common knowledge” as fact. It frequently is not.
No, it doesn’t work like that. You made the assertion that the world is “being destroyed.” The onus of responsibility to support your claim is on you. It is not up to me to disprove it.