Scratch

soupoftomato wrote:

rodentqween9 wrote:

we also think this world belongs to us and that we can do whatever we want to it
don't get me wrong though not everyone thinks that way so we probably shouldn't lose hope yet 

Code:

This is our world though!

We can't do what ever we want, for sake
of not completely ruining it, but,
were the ones with conscience for
a reason man.

you have a point, but sometimes we can go a bit overboard. I mean we aren't the only living creatures on this planet. most of the stuff we have created is only for our own benefit

Last edited by rodentqween9 (2012-01-18 21:42:08)

I suppose you would like to come up with an equally brilliant response as to how to fix this problem

Daroach1 wrote:

bananaman114 wrote:

Daroach1 wrote:

-__________________________________________- this is 5th grade level stuff. Because I'm in 5th grade. SO UNTIL A 4TH GRADER KNOWS IT, IT IS 5TH GRADE LEVEL.

But you don't really UNDERSTAND
or
BELIEVE
it

you have to

I mean
knowing it doesn't mean you understand it

why people suck, that is

Because the world is completely different from it's natural form because of humans, we kill so many animals, in fact, all endangered animals are endangered because of humans. I am not proud to be human.

Not ALL endangered animals. Probably. Maybe.

Actually its not the human itself, but the feelings, emotions that come through in epic proportions causing problems, examples of these are greed, selfishness, ect.

I think that humans underestimate other species. I hate the word 'inferior'. Just because whe have dominated the world dosen't mean we are the best! Other species DO have states of minds and conciousnesses. And I don't just mean primates! Canines, and most large mammals have extremley adept conciousnesses. If you have ever seen a video of wolves after a member of the pack dies its hard to say that they dont have a state of mind and emotions. This goes for most animals. Humans are truly the worst of all the species. If humans never had existed, there would be five times as many species of insect, mammal, fish, and bird as there are today. Because we beleive other animals are inferior, we automatically gain the right to kill them without a reason? That should not be true, but it is. Humans also have destroyed 70% of trees on this planet. Trees that create oxygen, which is vital to all life. Clogging air with smoke and smog is the replacment for fresh air.

I hate being human.

maxskywalker wrote:

I hate it when people try to (sometime unconsciously) defend their pride and the ideas they've been traditionally taught, including moral (not saying that we shouldn't follow moral, just saying that neither Nature nor the Universe have it), and ignore or reject the truth.  Humans are among the worst things on this planet.  I can't count the bad things we've done, and what are the good thing?  Some would argue 'wildlife reserves' and things like that, but is that really a good thing?  All it is is a few, maybe even a few hundred, square miles on this world, and it's just defending against what WE have ALREADY and CONTINUE to do, and not even effectively.  Judging from millennia is not unfair judgement.  Even those that do claim and believe that they are 'environmentally friendly' still kill SIGNIFICANTLY more than they need to, worsen their surroundings, and exist no better, if not worse, then the rest of us.  Basically, go back to the first sentence.

I hate it when people refer to their opponents in third person instead of stating their accusations outright (see what I did there?  hypocrisy xD).  Anyway:

You said that neither nature nor the universe has morals, so how are humans "evil" if we're the ones with morals?  In any case, in regards to "what are the good thing[s]" we have done, what "good" has any species done?  In regards to what "evil" we've done, I admit that we are perhaps the most destructive force on Earth.  I wasn't clear: humans aren't worse than, our ability is simply higher.  Do you believe that if a deer could live in a heated house and not have to care about hunger they wouldn't?  Humans aren't the only species that can't think about long-term impact.  In fact, when it comes right down to it, no species cares about what will happen in the next hundred years as much as humans.  Just because it isn't as much as it should be doesn't mean that relative to other animals we aren't superior (I hate to use that word).

maxskywalker wrote:

If other animals were so disproportionate as the population of humans, as you put it, they would stick to one biome, one land mass, and would die out first from lack of food.  Yes, they would wipe out their prey, but that's one of Nature's most effective safety on over-dominating populations: they'll kill off their prey and die of hunger, allowing the population to become once again balanced, or go extinct and let the whole thing fix itself, even if it takes a new set of species.  Only intelligence- only humans would and do dominate an entire world, unstoppable by everything, even themselves.  And even if other, less intelligent creatures could do this, their actions would be justified, because they would be doing what they need to to survive.  Not so with humans.

True, most other animals wouldn't spread to other land masses, but, again, this is because of lack of capability, not high moral standards.  I would argue that all animals would dominate the entire world if they were capable of it.  The basic desire to reproduce demands it; life will spread until it can not spread any more.  I don't believe humans are immoral or "evil" because they excel at this basic evolutionary drive.  If you argue that what is "natural" is "good", then rest assured that our drive to dominate is entirely natural, and therefore "good".

fungirl123 wrote:

I know, right?

Sometimes, I feel ashamed of myself for being a human 

...And I don't really care if people think that's a bad thing to say.

This.

MoreGamesNow wrote:

12three wrote:

I suppose you would like to come up with an equally brilliant response as to how to fix this problem

I haven't seen anyone else suggest any solutions.  There really isn't a practical solution to fixing the world.  There never has been.  Scarcity has always been a problem.  Murder has always been a problem.  Theft has always been a problem.  I don't claim to hold the secret to Utopia, I'm just pointing out that saying "humanity sucks" doesn't solve any problems and isn't a fair judgement.

indeed

imnotbob wrote:

rodentqween9 wrote:

we also think this world belongs to us and that we can do whatever we want to it
don't get me wrong though not everyone thinks that way so we probably shouldn't lose hope yet 

I think they're the problem because...
Well
Think of it like this:
How many problems are caused by humans?
How many deaths?
Compare this to that of animals.

yeah that is part of the problem too
sometimes I wonder what the world would be like without us
of course I am not saying that I do not want any of my family members to have never been born in the first place

Sunrise-Moon wrote:

There are no morals because we were all created by accident. Therefore there is no "wrong". Survival of the fittest.

Problem?

Only if you think a deity created morals.  Though you could argue that "morals" are simply something we have evolved to create a functioning society.  Regardless, there are clearly morals, and they seem to be the best judge - maybe the only judge - of what is "good" and what is "evil".

MoreGamesNow wrote:

Sunrise-Moon wrote:

There are no morals because we were all created by accident. Therefore there is no "wrong". Survival of the fittest.

Problem?

Only if you think a deity created morals.  Though you could argue that "morals" are simply something we have evolved to create a functioning society.  Regardless, there are clearly morals, and they seem to be the best judge - maybe the only judge - of what is "good" and what is "evil".

Ah, but a moral system created by natural selection wouldn't make sense- the people to die first would be the "moral" people. The people who survived would be those who didn't have morals.

Sunrise-Moon wrote:

Ah, but a moral system created by natural selection wouldn't make sense- the people to die first would be the "moral" people. The people who survived would be those who didn't have morals.

I am thinking on a bigger scale.  Species with a moral system could form stronger and more united societies.  Not that it was natural mutation that necessarily caused it - so not really "evolution" in the traditional sense.  But species that can't commune (I hope I used that word correctly) would have a worse chance of surviving than those that could. 

Similarly, all the "Great" societies have had law codes.  The question, of course, is whether laws helped them to be great, or if, because they were great, they had laws.  Not the same as morals, but that is why I said "similarly" 

hdarken wrote:

Without humans the world would be useless.

Actually without humans the world would be wild, it'd be useless from a human's point of view, but they wouldn't be there.