What about when a hippo or a lion attacks african peasants? It's survival of the fittest. Nature is a non-think irrational entity which follows its course regardless of feelings and emotion. All animals in the animal kingdom act in their own interest. Why should humans be excluded?
Lions don't wipe out all of the peasants and hippos don't destroy the africans foodsource. When a society sees humanity as separate and superior to competition it doesn't bat an eye at unnecessary slaughter. To end this way of thinking is a step towards a sustainable way of life. Thanks for commenting.
@AdamHintz I agree that killing for no reason is irrational. And i don't think thats morally acceptable in any way. I just find it amusing that you point out such an obviously biased argument like that, and appeal to emotion. Rather then logic.
Nature, the wild, is not a pretty place of happiness and LOVE. It's an extreme place, where the name of the game is survival. The fact that have trumped all other species, means we are the fittest. We therefore have more value.
It seems like you're assuming I'm not aware of the way the world works. I don't know where you got the idea that I think nature is a place of happiness and LOVE. Have you ever heard of evolutionarily stable strategies?
@AdamHintz yes i have. And thats a form of technocracy. In any case, we humans are at the center of all. For a chipmunk, it is their species which they value more. And the caring for acorns is not because the value them equal, or above them. It's simply because of their self-interest. We work in the same fashion. Therefore, anthropocentrism is a biological tool for survival.
>"Nature, the wild, is not a pretty place of happiness and LOVE"
There is sometimes loves, even across species lines.
>"It's an extreme place, where the name of the game is survival. The fact that have trumped all other species, means we are the fittest. We therefore have more value"
You seem to be suggesting that conquering is the only benchmark worth looking at. It's this mentality that causes some people blame the holocaust on Darwinism. Would you value Hitler over Gandhi?
@pohjalo perhaps. The desperate strive for survival is not always successful. And biology has shown that time and time again. But to hold other species to an equal or higher value, "bio-centrists", is an logical and suicidal act. Indeed and species who behaves in this way, deserves to go extinct.
@AdamHintz Hello, question. Why do you imply that anthropocentrism necessarily leads to exploitation of the environment?
I'm sorry but you will always approach EVERYTHING with human values. Instead of trying to deny being human and going in to a slump of depression about being inadequate, learn to accept the rational and instinctual part of you. With this new-found confidence surely that only gives responsibility to preserving nature, rather than a right to exploit it.
@LessthanJake14 Thanks for the comment. Anthropocentrism is the belief that man is separate from and superior to the rest of the ecosystem. This is a cultural belief not a human value. I hope you can see the distinction.
I'm assuming your trying to say one can never approach anything without having some sort of cultural bias. To an extent, I agree.
Seeing things in a ecocentric way shouldn't lead one to feel inadequate. Since being human is being apart of an ecosystem. Love your username.
@AdamHintz "Anthropocentrism, noun: an inclination to evaluate reality exclusively in terms of human values"
That's what I'm referring to. You cannot live 'according to nature', and viewing the world from an ecocentric is in itself unnatural.
As you've already demonstrated with your comment concerning "unnecessary slaughter" and "guys with big guns taking on defenceless animals", the ecocentric viewpoint tries to debase what it is to be human.
@AdamHintz I understand the reasons behind an ecocentric viewpoint but it is simply not a natural progression. We are stuck in the human perspective. We cannot live an existence where we debase the value of humanity. Instead of trying to fight it, why not accept it? Accept our rational and instinctual side, the logical and the emotional. I know this branches on the almost irrelevant now, but we need to accept who we are before we understand what we can do to protect nature.
>"Nature is a non-think irrational entity which follows its course regardless of feelings and emotion. All animals in the animal kingdom act in their own interest. Why should humans be excluded?"
Have you thought through the implications of your position? If humans acted like the basest of animals we would not have created laws against certain acts. Any self-serving act would be acceptable under your rationale. If I want your resources, would it be OK to kill you for them?
@SaganAppreciationSoc I'm not saying it's moral*. Nature has no morals. And the sad thing is that stealing resources from one group to another is as old as civilization. But in any case, my philosophy in relation to Anthropocentrism is "Rational Self-Interest". Rational Self-Interest is defined as the act of reason applied to interests. Something animals are unable to do because of their mental incapacity.
That's suggesting that ethics appeared in a vacuum. Actually, morals are an element of biology that probably started off as concern for one's offspring and then branched out from there. Then came concern for those closely related to the animal. Then the troop. And we now often see sign of trans-species affection.
>Something animals are unable to do because of their mental incapacity
@SaganAppreciationSoc ethics did come from a vacuum. When a male lion kills the cubs of another, the concept of morals and ethics is human fabrication. Now on your statement that affection to ones off-spring mean they have morals, well it shows how blissful you really are. You cannot apply your own morality or ethics on an animal or plant. Thats putting subjective meaning to an objective reality.
Actually no. We know that ethics started with concern for offspring. Then it was concern for those related closely. Then it as for the tribe or troop or pod.
>"When a male lion kills the cubs of another, the concept of morals and ethics is human fabrication"
Using this strange argument one could point to humans killing their own children and say humans are without morals. So what's your point?
@SaganAppreciationSoc yes. Indeed there are people who have no morals. The criminally insane lack emotion, and thus any form of ethics. There are people with these types of mental illnesses who have a predatorial thirst for blood. Children or not, they are prey.
Yes, it's called bestiality, and zoophilia. And yes it has happened, but it is not an biological trait. This is a very rear phenomena indeed. It 'usually' only takes place where conscience men are around to foment it.
{Eyeroll}. No, we're talking about the many cases where animals take an interest in others who are not members of their own species. Whether that's a hen who decides to brood on puppies, or a cat that nurses a baby squirrel, or dolphins that help humans in trouble.
I think I see what you're saying. That it's egocentrisim, the preference of oneself to anything else, that makes people destroy the earth. And although this is true to many degrees, there are those who aren't selfcentered who still believe man is the highest form of evolution. This idea leads to the constant trumping of another species for our own. Thank you for your comments. :D
I don't know how you can be one and not be the other. It is after all, the human-centered conceit. They are at the very least tightly co-mingled with each other.
I would argue that anthropocentrism is exactly what is harming the biosphere.
You DO NOT represent MY COUNTRY! PUPPY KILLERS need not return to this country. Please strip off that uniform and throw your own selves off a cliff!! YOU HAVE HUMILIATED THIS COUNTRY AND COMMITTED A CRUEL AND SICK ACT!!
Funny to see random people sticking up to these guys and the stories about the puppy having already been dead upon discovery and whatnot spread like wildfire. Especially when it can be clearly seen that it is, in fact, not dead at all.
Guess people see and hear what they want to, and people sympathizing with their 'boys in Iraq' choose not to hear the dog yelp or to see it hunch there, very much alive.
What I don't see, is how the soldiers could yelp like a puppy.
It was obviously the dog that was yelping and that soldier was none less that a cold-hearted man. Probably one of the reasons he went into the war in the first place.
This has been flagged as spam show
@wukdar
>"and people who will complain about this puppy will see nothing wrong in buying KFC...
It makes me want to puke.... "
Indeed. Speciesism is the basis for the threat to the biosphere that exists now, and it is related to racism, nationalism, sexism, etc.
SaganAppreciationSoc 2 years ago
huh?
What about when a hippo or a lion attacks african peasants? It's survival of the fittest. Nature is a non-think irrational entity which follows its course regardless of feelings and emotion. All animals in the animal kingdom act in their own interest. Why should humans be excluded?
SunBeamsan 2 years ago
Lions don't wipe out all of the peasants and hippos don't destroy the africans foodsource. When a society sees humanity as separate and superior to competition it doesn't bat an eye at unnecessary slaughter. To end this way of thinking is a step towards a sustainable way of life. Thanks for commenting.
AdamHintz 2 years ago
@AdamHintz I agree that killing for no reason is irrational. And i don't think thats morally acceptable in any way. I just find it amusing that you point out such an obviously biased argument like that, and appeal to emotion. Rather then logic.
Nature, the wild, is not a pretty place of happiness and LOVE. It's an extreme place, where the name of the game is survival. The fact that have trumped all other species, means we are the fittest. We therefore have more value.
SunBeamsan 2 years ago
It seems like you're assuming I'm not aware of the way the world works. I don't know where you got the idea that I think nature is a place of happiness and LOVE. Have you ever heard of evolutionarily stable strategies?
AdamHintz 2 years ago
@AdamHintz yes i have. And thats a form of technocracy. In any case, we humans are at the center of all. For a chipmunk, it is their species which they value more. And the caring for acorns is not because the value them equal, or above them. It's simply because of their self-interest. We work in the same fashion. Therefore, anthropocentrism is a biological tool for survival.
SunBeamsan 2 years ago
@SunBeamsan
>"Nature, the wild, is not a pretty place of happiness and LOVE"
There is sometimes loves, even across species lines.
>"It's an extreme place, where the name of the game is survival. The fact that have trumped all other species, means we are the fittest. We therefore have more value"
You seem to be suggesting that conquering is the only benchmark worth looking at. It's this mentality that causes some people blame the holocaust on Darwinism. Would you value Hitler over Gandhi?
SaganAppreciationSoc 2 years ago
@SunBeamsan That´s probably what the dinosaurs were thinking too. Before the stone from the sky.
pohjalo 2 years ago
@pohjalo perhaps. The desperate strive for survival is not always successful. And biology has shown that time and time again. But to hold other species to an equal or higher value, "bio-centrists", is an logical and suicidal act. Indeed and species who behaves in this way, deserves to go extinct.
SunBeamsan 2 years ago
@AdamHintz Hello, question. Why do you imply that anthropocentrism necessarily leads to exploitation of the environment?
I'm sorry but you will always approach EVERYTHING with human values. Instead of trying to deny being human and going in to a slump of depression about being inadequate, learn to accept the rational and instinctual part of you. With this new-found confidence surely that only gives responsibility to preserving nature, rather than a right to exploit it.
LessthanJake14 1 year ago
@LessthanJake14 Thanks for the comment. Anthropocentrism is the belief that man is separate from and superior to the rest of the ecosystem. This is a cultural belief not a human value. I hope you can see the distinction.
I'm assuming your trying to say one can never approach anything without having some sort of cultural bias. To an extent, I agree.
Seeing things in a ecocentric way shouldn't lead one to feel inadequate. Since being human is being apart of an ecosystem. Love your username.
AdamHintz 1 year ago
@AdamHintz "Anthropocentrism, noun: an inclination to evaluate reality exclusively in terms of human values"
That's what I'm referring to. You cannot live 'according to nature', and viewing the world from an ecocentric is in itself unnatural.
As you've already demonstrated with your comment concerning "unnecessary slaughter" and "guys with big guns taking on defenceless animals", the ecocentric viewpoint tries to debase what it is to be human.
LessthanJake14 1 year ago
@AdamHintz I understand the reasons behind an ecocentric viewpoint but it is simply not a natural progression. We are stuck in the human perspective. We cannot live an existence where we debase the value of humanity. Instead of trying to fight it, why not accept it? Accept our rational and instinctual side, the logical and the emotional. I know this branches on the almost irrelevant now, but we need to accept who we are before we understand what we can do to protect nature.
LessthanJake14 1 year ago
@AdamHintz And thank you for the respect. :)
LessthanJake14 1 year ago
@SunBeamsan
>"What about when a hippo or a lion attacks african peasants? It's survival of the fittest."
SotF is just another way of saying "Might Makes Right". using it, you can justify theft, rape, murder, war and genocide.
>"Nature is a non-think irrational entity which follows its course regardless of feelings and emotion"
It sounds as if you're abstracting individual beings as "nature" and then pretending that they do not think or feel.
SaganAppreciationSoc 2 years ago
@SunBeamsan
>"Nature is a non-think irrational entity which follows its course regardless of feelings and emotion. All animals in the animal kingdom act in their own interest. Why should humans be excluded?"
Have you thought through the implications of your position? If humans acted like the basest of animals we would not have created laws against certain acts. Any self-serving act would be acceptable under your rationale. If I want your resources, would it be OK to kill you for them?
SaganAppreciationSoc 2 years ago
@SaganAppreciationSoc I'm not saying it's moral*. Nature has no morals. And the sad thing is that stealing resources from one group to another is as old as civilization. But in any case, my philosophy in relation to Anthropocentrism is "Rational Self-Interest". Rational Self-Interest is defined as the act of reason applied to interests. Something animals are unable to do because of their mental incapacity.
SunBeamsan 2 years ago
@SunBeamsan
>"Nature has no morals"
That's suggesting that ethics appeared in a vacuum. Actually, morals are an element of biology that probably started off as concern for one's offspring and then branched out from there. Then came concern for those closely related to the animal. Then the troop. And we now often see sign of trans-species affection.
>Something animals are unable to do because of their mental incapacity
I'm boggling at the presumption here.
SaganAppreciationSoc 2 years ago
@SaganAppreciationSoc ethics did come from a vacuum. When a male lion kills the cubs of another, the concept of morals and ethics is human fabrication. Now on your statement that affection to ones off-spring mean they have morals, well it shows how blissful you really are. You cannot apply your own morality or ethics on an animal or plant. Thats putting subjective meaning to an objective reality.
SunBeamsan 2 years ago
@SunBeamsan
>"ethics did come from a vacuum"
Actually no. We know that ethics started with concern for offspring. Then it was concern for those related closely. Then it as for the tribe or troop or pod.
>"When a male lion kills the cubs of another, the concept of morals and ethics is human fabrication"
Using this strange argument one could point to humans killing their own children and say humans are without morals. So what's your point?
SaganAppreciationSoc 2 years ago
@SaganAppreciationSoc yes. Indeed there are people who have no morals. The criminally insane lack emotion, and thus any form of ethics. There are people with these types of mental illnesses who have a predatorial thirst for blood. Children or not, they are prey.
SunBeamsan 2 years ago
@SaganAppreciationSoc- "And we now often see sign of trans-species affection"
Yes, it's called bestiality, and zoophilia. And yes it has happened, but it is not an biological trait. This is a very rear phenomena indeed. It 'usually' only takes place where conscience men are around to foment it.
SunBeamsan 2 years ago
@SunBeamsan
>"Yes, it's called bestiality, and zoophilia"
{Eyeroll}. No, we're talking about the many cases where animals take an interest in others who are not members of their own species. Whether that's a hen who decides to brood on puppies, or a cat that nurses a baby squirrel, or dolphins that help humans in trouble.
PS Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.
SaganAppreciationSoc 2 years ago
I'm Anthropocentric,but not Egocentric.
Therein lies the difference.
It hasn't made me a less kind person,or puppy killing sociopath being "anthropocentric" as you put it.
Those who are destroying the Earth are egocentric.
AuroraKismet 4 years ago
If you're truly anthropocentric than you beleive man is separate from the rest of the community of life. From your point of view is that true?
AdamHintz 4 years ago
No,that would not be true.Thank you for correcting me.
AuroraKismet 4 years ago
I think I see what you're saying. That it's egocentrisim, the preference of oneself to anything else, that makes people destroy the earth. And although this is true to many degrees, there are those who aren't selfcentered who still believe man is the highest form of evolution. This idea leads to the constant trumping of another species for our own. Thank you for your comments. :D
AdamHintz 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AdamHintz
>"there are those who aren't selfcentered who still believe man is the highest form of evolution"
I believe these would be the meat-eating liberals.
SaganAppreciationSoc 2 years ago
@AuroraKismet
>"I'm Anthropocentric,but not Egocentric"
I don't know how you can be one and not be the other. It is after all, the human-centered conceit. They are at the very least tightly co-mingled with each other.
I would argue that anthropocentrism is exactly what is harming the biosphere.
SaganAppreciationSoc 2 years ago
I agree. Check out my other response. It's along the same lines of your statement.
AdamHintz 4 years ago
Pardon my French, but that was pretty fucked up! That was so uncalled for!
MotoRooter 4 years ago
yep
pennilesscripple 4 years ago
Those guys were assholes.
karleyannbodis 4 years ago 2
I agree.
AdamHintz 4 years ago
Dear Puppy Killer,
You DO NOT represent MY COUNTRY! PUPPY KILLERS need not return to this country. Please strip off that uniform and throw your own selves off a cliff!! YOU HAVE HUMILIATED THIS COUNTRY AND COMMITTED A CRUEL AND SICK ACT!!
U R A MONSTER!!!!
Uzehername 4 years ago
I wonder how many times this happens and it's not recorded.
AdamHintz 4 years ago
lots
pennilesscripple 4 years ago
dead dogs dont make sounds
fuzzybyte 4 years ago
Funny to see random people sticking up to these guys and the stories about the puppy having already been dead upon discovery and whatnot spread like wildfire. Especially when it can be clearly seen that it is, in fact, not dead at all.
Guess people see and hear what they want to, and people sympathizing with their 'boys in Iraq' choose not to hear the dog yelp or to see it hunch there, very much alive.
Ohh the drama :)
Fudgenator 4 years ago
Someone once said we're not rational beings. We're rationalizing beings.
AdamHintz 4 years ago
dead that is
JJTecumseh87 4 years ago
Were the soldiers yelping?
AdamHintz 4 years ago
What I don't see, is how the soldiers could yelp like a puppy.
It was obviously the dog that was yelping and that soldier was none less that a cold-hearted man. Probably one of the reasons he went into the war in the first place.
KristaBabyB 4 years ago
I agree, the dog was alive.
AdamHintz 4 years ago
u do realize that the dog was already b4 it threw it right
JJTecumseh87 4 years ago
The dog was already what?
AdamHintz 4 years ago
Yeah, the war against the planet.
AdamHintz 4 years ago
War drives people crazy.
entres 4 years ago