Conjoint Gaming [Game On]
CG Main => Debate Forum => Topic started by: crypto on August 29, 2010, 01:16:29 PM
-
This is sort of an exploration of my personal philosophy and also an outlet for my gargantuan ego. I don't expect discussion, really. Just a vanity project.
As a rule, I don’t mind being around people. I’m quick to lose my patience and I see a lot of people (the majority, maybe) as irresponsible, superstitious idiots, but usually not to the point of being unbearable when I'm in the same room as them. To some extent, I think that tolerance contradicts my overall view of humanity, which follows.
On a purely philosophical level, I more or less embrace misanthropy. (This is great because it gives me one more way to milk my ego and feel superior to all—well, most—of you.) I don’t hold grudges toward people on an individual basis. If I did I’d be one sad guy, and anyway it’s too much effort. Individual personalities contribute to the problem, but the species on the whole, not its individual constituents, are at its core.
Humanity is a parasite on the universe. Our relationships with other species—with nature in general—may once have been commensal or mutualistic, but since the dawn of industrialization we have had a net negative effect on our planet. We have catalyzed, or at the very least accelerated, the extinction of countless species; polluted, wounded, and destroyed entire ecosystems; chugged vast quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and warmed the globe at a potentially catastrophic rate; and treated animals with cruelty and disregard of embarrassing proportions (watch Food, Inc. if you’re looking for a good reason to hate your fellow man). Note that I have not even touched on the atrocities to which humans have subjected each other: rape, murder, war, slavery, genocide, and so on. Those atrocities are beside the point, the point being that unlike other species, which serve as necessary aspects of a properly functioning ecosystem, we create imbalances in nature. You might say that we have become unnatural.
In a sense, we’ve beaten the system; we no longer operate as a cog in the wheel, or rather we operate as a cog a couple measures too large that’s grinding and scraping and tearing the wheel into discord. (Even a cursory study of climate change will demonstrate that we are not all that far from transforming the planet into a place where the species that currently populate the biosphere, humanity included, will perish. It may take centuries or millennia. Those figures may seem like long spans of time, but they are miniscule on the evolutionary scale; they do not allow for the adaptations required for survival.)
From a coldly scientific perspective, humans are blight on the world. From that same perspective, it is easy to make the argument that we therefore do not deserve existence, that we should eradicate ourselves, and consequently cease all environmentally detrimental processes of ours, in order to preserve nature.
Here comes the objection that the need to preserve nature is an a priori statement—possibly erroneous, certainly subjective. The counterargument probably runs along the lines that the stability of nature does not precede the survival and welfare of humanity, or that the entire dilemma is rendered moot when one values other aspects of the universe (e.g., love, creation, intellectual inquiry, religious faith) over the preservation of nature or the perpetuation of survival. But if we are to attempt to replace that assumption with an assumption that puts more emphasis on the value of human life or of certain human activities, then we have no choice but to accept that world must exist in a state suitable for humanity in order to allow for human life in the first place. Thus far, we can live with the damage we’ve done to our environment, but the same may not be said of future generations. Though the solution may not be annihilation, we still return to the preservation of our world as a necessity.
And then there is the issue of our place in the universe. It can be said that self-consciousness, by its nature, breeds a sense of self-importance. We are the most intelligent beings on the planet, in the solar system, but where there is intelligence there is an inflation in self-worth. Our unique mental faculties, in and of themselves, do not grant us superiority over dogs or mice or beetles. Natural selection dictates that we protect and promote our own; otherwise our species would not survive in the relentless competition that is evolution. We are hardwired to overcome other species, to thrive at their expense, but on an ethical level that is no excuse for the devastation we’ve wreaked on them and on the world at large. With the Industrial Revolution we took an irrevocable step away from our natural roots; our relationship with nature is dysfunctional, unbalanced. We are a parasite.
No, in practice of course I don’t advocate the self-destruction of the human species. There may be a hint of hypocrisy, or inconsistency, here, but then hypocrisy should not be limited to rationality—to undertake such an endeavor would be dishonest to my intuition, to my emotions (which in a neurological sense are a precondition for reason). It would also be maddeningly futile. There are more humane and more feasible alternatives: reduction of world human population through contraception and enforced constraints on family size, to cut to the root cause. In the grand scheme of things the planet might have been better off had we not existed in the first place, but while there is no justice in the atrocities we commit against nature, there is also none in those we may commit against each other. We lack the authority to strip our neighbors and children of the liberty for which life is a prerequisite. The biological evil of our evolution does not justify the moral evil of the extreme actions we might take to minimize our negative effect. Acceptance of humanity's viral nature and consequent contempt for the species do not render the morality of such actions irrelevant. So we are at an impasse.
-
KILL ALL HUMANS VIVA LA ROBITICS (WE SHALL OVERTHROW CRYPTOP)
-
no u
-
Dehydrate us, and we are approximately $2.54 worth of chemicals (approx 1989 $ value) so about $6 in present dollars...
So, we are worth about $6.
-
Fuck this sign in system, I just Typed out a large response only for it to be destroyed by the damn sign-out timer shit.
Whatever, Crypto's views go unopposed. I'm not typing that shit out again.
-
Ah, I thought if you or Krolin saw this there might be a bloody good fight. :(
-
In all honesty, I think your perception of humanity is blinded by your contempt for capitalism.
-
I agree that humans are the number 1 parasite we are a disease if you will that spreads throughout earth, we consume more then what we "supposed" give back. To me this is not much of a debate but it still is a interesting topic to bring up.
*note Im not a tree hugger*
-
In all honesty, I think your perception of humanity is blinded by your contempt for capitalism.
[/quote
I hope you're joking because I have no contempt for capitalism.
-
In a sense we are not out of sync with nature. If we are truly so parasitic, we will eventually die out yes, this is a fact of nature. Anything that is so parasitic and destroys its own environment was designed to. Our species has been designed to destroy itself and all around it. One of our basic principles is that to create we must first destroy. If the human species were to cause the Earth to go into an uninhabitable state, it would only return to being habitable, nature will balance itself out in the end, even with as much industrialization as we have undergone, we will succumb to the very basic laws of nature that governs us. With that said, am I one of the few people who actually considered Johnathan Swift's 'A Modest Proposal For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick'?
-
KILL THEM ALL, note I didnt read anything! CONTINUE
-
meh, this is where i actually start to discuss but... i don't want too, my view on humans are too fucked upp to put in words =)
-
That's ok Jorgen I'll summarize it for you. KILL ALL HUMANS AND WE SHALL ROLE THE WORLD YES ROLE THE WORLD MUAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA I love you crypto
PS
I want my condom back so let me know when you shit it out.
-
Humans. I see us as a threat to earth and as just another peaceful animal.
-
WE BE DIGRESSIN'
-
I would never call us "unnatural". We are the product of evolution. We evolved from less developed beings. WE are, without doubt, nature. Nature at work. Whatever we do, we will always be.
-
I think that humans are the plan of nature. We will eradicate ourselves, but in the end, cockroaches win.
-
I think that humans are the plan of nature. We will eradicate ourselves, but in the end, cockroaches win.
Nah, the Diclonius will end us all.
-
Humanity is slowly destroying ourselves as a species and possibly taking everyone with us.... But thats humanities flaws for you
-
its worthless
-
Damn the stupid!!! Hoorah for Charles Robert Darwin and especially the Darwin Awards!! Removing stupid from the gene pool a handfull at a time. Yes I agree that humans are basicly a parasite (Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the host.) to the earth and those around us. Eradication of self is not in our nature, but eradication of each other is our passive objective. Noone wants to die(well there are a few) ,but with out death we can not live so really to die is to make others live so in saying that FREE ICECREAM! GOODNIGHT wtf was I saying...
-
how is it symbiotic? when it is symbiotic atleast according to my book, they need eachother equally.
for example like many of the germs in our body (digestion system that is) =)
anyways humanity might be a strain on this planet, but hell it might go trough some rough times now, hopefully we can get our asses into space and terraform theese bitches =P a fools dream perhaps but it would be very nice XD
-
Well, The earth does need us maybe not the earth specifically but the animals that inhabit it. If we dont exsist then over where I live the deer population will multiply then ravage the land around it destroying the habitats of many small animals leaving them exposed to predators. so it would be a very slow and very long proccess of destruction ,but they do need us.
-
without us evolution would create something else to keep it down, and it has this marvelous ability, if you have to many they all die sooner or later or atleast they crash down
-
Its funny to watch this thread
-
This thread is full of fail.
I could only understand Crypto's point of view. There was a lot of nonsense and copypasted crap.
-
Now that I actually read his wall of text it's starting to make sense.
-
how can you fail to understand such elementary things as symbiotic, or evolution?
also half of the comments here are shortened dumbed down versions of what crypto said so if you can understand him you should be able to pull your head out of your ass and understand the rest of the people around here...
i will agree i don't write much in lamens term but seriously guys, half of the shit in this thread is elementary school shit nothing beyond the level of what a 13 year old should be able to understand atleast to a degree.
also my grammar might not be that of a novel writer or anything close to that, but i do not write bogus sentences that make no gramatical sense whatsoever.
so the fact that you can't understand what others say only perpetuates what crypto is trying to say, humans might be able to understand they just don't want to at times... (or atleast that is a sub part of crypto's post from what i can read) anywho.
-
how can you fail to understand such elementary things as symbiotic, or evolution?
also half of the comments here are shortened dumbed down versions of what crypto said so if you can understand him you should be able to pull your head out of your ass and understand the rest of the people around here...
i will agree i don't write much in lamens term but seriously guys, half of the shit in this thread is elementary school shit nothing beyond the level of what a 13 year old should be able to understand atleast to a degree.
also my grammar might not be that of a novel writer or anything close to that, but i do not write bogus sentences that make no gramatical sense whatsoever.
so the fact that you can't understand what others say only perpetuates what crypto is trying to say, humans might be able to understand they just don't want to at times... (or atleast that is a sub part of crypto's post from what i can read) anywho.
Agreed.
-
no comment.