Welcome to Gaia! ::

Neverwise's avatar

Devoted Worshipper

9,850 Points
  • Somebody Likes You 100
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Noob wrangler 100
tfwbtr
Triple Dare
tfwbtr
Triple Dare
Maybe your definition of "equal" differs from mine.

You've got to elaborate. Are we talking about equality (status, nature, mind, etc.) in general or just in terms of our impact on Earth? Because having better abilities to destroy would make us superior, as our society teaches us.

If animals and plants ever grow into intellect akin to ours, the probability that they'd start sacrificing the good of the world for their own comfort is high.


The ability to destroy shouldn't make us better than others. It should make us inferior. Peace and beauty should rule, not destruction.

I'm talking about being equal in all ways, fundamentally and organically.


I don't even . . .

Except for a single fact that all living beings share (want for further survival—and all that it encompasses), I can't think of anything that could possibly group plants and humans together. We live on different planes of existence.

Peace and beauty? That would be a very boring world. Our instincts cry for conflict. We must listen. If only peace existed, all these wonderful books that I enjoy wouldn't have been written. I don't want flowering guides. I want war and murder!


Then you're barbaric. GO back to the dark ages, and leave this world for those who give a s**t.



Fun fact; the longest ever record for peace that has not been broken to this day was during ancient history, the Pax Romana of 207 years. We have never achieved similar yet.
Touching Hair's avatar

Enduring Regular

All life is equally important.

Humanity has a superiority complex, we see ourselves as being all powerful and all knowing when in reality we're not.
Feminism and Frybread's avatar

Dangerous Werewolf

6,100 Points
  • The Wolf Within 100
  • Team Jacob 100
  • First step to fame 200
I think we're equal, HOWEVER we still need them to survive. I'm not sure how the fact that we must kill and consume would put us above them as life forms? That might be why so many people have to little respect for their food. Is it about law? laws are silly for the most part, of course a human shouldn't be punished for doing what they need to to survive, that's counter-intuitive. however the balance required to sustain life on this planet would show that plants and animals(humans included) are equally important. No plants=no animal life.
fierce frivolity's avatar

Blessed Beau

8,750 Points
  • Nudist Colony 200
  • Love Machine 150
  • Partygoer 500
They're not not equal, in the broader scheme of things. I don't think it's surprising we value our own species above all others, though. Any living organism is going to do that. (Even plants. Plenty of plant species engage in slow warfare with each other, trying to kill neighboring species to make room for their own seeds, or just maximize their water/sunlight/nutrients.)

Humans are if anything unusual in our ability to occasionally choose to place our own needs second. What species would have conniptions over whether it's okay to kill a predator that's been preying on its own, just because that predator is rare? And yet we agonize over what to do with literally maneating tigers!
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Je Nique vos Merdiers
Suicidesoldier#1
Our planet could support WAY more food than it is now. Since ammonium nitrate is practically free and any land could potentially be turned into farmland, with 25% of arable land still unused, and rampant inefficiencies present across the farming industry, the concept we can't sustain it when we're presently at a surplus, so much so we're turning it into ethanol since gasoline seems to be more important than food, your information is basically coming from nowhere. Hell, there's all kinds of things we could do, like aquaponics gardening, that's way more efficient

You know what's even more efficient? Restoring the ecosystem to where it was before agriculture existed, because natural, diverse animal and plant polycultures are much more productive than any monoculture system.

Quote:
Again, multi vitamins take a source. It's not like you can make vitamins out of thin air. Usually, it's made from concentrated kale. When you grow 50 times the kale you need to survive and condense it down into a vitamin you essentially waste just as much if not more energy than just eating meat.

Even if you use exactly more energy in producing supplements as in meat production, the lack of methane and solid waste production by plants more than makes up for this. And B12, the only vitamin that can't be obtained from a plant-based diet, is produced industrially by bacterial fermentation.


Quote:
The difference is you are basing your assumptions off of what we are doing right now in general, when there is a better way. In my mind, there's not only a solution, but a way for surplus. And mostly, I'm right.

Yes, there is a better way, what an astute observation that I've been very vocal about on here for years. There's also a monstrous amount of inertia behind the status quo that is putting that better way further and further away, and existential crises to worry about. They are happening on very short timescales that require immediate response from individuals, and not just waiting around for institutional change, when the institutions are the cause of the problem.


Yeah... restoring ourselves back to where we were before 10,000-13,000 years ago not only would be completely horrible for mankind, but also be impossible because we'd need to freeze the earth.

Not a good idea. Mammoths don't exist anymore. We can't go back and live like we did before agriculture. O_o
FickleWulf's avatar

Shirtless Werewolf

6,500 Points
  • Forum Dabbler 200
  • Timid 100
  • Dressed Up 200
MegaTurkey
DaWulf20
tfwbtr
I think so. I don't get why people believe we're better. We destroy the world while animals and plants give it balance. We take while they give. We're either equal to them, or inferior.

I completely agree with this statement. We are all equal and all God's creature, no one more better than the other. The way we treat animals disgusts and infuriates me.


If you're bringing religion into this; don't all Abrahamic religions (I'm making this assumption from your use of the singular possessive) in particular showcase the difference and superiority of man over beast? Even right at the start, weren't animals and men made on different days in Genesis? And wasn't man made in "God's image"? That hardly denotes equality.


good point but the bible also says :



Proverbs 12:10 ESV

Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.

Ecclesiastes 3:19 ESV

For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity.

:3
dh8d1's avatar

Distinct Genius

13,400 Points
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Conversationalist 100
  • 50 Wins 150
Fermionic
dh8d1
I made your strawman more prominent in hopes you'll see it and admit that you actually built it.

You mistake my concentration on a point you don't consider as main for making a strawman. I've already explained this, so you can read it again if you wish.
You concentrated on arguing a point that was not mine and told me it was mine. That's a strawman.

Fermionic
dh8d1
Fermionic
we aren't at the top of a food chain
Oh yes we are... unless you fear being eaten often. You don't, do you?

What do you think our bodies provide sustenance for? What eats us? Micro-organisms.
Oh. So you're under the impression you have some flesh-eating bacterial disease. Do tell. This is funny.
Fermionic
dh8d1
Fermionic
food chains are not a way to assign superiority to humanity
I never said "humans are superior because we're at the top of the food chain." What I said was "being at the top of the food chain, we eat other living things to survive, and therefore we MUST value their life below ours, and ours superior to theirs.

Which is why I said "absolute or perceived superiority", in consideration of your bad habit of ascribing ourselves the top of the food-chain.
Any time you eat, you must eat because you value your survival as superior to the thing you eat. It's not going to become false because you don't believe it.
Fermionic
dh8d1
Fermionic
You said that no other organism on the planet has the potential to kill every other organism on the planet.
I did, and I stand by it. We have nukes. We have a-bombs. We have Radiation. We have control of fire, steel, and antibacterial methods. We can kill off every other living thing on the planet if we choose to as a species. It would take time. It would take resources. It would change the dynamic of our ecosystem. We probably wouldn't survive long after we did it. Which is why we won't do it, but we could.

You cut off the point that was important, the "This is unsourced". I have explicitly stated that humans are capable of this, probably. That isn't what interests me. What interests me is the fact that you haven't deigned demonstrate how we are the only beings capable of this, on the entire planet. Until such a time you decide to actually read what I'm writing, you won't be proving anything.
Observation. That's the source. I observe millions of other species coexisting with us, none of which have any power to wipe out the planet.
Fermionic
dh8d1
Fermionic
I can also say that I care little for your manner.
I care little for your weak attempts at proving we're not at the top of the food chain, and I care little for your weak attempts at refuting that whenever you eat something, you're eating something that was alive, and therefore by doing so you're claiming superiority over it by it dying so you can survive.

I'm not refuting the latter. Even after explicitly stating that I'm not trying to do so, you still seem to think that I am. It would be best if you got over that problem.If you're not refuting me then what the hell are you doing replying to my posts negatively?
Fermionic
As for my "weak attempts", that's entertaining. So far, in reference to being at the top of the food chain, all you've said is that humans can pose mortal threat to most anything we choose. That isn't what a food chain is, as I've already said. A food chain shows what eats what. We are eaten by decay bacteria.
Not terminally, we aren't. And you're not afraid of being eaten on a constant basis, I bet. Your argument about bacteria is invalid, as there's a symbiosis with it most of the time.
Fermionic
To sum up; Learn what a food chain is, realise that that is the only point I am addressing, learn to read what I type.
Right back at ya, because we're at the top of the food chain.
dh8d1
Fermionic
dh8d1
I made your strawman more prominent in hopes you'll see it and admit that you actually built it.

You mistake my concentration on a point you don't consider as main for making a strawman. I've already explained this, so you can read it again if you wish.
You concentrated on arguing a point that was not mine and told me it was mine. That's a strawman.

"We as animals have unique attributes which make us able to KILL EVERY OTHER LIVING THING ON THE PLANET. No other species can do this."
This is the point that you made that I am disagreeing with. The last sentence. It is unsourced. That is what I am saying. Period.

dh8d1
Fermionic
dh8d1
Fermionic
we aren't at the top of a food chain
Oh yes we are... unless you fear being eaten often. You don't, do you?

What do you think our bodies provide sustenance for? What eats us? Micro-organisms.
Oh. So you're under the impression you have some flesh-eating bacterial disease. Do tell. This is funny.

No. Decay bacteria. I've said this already. When we die, our bodies decay, and are consumed. It is a consumer-resource system, in which we are sustenance for beings higher up on the ladder than ourselves. We are not consumed by nothing. Therefore, we aren't at the top. A food-chain shows resources, not necessarily predatory behaviour.

dh8d1
Fermionic
dh8d1
Fermionic
food chains are not a way to assign superiority to humanity
I never said "humans are superior because we're at the top of the food chain." What I said was "being at the top of the food chain, we eat other living things to survive, and therefore we MUST value their life below ours, and ours superior to theirs.

Which is why I said "absolute or perceived superiority", in consideration of your bad habit of ascribing ourselves the top of the food-chain.
Any time you eat, you must eat because you value your survival as superior to the thing you eat. It's not going to become false because you don't believe it.

I do believe that. This is now the third time I have said this. How many more will it take for you to understand?

dh8d1
Fermionic
dh8d1
Fermionic
You said that no other organism on the planet has the potential to kill every other organism on the planet.
I did, and I stand by it. We have nukes. We have a-bombs. We have Radiation. We have control of fire, steel, and antibacterial methods. We can kill off every other living thing on the planet if we choose to as a species. It would take time. It would take resources. It would change the dynamic of our ecosystem. We probably wouldn't survive long after we did it. Which is why we won't do it, but we could.

You cut off the point that was important, the "This is unsourced". I have explicitly stated that humans are capable of this, probably. That isn't what interests me. What interests me is the fact that you haven't deigned demonstrate how we are the only beings capable of this, on the entire planet. Until such a time you decide to actually read what I'm writing, you won't be proving anything.
Observation. That's the source. I observe millions of other species coexisting with us, none of which have any power to wipe out the planet.

That you know of. Arguments from ignorance mean nothing. Again and also, this doesn't put us at the top of the food chain.

dh8d1
Fermionic
dh8d1
Fermionic
I can also say that I care little for your manner.
I care little for your weak attempts at proving we're not at the top of the food chain, and I care little for your weak attempts at refuting that whenever you eat something, you're eating something that was alive, and therefore by doing so you're claiming superiority over it by it dying so you can survive.

I'm not refuting the latter. Even after explicitly stating that I'm not trying to do so, you still seem to think that I am. It would be best if you got over that problem.
If you're not refuting me then what the hell are you doing replying to my posts negatively?

I am not refuting that knowingly consuming another living being implies your care for your own life more than the life of the being you've consumed. I am refuting your comments that 1. We are at the top of the food chain and 2. It is fact that no other being on this planet has the potential to kill any of being on this planet.
The first, because it is false. The second, because you've no proof for such a statement, due to your lack of knowledge of every being that may exist on this planet. The second can be easily fixed via the use of a qualifier. The first can be made clear to you upon your learning of what a food chain is.

dh8d1
Fermionic
As for my "weak attempts", that's entertaining. So far, in reference to being at the top of the food chain, all you've said is that humans can pose mortal threat to most anything we choose. That isn't what a food chain is, as I've already said. A food chain shows what eats what. We are eaten by decay bacteria.
Not terminally, we aren't. And you're not afraid of being eaten on a constant basis, I bet. Your argument about bacteria is invalid, as there's a symbiosis with it most of the time.

It doesn't need to be terminally, that is a misconception of what a food-chain is. As I've said, it is a consumer-resource relationship. As for symbiosis, that's hilarious. We (animals) live in symbiosis with trees and plants too. Are we not in a food-chain with them? Of course we are, don't be stupid.

dh8d1
Fermionic
To sum up; Learn what a food chain is, realise that that is the only point I am addressing, learn to read what I type.
Right back at ya, because we're at the top of the food chain.

No, we aren't.
tfwbtr
Triple Dare
Maybe your definition of "equal" differs from mine.

You've got to elaborate. Are we talking about equality (status, nature, mind, etc.) in general or just in terms of our impact on Earth? Because having better abilities to destroy would make us superior, as our society teaches us.

If animals and plants ever grow into intellect akin to ours, the probability that they'd start sacrificing the good of the world for their own comfort is high.


The ability to destroy shouldn't make us better than others. It should make us inferior. Peace and beauty should rule, not destruction.

I'm talking about being equal in all ways, fundamentally and organically.
You think our chemical compositions are all the same? Tell me, if you had to choose what would live, a 100 ants or one human being which one would you choose and why?
DaWulf20
MegaTurkey
DaWulf20
tfwbtr
I think so. I don't get why people believe we're better. We destroy the world while animals and plants give it balance. We take while they give. We're either equal to them, or inferior.

I completely agree with this statement. We are all equal and all God's creature, no one more better than the other. The way we treat animals disgusts and infuriates me.


If you're bringing religion into this; don't all Abrahamic religions (I'm making this assumption from your use of the singular possessive) in particular showcase the difference and superiority of man over beast? Even right at the start, weren't animals and men made on different days in Genesis? And wasn't man made in "God's image"? That hardly denotes equality.


good point but the bible also says :



Proverbs 12:10 ESV

Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.

Ecclesiastes 3:19 ESV

For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity.

:3


In response to the first quote; having "regard for the life of his beast" doesn't mean equality. I'm sure beating your old donkey to death because it won't pull as much weight as it used to would make you an arsehole in the eyes of anyone, let alone God. But that doesn't mean the donkey (or any other fauna for that matter) is equal to you, dare I say even if you happen to be the lowliest and most immoral of people this world has ever produced.

As for the second; no one's challenging the common mortality of both humans and all other forms of life but once again, that hardly means equality. In fact this very comparison made to animals to challenge the "vanity" of people further emphasises man's inherent superiority over beasts.

I haven't read the bible before and I haven't seen extracts since RE when I was in the early years of secondary school (high school) but I bet I could find a thousand and one quotes denoting humanity's inherited superiority from God. The very fact that Jesus was a man and not a cat should indicate this. And I understand that murder is a heinous crime according to the commandments and so is zoophilia I believe? Yet the rearing of animals for food or even just eating meat isn't discouraged. A human's life ≠ an animal's.

It's clear (religion or not) that we have a moral obligation to look after animals, plants and the environment because we're simply the only species with the complexity to even begin to consider the concept of morals. It's a pretty obvious realisation everyone's born with and I don't understand why this "edgy" self-loathing, misanthropic attitude has to be a part of it. (Not to say that's your particular stance; it's just a general observation.)
Knobist's avatar

Hilarious Prophet

Interdependence?
Suicidesoldier#1
Yeah... restoring ourselves back to where we were before 10,000-13,000 years ago not only would be completely horrible for mankind, but also be impossible because we'd need to freeze the earth.

What the ******** are you talking about? I said we need to reforest the Earth and adopt a mobile H-G lifestyle to maximize carrying capacity, not bring mammoths back.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Je Nique vos Merdiers
Suicidesoldier#1
Yeah... restoring ourselves back to where we were before 10,000-13,000 years ago not only would be completely horrible for mankind, but also be impossible because we'd need to freeze the earth.

What the ******** are you talking about? I said we need to reforest the Earth and adopt a mobile H-G lifestyle to maximize carrying capacity, not bring mammoths back.


We can't go back to where we were before agriculture because that's over 10,000 years ago, when mammoths were still around.

Not to mention agriculture maximizes the carrying capacity of the earth way more than stumbling around in the woods.


Let me go out on a limb here.

Why would you think that hunting in forests at all produces more food than current agriculture when we have exploded the live stock population due to domestication, and now mass produce edible plants rather than spending hours searching for them, at random, burning calories, often without success, in the woods?
life is life.
intelligence is variable.
intelligent life promotes more life.
ignorant life promotes less.
the value of individual life is self evident
I believe we are all connected and equal as life forces.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games