Enviromentalism thread - Page 2

orange · February 24, 2003, 00:41

Quote:

Animals aren't human, though, and as such don't have rights.

And why not?

Urban Ranger · February 24, 2003, 00:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch
What are the things that humans need to survive? - remember that we've domesticated most of our food supply species and their numbers are ever increasing.

Who knows? If all you meant by "survive" is food and shelter, not much.

David Floyd · February 24, 2003, 05:56

orange,

Quote:

And why not?

Obviously, because they aren't human. Rights are limited to humans, for the mere reason that they are HUMAN.

TheStinger · February 24, 2003, 06:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman
Species which provide no benefit to humans are irrelevant.

Are you in the Borg

dannubis · February 24, 2003, 06:37

and who knows which species will provide in the future essential benefits for us, humans ... it is not because we don't really know what the long term effects of our way of life on our environment will be that we should not be carefull.

Urban Ranger · February 24, 2003, 10:48

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
orange,

Obviously, because they aren't human. Rights are limited to humans, for the mere reason that they are HUMAN.

So Liberterians are now arbitrary too, in addition to other descriptive adjectives.

orange · February 24, 2003, 10:50

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
orange,

Obviously, because they aren't human. Rights are limited to humans, for the mere reason that they are HUMAN.

That's not justification at all. That's restating what I questioned to begin with.

Why are rights only available to humans? What gives humans rights? Where do humans get their rights? And, if they get them from God as you might believe as a Christian, why wouldn't God give rights to all living things he creates?

I don't understand how one can justify natural rights only being available for humans for the sole reason that they are human.

Why not just say "becuase I say so, that's why"?

Dauphin · February 24, 2003, 11:08

I'm thinking about species such as the Dodo. How much would peoples' lives change had they not gone extinct. The most noticeable change I can think of is that we would not have the phrase "Dead as a Dodo". Applying similar logic to a lot of endangered species I ask this: What difference do they make? What benefit is the Panda, Siberian Tiger, Condor, Elephant, Rhino etc to humanity? I have nothing against people wanting to save them, but will that really make a difference to peoples lives? I can't say it will affect my life, so I am not particularly bothered.

I do care about my local environment though. If someone wanted to concrete over the North Downs I would be angry as it destroys the lovely scenary and wildlife that I enjoy.

Solly · February 24, 2003, 11:13

Did you hear that a new breed of mosquito has been created by the London Underground?

A cause for celeberation?

MattyBoy · February 25, 2003, 23:29

It's wierd how little the environment seems to matter in these forums. Seems like a case of "if it gets too ugly out there, I'll just stay at my terminal until I rot".

I would have thought that some concern for the environment was a part of any responsible and intelligent person's armory of beliefs.

Sava · February 25, 2003, 23:32

Paying for public education, health, and other welfare programs is stealing... that's right on David Floyd! We need the freedom to pay workers 15 cents for a weeks worth of work. I mean, this country was founded on freedom, but if I don't have the freedom to exploit the working class and buy politicians... that's just UN AMERICAN!

St Leo · February 25, 2003, 23:43

We need to protect other species in order to set a good example for the aliens who are going to conquer Earth next week and domesticate humanity.

Q Classic · February 26, 2003, 00:33

why don't we use all the resources, you know? it's not like there will be anybody else who wants to use the planet after we're through with it...