Quantcast

Human extinction: Ethical question

Jun 29, 2007
754
0
Alabama
The last couple years Discovery Channel and it's networks seem obsessed with doomsday theories. They've had specials on everything on everything you can imagine: supervolcanos, asteroids, polar shifts, implosion of the sun, etc. We know that all of these have happened before. That's a given. The human population hit a bottleneck and reduced to just a couple thousand people twice that we know of about 140000 and 60000 years ago. The first one was most likely an asteroid and the second was probably the Toba supervolcano eruption. We know this based on mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome testing (BTW: we're all inbred) I just saw a Science Channel special on asteriod impacts. It discussed ways that NASA is working to prevent/predict this. My question for you is: If this has happened before and humans still got to the point that they are what gives us a right to fight nature's plan? I mean eventually the sun will collapse and every human not in another solar system is going to disappear in seconds anyway. It's a different matter if it's mutually assured or otherwise man-made but why fight nature when it was already so right in the first place? Discuss
 

Jeremy R

<b>x</b>
Nov 15, 2001
9,698
1,053
behind you with a snap pop
F**k nature.
If a group of pencil pushers wants to work together to keep a asteroid from falling on my chicken little head, well then have at it.
I got killer bike rides to go on, sex to have and ice cream to eat.
I don't have time to care about asteroids.
 

giantrider89

Monkey
Oct 16, 2006
423
1
P-town, MN
well if we were to just always let nature take its course, we would just let all the people with cancer die, because that is what nature wants.....which is arguable to an extent, because if we cure cancer, we could have overpopulation problems.......or just let all the sick people in general die, or fend for themselves.......but everyone has a will to survive, and most definitely doesn't want to die for any reason......

now, since we have the technology, we could potentially fend off an asteroid or something as to prevent ourselves from being destroyed, and losing all that we have worked so hard on over the last few thousand years........i suppose one could be called greedy to try to alter nature to save something important/expensive/valuable that is meant to be destroyed by nature (or god if you want to get into that discussion)

but then if we were to just let nature take it's course, would we not be giving up on life as we know it, even though we know we could probably change the outcome of whatever catastrophe might happen?

or could we? i'm really not convinced that we could change the way any of these things would affect our planet.....at least not much......



well i'm done talking now.......while we're here....



does any one around here know how to build a spherical force field with a diameter of about 9,000 miles that could withstand the explosion of the sun??? :confused:
 

Spero

ass rainbow
Jul 12, 2005
2,072
0
Tejas
With the growing problem of underground whore baby pit fighting, I believe that they will eventually free themselves and start a violent uprising a la terminator. Soon we're going to see whore babies from the future making attempts to save us.
 

skinny mike

Turbo Monkey
Jan 24, 2005
6,415
0
F**k nature.
If a group of pencil pushers wants to work together to keep a asteroid from falling on my chicken little head, well then have at it.
I got killer bike rides to go on, sex to have and ice cream to eat.
I don't have time to care about asteroids.
you and i will probably be dead by the time anyone has to worry about asteroids hitting the earth and killing everyone.
 

skinny mike

Turbo Monkey
Jan 24, 2005
6,415
0
does any one around here know how to build a spherical force field with a diameter of about 9,000 miles that could withstand the explosion of the sun??? :confused:
even if we could protect the earth from the sun exploding, everyone would still die anyways as the energy from it is vital for all life on this planet.
 

Spero

ass rainbow
Jul 12, 2005
2,072
0
Tejas
even if we could protect the earth from the sun exploding, everyone would still die anyways as the energy from it is vital for all life on this planet.
I have a feeling we'll be long gone in 5 billion years when the sun begins to die.
 

Biter

Chimp
Jun 23, 2006
33
0
Trying to stay alive no matter what IS natural. People are part of nature. What is natural? Is natural leaving things to run its course and letting ourselves die off, or is natural trying to stop our extinction and keep moving forward?
 

Strakar

Monkey
Nov 17, 2001
148
0
Portugal
What gives us the right to fight Nature's plan, by letting ourselves get exterminated even being *naturally* able to avoid it?
 
Jun 29, 2007
754
0
Alabama
so what was the "ethics" question?
Is it right to dominate nature to fight our own extinction?

I think there are so many evolutionary possibilities that the universe couldn't possibly predict our response to natural phenoma. Maybe in the long term it's more damaging to mess with it than let it run it's course. BTW: I don't believe in intelligent design or any crap like that but I do believe there's a certain amount of predestination in the universe.
 

giantrider89

Monkey
Oct 16, 2006
423
1
P-town, MN
i suppose most all of us will be dead when any of this is concerning man kind.......

well if we cant stop it from happening, we should just figure out when it will, and start the party now........

party hardy till it all goes boom! :cheers:
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,100
1,150
NC
Giant machines and bombs blasted into space don't seem "natural" to me.
Explain.

What makes them "unnatural"? They are made out of elements found on earth and created by creatures who have evolved to be capable of advanced thought.

Where's your line drawn? Antibiotics? Cars? Gene therapy?
 

.:Jeenyus:.

Turbo Monkey
Feb 23, 2004
2,831
1
slc
Explain.

What makes them "unnatural"? They are made out of elements found on earth and created by creatures who have evolved to be capable of advanced thought.

Where's your line drawn? Antibiotics? Cars? Gene therapy?

exactly. everything we do is part of nature. i don't get why people try and exclude humans and our creations from it.
 

JRogers

talks too much
Mar 19, 2002
3,785
1
Claremont, CA
Explain.

What makes them "unnatural"? They are made out of elements found on earth and created by creatures who have evolved to be capable of advanced thought.

Where's your line drawn? Antibiotics? Cars? Gene therapy?
Yeah, and if that's your definition of natural, then the word ceases to really have any meaning. Words only have the meanings we give to them and these meanings are developed to give utility. If a bomb in space is natural, then I can't think of anything that wouldn't be natural. As a concept, it would cease to have much use to us- and that's all it is, a human concept.

Back to the original issue- it has been proposed that the entirety of human culture and society is a battle against nature, as traditionally defined. Since when, in this world, do we care what nature wants to do?
 

jaydee

Monkey
Jul 5, 2001
794
0
Victoria BC
Humans, with their really big brains, are the most successful predators of all time. In the non-human natural world, if a predator species becomes too successful in its local environment, which for us would be the earth, it suffers some kind of dieback until its prey species can recover enough to support the increase in predators again. The predators also slow down or stop breeding until their environment can cope with their numbers. It works great! Unfortunately our really big brains don't come with the natural ability to think in quality, only quantity. So we look for ways to outwit nature and preserve lives at all cost, even when the cost is lives. To quote Kurt Vonnegut, "Go figure." Nobody gets out of here alive after all.
 
Jun 29, 2007
754
0
Alabama
Explain.

What makes them "unnatural"? They are made out of elements found on earth and created by creatures who have evolved to be capable of advanced thought.

Where's your line drawn? Antibiotics? Cars? Gene therapy?

Plastic. That's where I draw the line. Do you think Nylon and titanium are natural? Some antibiotics occur naturally some are synthetic chemical compounds.
 

JRogers

talks too much
Mar 19, 2002
3,785
1
Claremont, CA
BTW: Please no god discussions.
I find it odd that you say that given your original assumption is that there is some kind of plan in nature beyond mere laws of a self-sustaining system. If you don't want to talk about God in this context, I am not really sure how else you could justify that assertion.
 

Jeremy R

<b>x</b>
Nov 15, 2001
9,698
1,053
behind you with a snap pop
I find it odd that you say that given your original assumption is that there is some kind of plan in nature beyond mere laws of a self-sustaining system. If you don't want to talk about God in this context, I am not really sure how else you could justify that assertion.
Its probaly just because he is from Alabama and he gets to hear from Gawd's Warriors daily through the insight of bumper stickers.
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,100
1,150
NC
Plastic. That's where I draw the line. Do you think Nylon and titanium are natural? Some antibiotics occur naturally some are synthetic chemical compounds.
Bwahahaha. You draw the line at plastic? Of all the arbitrary places? Bizarre.

So... synthetic antibiotics are not okay, naturally occurring ones are? Or they're all okay because there are some naturally occurring ones? Titanium is a naturally occurring element, BTW.

The point is (and of course I could nitpick left and right) that the instinct to survive is natural and I have a tough time looking at a bunch of scientists trying to save the lives of billions of people and tell them they're being "unnatural." It's a little hypocritical/arbitrary to say that these guys are unnatural but you're perfectly willing to take full advantage of all the similarly unnatural inventions all around you, isn't it? More likely than not, you'd be dead right now if it weren't for modern science and plastics.
 

Dirtjumper999

Turbo Monkey
Feb 13, 2005
1,556
0
Charlotte, NC
Personally I think its only right for nature to want to get rid of the dominating population on the earth. I mean it looks as though, mother nature is taking a lot of shots at us.

I mean think about it. Nature creates this highly adaptable, very smart creature; and that creature begins to kill the earth. So naturally, Nature will try to kill its failed experiment. Nature's weapon: The Earth.

Nature tried to make one dominent population, the Dinosaurs. Their specialty for domination, ferocity. That didn't work, so kill them off. Then Nature tries, another Human, their specialty, intelligance. Obviously not working.