I don't think that humans as a species should survive, the way we are. In order to continue living on this planet, we need to change. We need to make less of us and start making positive changes with the ones alive.
Poll: do you think the human race should survive?
- Thread starter Oly J
- Start date
Sure we have had our bigotry our intolerance, our Hitlers, Stalins and Maos; our Sarah Palins our Ted Bundys and our Frank Luntzs. We burn down forests to make films, we annihilate environments for our convenience, we kill off entire species as often as we try to kill off entire populations of our fellow humans because they dared to believe in the wrong God, the wrong government, who had the wrong skin color or spoke the wrong language.
But for every travesty there are a hundred greater acts of good. We save species doomed to extinction. We replant forests, rebuild environments. People sacrifice their lives standing up against evil against dictators. We risk our lives for complete strangers. In the WW2 concentration camps there was a Greek term, Clepsydra that referred to the running out of hope like an hour glass or a water clock. Your humanity and your will to live would slowly seep out until you gave up. I forget the specific details and even the name of the book; but a German SS commander was ordered to decimate the concentration camp in the old style of the Romans, by killing one in every ten. But he gave them an option designed to break their will and let them know that they were worthless that none would stand up to save them. He said that If a man who was not slated for death were to volunteer to be killed, he would let the others live. But when all others were silent one man stepped forward. When they held him down and injected gasoline into his veins to kill him he gave every single man woman and child in that concentration camp their humanity back, he gave their lives worth, and because of that he reset their metaphorical water clocks. He gave them back their hope, and because of that sacrifice many of them survived the holocaust and are still alive today.
We build beautiful works of art, question the very nature of the cosmos and launch ourselves into that great unknown. We stand up for righteousness, for justice and for peace and eventually we are going to beat those that would do harm because we are the great majority. We have Stephen Fry, Shavarsh Karapetyan, Carl Sagan, Janis Joplin, Leo Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Jennifer Connelly, George Carlin, Jon Stewart, Liu Xiaobo, Marie Curie. And humankind is only just getting started.
But for every travesty there are a hundred greater acts of good. We save species doomed to extinction. We replant forests, rebuild environments. People sacrifice their lives standing up against evil against dictators. We risk our lives for complete strangers. In the WW2 concentration camps there was a Greek term, Clepsydra that referred to the running out of hope like an hour glass or a water clock. Your humanity and your will to live would slowly seep out until you gave up. I forget the specific details and even the name of the book; but a German SS commander was ordered to decimate the concentration camp in the old style of the Romans, by killing one in every ten. But he gave them an option designed to break their will and let them know that they were worthless that none would stand up to save them. He said that If a man who was not slated for death were to volunteer to be killed, he would let the others live. But when all others were silent one man stepped forward. When they held him down and injected gasoline into his veins to kill him he gave every single man woman and child in that concentration camp their humanity back, he gave their lives worth, and because of that he reset their metaphorical water clocks. He gave them back their hope, and because of that sacrifice many of them survived the holocaust and are still alive today.
We build beautiful works of art, question the very nature of the cosmos and launch ourselves into that great unknown. We stand up for righteousness, for justice and for peace and eventually we are going to beat those that would do harm because we are the great majority. We have Stephen Fry, Shavarsh Karapetyan, Carl Sagan, Janis Joplin, Leo Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Jennifer Connelly, George Carlin, Jon Stewart, Liu Xiaobo, Marie Curie. And humankind is only just getting started.
Who the hell cares what the species does? We are thinking people with emotions and friends and values and a need to explore... Just enjoy life and whatever happens happens.
No, I think an entire species should be condemned to death because, from my bitter, horrific experiences as a well nourished, internet using first-world teenager, everyone deserves to die.
Let's swap 'humanity' for 'Jews'. It's suddenly a lot less palatable, isn't it? But that's what you're advocating, outright genocide of a species just for being born human. Personally, as a human, I'm offended by the assumption that I'm a selfish scumbag who doesn't deserve to live just because of my genes. If I'd been born asari, would that make my existence tolerable all of a sudden?
Furthermore, what the hell are you expecting? There isn't some kind of advanced alien civilisation that we should be emulating. As far as our current knowledge goes, we are all there is. What we're failing to measure up to as a species is nothing more than a fantasy. We might be the most peaceful intelligent race in a thousand light years and we'd never know. What it comes down to is a person looking at the world, deciding they don't like it, and somehow conjuring up the arrogance to think that, because they don't like what they read in the news, the lives and experiences of seven billions equals are invalid and not worth the air they breathe. Honestly, more than anything, it reminds me of a child smashing up his Lego town because he didn't like how it turned out.
Let's swap 'humanity' for 'Jews'. It's suddenly a lot less palatable, isn't it? But that's what you're advocating, outright genocide of a species just for being born human. Personally, as a human, I'm offended by the assumption that I'm a selfish scumbag who doesn't deserve to live just because of my genes. If I'd been born asari, would that make my existence tolerable all of a sudden?
Furthermore, what the hell are you expecting? There isn't some kind of advanced alien civilisation that we should be emulating. As far as our current knowledge goes, we are all there is. What we're failing to measure up to as a species is nothing more than a fantasy. We might be the most peaceful intelligent race in a thousand light years and we'd never know. What it comes down to is a person looking at the world, deciding they don't like it, and somehow conjuring up the arrogance to think that, because they don't like what they read in the news, the lives and experiences of seven billions equals are invalid and not worth the air they breathe. Honestly, more than anything, it reminds me of a child smashing up his Lego town because he didn't like how it turned out.
I think the human race should survive, nature will sort itself out. Probably in some sort of terrible disaster that will kill a lot of lives, but not all. It's the circle of life, populations grow and if they get to big they die off so they can grow again. Or they go extinct, and something else fills the role or the structure changes. Being human I'd rather humans not go extinct, but I would like for people to control our population before nature does it for us.
YES, YES, YES, YES, YES IT IS!Oly J said:
Through literally BILLIONS of years of good fate and perserverance, life has taken root on an unassuming rock in the arse-end of the universe.
We don't know if it exists, or has existed, - beyond the microbial level - anywhere else.
And we - Humanity - have had the luck to dominate our fellow Earthlings, and develop intellectual capabilities far surpassing anything they have achieved.
Our very existence is the greatest miracle of chance we have discovered to date.
Earth bore complex life - and that life bore us. WE are the only ones capable of developing the necessary means to spread that complex life beyond our planetary limitations.
Now, tell me, Oly - will you let the greatest 14 billion years of history imaginable be wasted?
Or will you help ensure this life - the life of the Earthlings - transcends our terrestrial coil and is sown far and wide?
I, for one, cannot allow billions of years of fate, and millions of years of pain and suffering be all for naught.
Humanity WILL SURVIVE, long after this planet does.
We will, because we must.
Only we can raise ourselves and our simpler, more animalistic Earthling brethren beyond that condition - that of being bound to our common Earth.
Humanity to survive? A two edged sword, personally my instics kick in and sceam against idea of extinction.
And no less than our sun coming to it's end before we have managed to leave this system or massive nuclear war(every country will use theirs) will lead to humanitys extiction. As to why, we humans are extremely adaptive and resilient. Yes a ecological catastrophe such as polar caps melting(not going to happen any time soon btw) will lead to prolonged time of fighting for survival but having mass extiction isn't likely.
We live, we die, thats the gist, only thing we can affect is how we live and maybe even afect on how we die. Everything else is determined by random, luck or complicated mathematical equations of cause and effect.
And no less than our sun coming to it's end before we have managed to leave this system or massive nuclear war(every country will use theirs) will lead to humanitys extiction. As to why, we humans are extremely adaptive and resilient. Yes a ecological catastrophe such as polar caps melting(not going to happen any time soon btw) will lead to prolonged time of fighting for survival but having mass extiction isn't likely.
We live, we die, thats the gist, only thing we can affect is how we live and maybe even afect on how we die. Everything else is determined by random, luck or complicated mathematical equations of cause and effect.
That isn't how evolution works...Evolution never states that a dominant species must die out eventually. Other species may have died out, but were they the fittest? Clearly not. Evolution is all about Survival of the Fittest, not Survival of the Fittest until they are Forced to die out and some other Species becomes Fittest (SFFSF). I'm of the opinion that no species on Earth will become fitter than us before the Earth becomes unlivable. If some other species grows to match our current intelligence, we will have already grown so much (Unless evolution of the human race simply stops) that it won't matter. So the only question is one of extra-terrestrials, and thus far the evidence for their existence is somewhat lacking.krazykidd said:
On topic: Yes, the human race should survive.
And who's to say religion is wrong? Because you don't personally believe, clearly nobody else should either? It'll be a sad day when religion "dies out." Based on my own beliefs, that'll mean no more folks entering the eternal domain of Heaven. Unless you believe my beliefs are wrong and I should convert, which certainly wouldn't be very "understanding" of you. Just sayin'.chadachada123 said:
I'd say yes, if only because I'm sure we have more to offer.
At least we can't die out before we cause the robot revolution.
At least we can't die out before we cause the robot revolution.
Hurr hurr, Government bad, durr.verdant monkai said:
I'm sorry, but no.
You need tax returns to pay for the State. Government cannot run on goodwill and rainbows.
You need car insurance to better protect you from fate. Chance can be a cruel mistress, if it were not so then there would be no market for insurance.
You need bombs and guns for deterrence (i'd agree we do not need nuclear weaponry, as it's not worth the risk, but it seems irrelevant as we'll likely have something far deadlier within a century or less) to prevent others from harming you. Were it not for weapons, people would just harm you and abuse you with tooth, nail or claw. At least anyone can use a gun. Not everyone can punch out another.
You need governments to provide the services you enjoy, day in, day out. Not just education, not just the legal system, not even just power, but simpler things too, like plumbing, heating, roads and street-lights. Small communities (let alone individuals) could not afford this without assistance. Assistance which can only be provided by the state - which is, of course, why they need your tax returns.
If your problem was merely them knowing everything about you, then that's to ensure they don't continue paying pensions or disability allowances to those who died several years ago.
We need a filled in map so everyone knows what they can and can't claim. Otherwise, conflict breaks out. Hell, even now, it still does. Now imagine if they were in areas which no-one had legitimate claims to? It'd be a hell of a mess.
Point in fact, we had to SURVIVE the environment and its "wonderful animals" to get where we are.
I'm all for humanity surviving beyond planet Earth and, heck, we can even bring the other Earthlings along, but we WILL be keeping all those things you mentioned, and we WILL be keeping our dominance.
Because if it's a choice between spreading human-ruled life, as "imperfect" as that may be, across the cosmos and being stuck in a swamp somewhere on Earth, sitting in a teepee trying to weave my own yoghurt while hoping a bear doesn't waltz in and maul my children for the second time this month, then I know what i'll choose, every single time.
We will solve the problems presented to us through technological superiority - not through culling ourselves and foresaking thousands of years of innovation.
THISLordFisheh said:
that is actually a really really REALLY good point (whish I thourght of it) I mean to some its perfectly acceptible to sit there grumbling about thsi faceless mass called "Humanity"
but when you chaneg the worlding around..all of a sudden its not so good..it illustrates exactally what your talking about
fucking genocide of innocent people
As the first known fully sentient, self-aware species, we absolutely should survive! The loss of humanity would be unfortunate. That's not to say we couldn't be replaced. I'm sure another species could evolve the ability to use higher thought. But they'd have to start all over again.
All the technological advances, scientific discoveries we've made would have to be rediscovered. The development of life would be set back by many thousands of years. The compendium of human knowledge and culture would be erased.
Another conscious, intelligent species might be able to reinvent the wheel, the combustion engine, the computing machine, and the internet, but you'll never be able to reinvent Beethoven. Or Tolstoy. Or Michelangelo. Sure, there will be artists. But they will be different artists, and all the old art will be lost forever. All of the existing human languages would never be spoken aloud again. All of the mythology, the culture, the tales handed down from generation to generation in oral traditions would be irrecoverably gone.
This would be an immeasurable loss, and anyone who doesn't think so is gravely mistaken.
All the technological advances, scientific discoveries we've made would have to be rediscovered. The development of life would be set back by many thousands of years. The compendium of human knowledge and culture would be erased.
Another conscious, intelligent species might be able to reinvent the wheel, the combustion engine, the computing machine, and the internet, but you'll never be able to reinvent Beethoven. Or Tolstoy. Or Michelangelo. Sure, there will be artists. But they will be different artists, and all the old art will be lost forever. All of the existing human languages would never be spoken aloud again. All of the mythology, the culture, the tales handed down from generation to generation in oral traditions would be irrecoverably gone.
This would be an immeasurable loss, and anyone who doesn't think so is gravely mistaken.
"Should" and "deserve" are concepts purely human in origin. I can't see any other species questioning whether its species 'should' or if it 'deserves' to survive by whatever arbitrary morality system they believe in. Morality doesn't even factor into survival; survival is based on pragmatism. It's honestly an uninteresting question based on theory to me; we're here and we're not going anywhere anytime soon. So I guess my answer is that I don't feel like I have the authority or knowledge to judge an entire species' development in an objective way.
So this is basically an emo cry about the world being a better place without us right? Since nobody would be around to appreciate that fact it doesn't matter. Tree falling in the woods etc. And no nature wouldn't give a damn either because no other species is aware enough to appreciate our absence beyond the "oh maybe I can go into this empty city now and see if there's food" level.
BUT WAIT!!
It was said that OP wouldn't like what they saw from an outside perspective so the POV we are taking is an alien being's? In which case my reaction would be "ooooh sentient life. I wonder if I could communicate with it, maybe improve it, got some silly ideas down there but hey who doesn't right? Especially at their primative level. But then what if my intervening makes things worse? Could just watch and see how they turn out since my amazingly advanced technology allows me to survive indefinitely. Could be interesting."
So basically yeah I do think the continuation of the human race is a good thing. Hell, I'm just annoyed that I don't get to see how far we can take things before something does finally wipe us out (unless that happens within my lifetime obviously). So the percentage of people who actually make an improvement to society is relatively tiny. That is precisely the way EVOLUTION the OP is banging on about works. I would happily sift through thousands of idiots to find the handful of people that really do something amazing with their lives.
BUT WAIT!!
It was said that OP wouldn't like what they saw from an outside perspective so the POV we are taking is an alien being's? In which case my reaction would be "ooooh sentient life. I wonder if I could communicate with it, maybe improve it, got some silly ideas down there but hey who doesn't right? Especially at their primative level. But then what if my intervening makes things worse? Could just watch and see how they turn out since my amazingly advanced technology allows me to survive indefinitely. Could be interesting."
So basically yeah I do think the continuation of the human race is a good thing. Hell, I'm just annoyed that I don't get to see how far we can take things before something does finally wipe us out (unless that happens within my lifetime obviously). So the percentage of people who actually make an improvement to society is relatively tiny. That is precisely the way EVOLUTION the OP is banging on about works. I would happily sift through thousands of idiots to find the handful of people that really do something amazing with their lives.
Wait a second. Surely as an environmentally conscious person you should be THRILLED about the invention of the internet. Think of all the paper saved by having information online rather than cutting down massive forests for the paper needed for endless reissues of encylopedias as more and more changes are made to life at a faster and faster rate. Just because some people choose to use it for watching cats chase laser pens doesn't mean it isn't an incredibly useful and ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY tool.verdant monkai said:
From an objective standpoint, no, but from an objective standpoint nothing has any value or meaning, the very idea of value is a construct developed by living hings, without them it wouldn't exist.
What you're bringing up is a human moral concern in a world where such things don't exist.
If you asked me "What would be the best way to improve the world for all it's inhabitants?" I would respond with "Engineer a virus that is fatal to humans and nobody else. The planet would be allowed to run it's course, and be freed from the threat of destruction at the hands of a species that has long since overstepped it's limitations. But neither of us are psychopaths, so we're not going to put that plan into action. We'll keep right on doing what we've been doing all this time, because it's in our nature to love life to much to give it up"
In the end, no sane human being runs entirely on ethics and reason, because life itself has no use for, nor is it imbued with, ethics and reason.
Despite our "advancements", we're still ultimately instinctual creatures, and nothing matters more to us then the continued survival and prosperity of ourselves and our ilk.
Contrary to popular belief, I like people, and I don't want them gone from the earth, so I wouldn't be okay with planet wide extinction.
What you're bringing up is a human moral concern in a world where such things don't exist.
If you asked me "What would be the best way to improve the world for all it's inhabitants?" I would respond with "Engineer a virus that is fatal to humans and nobody else. The planet would be allowed to run it's course, and be freed from the threat of destruction at the hands of a species that has long since overstepped it's limitations. But neither of us are psychopaths, so we're not going to put that plan into action. We'll keep right on doing what we've been doing all this time, because it's in our nature to love life to much to give it up"
In the end, no sane human being runs entirely on ethics and reason, because life itself has no use for, nor is it imbued with, ethics and reason.
Despite our "advancements", we're still ultimately instinctual creatures, and nothing matters more to us then the continued survival and prosperity of ourselves and our ilk.
Contrary to popular belief, I like people, and I don't want them gone from the earth, so I wouldn't be okay with planet wide extinction.