Originally posted by KazetNagorraThey don’t just base it on “emotional” arguments; they base it on religious arguments.
I don't think most opponents of the Big Bang theory are interested in rational arguments, since their objections are usually based on emotional arguments.
You generally have to have some pretty strong religious reasons to object to the well-established scientific facts.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt's metaphorical.
By what mechanism does biodiversity make the planet "healthy"? What does that word even mean in the context of planets?
Like one's health may be described as the ability to resist and recover from disease or injury so the planet's "health" is its species' ability to recover from environmental catastrophe, disease, predation, etc.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe are alive and we are supported by life so to destabilise the planet by destroying habitats and thus causing species to become extinct is short-sighted: potential medicines, food crops and biological controls could be lost forever. Countless industries, recreation activities, aesthetic appreciation and tourism would be affected. There are also future generations to consider.
Biodiversity probably increases the likelihood that life will survive any future catastrophic disasters. But why should we care?
These are just some reasons that those adopting an instrumental view of the environment might support. Others, such as myself, hold that nature and species are intrinsically valuable and take that as a starting point.
Originally posted by Green PaladinBut all of those reasons cannot be use when you take the origional statement by sonhouse:
We are alive and we are supported by life so to destabilise the planet by destroying habitats and thus causing species to become extinct is short-sighted: potential medicines, food crops and biological controls could be lost forever. Countless industries, recreation activities, aesthetic appreciation and tourism would be affected. There are also future ...[text shortened]... self, hold that nature and species are intrinsically valuable and take that as a starting point.
The planet would be much happier without humans on it anyway.
I am all for environmentalism except were it is taken to the extremes ie at the expense of humans.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy is that extreme? How do you measure the "expense" to humans? Surely there's a very real expense being paid by the hundreds of species (some estimates put this figure in the tens of thousands) that are snuffed out per year through human-caused habitat destruction, pollution and the introduction of invader species.
But all of those reasons cannot be use when you take the origional statement by sonhouse:
[b]The planet would be much happier without humans on it anyway.
I am all for environmentalism except were it is taken to the extremes ie at the expense of humans.[/b]
I follow Peter Singer in believing that species membership is an arbitrary yardstick of moral worth. Distinction based on this criterion (speciesism) being akin to racism and sexism. It's time to overhaul our anthropocentric ethical framework and include sentient animals.
"The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognised that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog, is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"
Jeremy Bentham
Originally posted by Green PaladinWell some of them taste very good.
Why is that extreme? How do you measure the "expense" to humans? Surely there's a very real expense being paid by the hundreds of species (some estimates put this figure in the tens of thousands) that are snuffed out per year through human-caused habitat destruction, pollution and the introduction of invader species.
I follow Peter Singer in believ ...[text shortened]... y reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"
Jeremy Bentham
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySo animals should pay with their lives on the predilection of your gut?
Well some of them taste very good.
Kelly
As a fundamentalist Christian I would have expected you to yearn for the age before the Fall when humans lived in god's grace, subsisting entirely on a vegetarian diet. Or would you, like most Christians, rather sit around watching the planet hurtle towards oblivion while you wait for the Rapture?
2 edits
Originally posted by Green Paladin“...So animals should pay with their lives on the predilection of your gut? ...”
So animals should pay with their lives on the predilection of your gut?
As a fundamentalist Christian I would have expected you to yearn for the age before the Fall when humans lived in god's grace, subsisting entirely on a vegetarian diet. Or would you, like most Christians, rather sit around watching the planet hurtle towards oblivion while you wait for the Rapture?
I myself am a vegetarian but I still think this is a rather harsh comment.
There are several very good reasons to be vegetarian but the main one for me it that it leaves a much lower carbon footprint. If we all become at least almost vegetarian ( but allowing a few exceptions where the meat can come from low-carbon emission / low environmental impact sources such as sustainable hunting of wild animals etc ) then we would be putting less unreasonable pressure on our limited resources. But I don't think this is at all a 'moral' issue but rather merely an issue of sustainable and sensible management of resources just as I don't think shooting your own foot is 'immoral' but rather merely foolish.