Humans vs. Nature

[Dog--]

Ok, this is kind of a hard one to explain....

With people complaining about things some scientists do as a "Crime against nature", do you think that for example cross-breeding a human and a cheetah is a crime against nature, or since humans are part of nature, but us being the most intelligent on earth and having the ability to do so, gives us authority to do it?

Another example, some people think that eating beef is fine, but eating, say, a monkey is naturally wrong, what's the difference between us eating a monkey, or a lion in the wild eating a monkey, lions eat cows, but so do humans, and humans eating cows to most people isn't "wrong".

I'm not talking about animal rights here, I'm just saying that since humans are the dominant spieces on the planet, do you think we should be able to do what we want with our "Catch" as we wish? We have the ability to clone a sheep if we caught a sheep, but some people think this is "wrong", yet if a lion catches a sheep, the lion will eat the sheep alive, and possibly eat it's insides while it's still alive, and they don't think thats "wrong", some people who think this way should really think about this before acting.

So whats your opinion?

P.S. I hope I explained this well enough for some people to understand.

 

[Ikerous]

Moral responsibility requires the ability to do otherwise
Those animals are simply running on instinct and doing what's necessary to live
We on the other hand don't have to do those things

Wheather or not any of those particular actions are immoral or not, idk

 

[DeusExMachina]

"Just because some of us can read and write and do a little math, that doesn't mean we deserve to conquer the Universe."-Kurt Vonnegut

 

[Dog--]

I'm not talking about Morality, I'm talking about altering nature, if humans should mess with nature or not, like we genetically alter crops, so should we? Is it going to far with altering nature to geneticly alter organic life?

 

[Ikerous]

I'm not talking about Morality, I'm talking about altering nature, Is it going to far with altering nature to geneticly alter organic life?

Oh. No.

 

[Dog--]

So, Ikerous, you would think it's ok to geneticly alter a wasp to be 27x bigger?
Or to cross-breed humans with wild-life?

That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about.

 

[Ikerous]

So, Ikerous, you would think it's ok to alter a wasp to be 27x bigger?
Or to cross-breed humans with wild-life?

First one is fine, second one is wrong

 

[Adabiviak]

We have a responsibility to ourselves, our neighbors, and our children not to ruin the planet, which in my opinion, includes a healthy biodiversity/environment. If monkey tacos becomes the fashion, just make sure your monkey comes from a sustainable farm, and not from a dwindling wild population. Within the boundaries of these responsibilities I think we have every right to do with what we will with our 'catch'.

Cross breeding a human and a cheetah isn't a crime against nature, it's a crime against science. ...kidding, but that phrase is often meant as a metaphor, where 'nature' is meant to be the 'natural order of things as dictated by (insert your favorite dogma here)'.

Lions don't eat their prey while they are still alive - they'll strangle it first. There are other examples of this to illustrate your point, however (pirahnas, ants, lizards). I think whether or not we are 'nice' to the animals we consume is a conscious choice we need to make. I think people should be as humane to animals as possible, but I'm not going to force that on anyone.

 

[Direwolf]

I would worry less about morality and more about whether its a good idea or not. The reprecussions of some of this stuff would be huge.

"If God had intended man to fly he wouldn't have given man the railroad"

 

[Dog--]

Yes, but man gave himself the railroad, and god gave man intelligence among other creatures. God also gave man free-will.

 

[Adabiviak]

yeah...that's like saying it's 'cheating' when primates use sticks to get termites out of mounds, or when ants work together to peform a task.

In retrospect, this requires an understanding/acceptance of modern biology which goes against the dogma that dictates that man isn't part and parcel of nature.

 

[Raeven0]

When men speak of altering nature, it's necessary to consider themselves a separate entity. "Nature" is what occurs by natural laws without the intervention of conscious, abstract minds.

I take no issue with man's alterations to nature, but I'd like to see a lot of nature preserved for my progeny.

The difference between a lion and a man is that the man can understand what he's doing to his prey.

 

[Dog--]

A lion understands, a lion just doesn't have empathy, therefore not caring about it's prey.

 

[Greatgat]

"Just because some of us can read and write and do a little math, that doesn't mean we deserve to conquer the Universe."-Kurt Vonnegut

Too true. We need something called responsibility to teach us if doing so is even a good idea.

 

[Direwolf]

Yes, but man gave himself the railroad, and god gave man intelligence among other creatures. God also gave man free-will.

The railroad quote is meant to point out the irony of the God argument.

If we can't use certain tools because of God's will, we can't use ANY tools.

 

[ericms]

Nature was perfect except that it allowed a creature like the human being to mess it all up. Most people think our problems these days is nature's fault but that's because they're morons, olohah.

Also, I think carnivores know exactly what they're doing when they kill prey. They just don't give a **** 'cause they know it's how they have to get by and keep nature's system going.

 

[Codcommando]

Wtf is your point? Me and everyone else I know eat monkeys all the time,cheaper than beef and there skeletons make good puppets:monkee:

So, Ikerous,
Or to cross-breed humans with wild-life?

That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about.

you would think it's ok to geneticly alter a wasp to be 27x bigger?

Giant Wasps FTMFW!

Or to cross-breed humans with wild-life?

I want to be part giant wasp.......

You dont have to thank me for my brilliant input

 

[Dog--]

Wow... that post makes everyone who reads it stupider. May god have mercy on your soul. :|

j/k

 

[DeusExMachina]

We need to have a "Serious Discussion" forum. Or at least rename the politics forum to "Serious Discussion" so people can put other serious threads that don't deal with politics in there. Like this thread.

Just a little two cents.

 

[Greatgat]

You know, I would be down with that. Have a forum where you can post any old thing, just watched over by a mod to keep things from going out of control, and a heavily moderated discussion forum for more serious talk. It would probably help to keep the spam out of where we don't want it. To Site Feedback!

 

[ailevation]

Did nature mess up? Is any living thing such as us humans meant to be this intelligent? Because of our intelligence and advancement in technology we're killing the earth at a super fast rate. Natural resources like fossil fuels being an easy example... it takes millions of years to make fossil fuels, we use it all up in like 200-300.

 

[Adabiviak]

It happens to any species that becomes too successful. Again, I hope we develop the responsibility to stop from going too far. There are arguments that we already have, but I don't think so. Yet.

 

[bbson john]

Why we should not destroy the environment? It is because we still need it to support our life. We have to prevent it from damages. However, once we have the ability to take care and survive ourselves, we no longer need a natural environment, or the Earth, as it is becoming meaningless and pointless at that time. We can continue our aim in all means, even without the protection of the enivronment. We have to believe we are humen. And the universe is built for intelligent beings like us, not beings of instinct. The Earth is a cradle. When the time we have outgrown the natural environment, let it be. It is too immature if we always count on the go-cart. We cannot refuse to grow. The Nature, the Earth coddles us when we are still an infant. Nevertheless, we must forsake it on one day, the day we have proved ourselves is a grownup.

 

[ailevation]

Why we should not destroy the environment? It is because we still need it to support our life. We have to prevent it from damages. However, once we have the ability to take care and survive ourselves, we no longer need a natural environment, or the Earth, as it is becoming meaningless and pointless at that time. We can continue our aim in all means, even without the protection of the enivronment. We have to believe we are humen. And the universe is built for intelligent beings like us, not beings of instinct. The Earth is a cradle. When the time we have outgrown the natural environment, let it be. It is too immature if we always count on the go-cart. We cannot refuse to grow. The Nature, the Earth coddles us when we are still an infant. Nevertheless, we must forsake it on one day, the day we have proved ourselves is a grownup.

In conclusion - Ghost in the Shell . If you think about it though it seems like our next evolutionary step would to become cyborgs. Technology would advance to the point where we won't need to drink water, breathe air, or eat.

 

[Jintor]

Man; i thought you were talking about this.

Has nature evolved around us, though? Would our removal from nature screw it over really, really badly?

 

[bbson john]

In conclusion - Ghost in the Shell . If you think about it though it seems like our next evolutionary step would to become cyborgs. Technology would advance to the point where we won't need to drink water, breathe air, or eat.

That's not like that. It will be so normal that we still need to eat and drink and breathe, no phyiscal change. I am saying that we can just produce our own food. For instance, constructing a farm in space, synthesising our own meat. We can still have food and drink like normal time. It is not anything cyber or terrible. It is so normal that it is nearly the same as the ordinary days. Just we don't need to rely on what the Earth gives us. My meaning is we should not limit ourselves within the circumstances.

 

[ericms]

We're already producing our own "food" and it hasn't being going to well, at all. I'm sure as hell not limiting myself by relying just on what the Earth gave me. It is my advantage to life and giving it up would be a terrible idea. What would be so wrong with living the way we were meant to (excluding all problems we've managed to create)?

 

[Remus]

What would be so wrong with living the way we were meant to (excluding all problems we've managed to create)?

Live the way we were meant to? We were meant to live in the wild, eat what fruit we could find, hunt for a source of meat, lead a nomadic life with the ultimate goal of survival and perpetuation of the species. How fun (sarcasm)

 

[jverne]

That's not like that. It will be so normal that we still need to eat and drink and breathe, no phyiscal change. I am saying that we can just produce our own food. For instance, constructing a farm in space, synthesising our own meat. We can still have food and drink like normal time. It is not anything cyber or terrible. It is so normal that it is nearly the same as the ordinary days. Just we don't need to rely on what the Earth gives us. My meaning is we should not limit ourselves within the circumstances.

like "replicators" from star trek. input some matter and it replicates a product.
that wouldn't be too bad! :|

a world war wouldn't be a bad idea, it would at least give us time to think about what we are doing. but personaly i wouldn't want to be involved in a war! :angel:

 

[pvtbones]

Live the way we were meant to? We were meant to live in the wild, eat what fruit we could find, hunt for a source of meat, lead a nomadic life with the ultimate goal of survival and perpetuation of the species. How fun (sarcasm)

I have to disagree with you redneck, history has proven we weren't meant to live that way. personally I can see the validity of both sides of the arguement. We are the most successful species on this planet we have developed means to create and destroy (mostly in the latter department) and whos to tell us we should stop developing? the bird standing on the tree by your window?

 

[Remus]

I have to disagree with you redneck, history has proven we weren't meant to live that way. personally I can see the validity of both sides of the arguement. We are the most successful species on this planet we have developed means to create and destroy (mostly in the latter department) and whos to tell us we should stop developing? the bird standing on the tree by your window?

No you don't understand, I to believe we were meant to develop(otherwise why have superior intelligence?). We are a society dependent on technology and we would decay if we don't develop further. My point is that all the bad things we have done to our planet in the quest for technological advances were inevitable, we are learning and how can we learn without making any mistakes? I still believe we can learn from our mistakes and make a future where technology doesn't threaten to destroy our planet anymore. Call me naive but that is my opinion.

 

[Flyingdebris]

cross breeding people with animals would just produce furries, and thats wrong no matter what.

but yeah, using nature in an argument as to how people should live is not a very good argument. Cause when you think about it, our cave dwelling ancestors did all that living with nature crap. Do you know what it got them? High infant mortality rate and death at 40. Either that or they got eaten by tigers or got sick with some common disease that is easily treatable in this day and age and died.

As for treatment of animals. I'd prefer ethical treatment. There's no point in being needlessly cruel. But if you want an omlette you have to break a few eggs and sacrifices must be made.

Its callous but true.

 

[ericms]

Live the way we were meant to? We were meant to live in the wild, eat what fruit we could find, hunt for a source of meat, lead a nomadic life with the ultimate goal of survival and perpetuation of the species. How fun (sarcasm)

Heh, that's actually exactly what I mean with the exception of hunting. Of course you make it sound more dramatic then it would be as finding a source of food would be pretty easy for human beings. I'm not saying we have to exactly do what monkey's in the wild do all day since for example I would still learn mathematics, science and sort form of language. Hehe, I can just imagine hanging out on a tree branch reading while chowing down on a persimmon, sweeet!

 

[spookymooky]

I dunno, I'm all for the animal-human hybrids. Cyborgs too. I think man's overpopulation is self correcting. I think the "man being a part of nature" thing is an interesting argument, but breaks down to semantics, the difference between "natural" and "synthesized" and "natural" and "supernatural". After all, using a word like nature, which be some people's definitions encampasses everything is pretty pointless.

I don't see anything wrong with using technology and whatnot, but then I don't believe in morality, so my opinions on that matter are probably moot to most of you.

 

[ericms]

My problem with it is that we're creating an imbalance among ourselves and the rest of the world. I mean I really don't know what's more worth it, living the way we were meant to or finding out more about existence with a risk of ****ing more of our world up. Maybe with more planning we can have the latter without the risk.

 

[Dan]

I'd eat a monkey if I could.

And besides humans aren't the most dominant species on earth. There are far more rats in the world than people. And rats have been around for longer, and will probably still be around (although not as plentiful) after humans are gone. Same goes for ants, or microscopic germs.

You might argue that we have the ability to destroy these other species if we were to try really really hard. While that might be true, we are far more capable (and prepared) to destroy other humans. So it's more likely that we will destroy all the humans in the world than all the cockroaches.

Seems like rats are the dominant species. And they have no problems with eating monkeys, or other rats, or garbage so neither should we.

 

[ericms]

That's exactly why alot of domesticated and "wild" animals are sick too. They eat the garbage that we like to eat.

 

[Dan]

Heh, that's actually exactly what I mean with the exception of hunting. Of course you make it sound more dramatic then it would be as finding a source of food would be pretty easy for human beings. I'm not saying we have to exactly do what monkey's in the wild do all day since for example I would still learn mathematics, science and sort form of language. Hehe, I can just imagine hanging out on a tree branch reading while chowing down on a persimmon, sweeet!

I think the idea is bullshit, but if everyone tried to live like we were "meant" to we'd probably all be dead. 6 billion people and no agriculture equals starvation. And besides, the first people that realized that it was a bullshit idea and made themselves some fire and pointy sticks would be able to stick it to all the rest of the starving humans. So pretty quickly we'd be back where we started, with governments and cities and society.

 

[ericms]

We'd be fine. We would still grow food obviously just like we do organically now (plus all the food produced on the Earth already) and if we found that the ratio of our species to our food was too great guess what? We'd either have to stop making so many babies or many would starve which also fixes the problem. This is why the system is so wonderful, no?

 

[Dog--]

a world war wouldn't be a bad idea, it would at least give us time to think about what we are doing. but personaly i wouldn't want to be involved in a war! :angel:

That quote and some replies in this thread about a nomadic life reminded me about this quote:

I don't know with what weapons World War III will be fought with, but World War IIII will be fought with sticks and stones.

I don't know who (I can't remember) said this.... but it's true.