Hello NS, I think we've been here before haven't we?
There are so many points to challenge in your short post...
- Whose is it then? Simple, it belongs to all living things on the planet.
- How do you know that nothing else has a consciousness?
- It is not about being able to perceive that there is a planet or being capable of making such a claim. it was only a few tens of generations ago that man began to realise that there was a planet, so this is not a permanent state of affairs
- I don't understand the last sentence at all. You imply that becauses something can be given 'meaning' then it can be 'claimed' - sorry, I really don't know where to start to demolish this.
On the simplest level, as the supposedly most advanced species do we not have a duty to act responsibly towards the planet? We only have the one and if we mess it up all species suffer. Does not our 'higher intelligence' confer respoonsibilities?
On another level, if we are so wise do we not appreciate our dependency on a healthy and sustainable eco-system? If we destroy too much we risk damaging that upon which we depend for our existence. We are behaving like 'cut and burn' peasants, intent on short-term survival without regard for the longer term. Fortunately for our ancestors there was another patch of ground somewhere to start again - we have but one Planet Earth.
What the human race was able to do when it numbered a few hundred million is altogether different to what it can afford to do when we are pushing through 7 billion and those 7 billion are consuming more per capita than ever before.
I think I have posed this to you before. There must be a point when this cannot be sustained, so what is that point and when do we reach it?
We cannot continue as we are - yet we seem incapable of change until it becomes unavoidable. The latter carries consequences because there will be a lot of collateral damage if we wait until we have to change our ways.
I'll address the numbered points first:
1. Who says it belongs to all things on the planet? You? Give me a concrete reason why I should regard this point in any other way than opinion. Some would argue that the world is god's but I'm not religious I'm a humanist.
2. I don't know that for certain but no other creature is capable of organising a society in the way we do. No other living thing has dominance over others like humans.
3. I'm talking about now and the position that history has led us to.
4. Plants and animals do not understand the world in the way humans do, they are unaware of the very concept of a planet. If the planet has no meaning for them how can it belong to them? The very sense of belonging is a human concept, it is not shared by any other creature on earth. If it is only humans who can understand the world how can it not belong to us? You may believe that the world belongs to all life but it is only through collective culture and consciousness that you can proclaim so.
I answered the population point in the Arctic rebound thread.
Clearly we are not going to agree here.
Your first answer can be applied equally to your position so it really doesn't move us forward, i.e. give me a concrete reason why I should regard your position as anything other than opinion....
To deny that other living things on the planet are entitled to any consideration because we happen to be sentient is a most curious concept. Clearly our superiority has a limit in your mind - we can apply that superiority in many ways but to include responsibility for the overall well-being of the planet is excluded. Sorry, that is arbitrary and without rationality, IMO.
I have always regarded "dominance" as a very negative word: it implies a priority for the person dominating and an absence of interest on the effect on the person dominated. How would you like to be dominated? Not much, I expect.
Your comments all demonstrate a pervading anthropocentric view, which is all very well and nicely consistent but starts from a different place. I really don't understand how anyone can argue against a need to protect the eco-system, if only out of self-interest.
Ooo err, cheeky
Gandalf, I'm not saying that other living things aren't entitled to consideration. I believe they are, not because of some intrinsic natural right, but because I believe it is morally correct. The thing is, we are the only species capable of making moral judgements - no other animal cares if another is made extinct, unless it depends on it for its own survival. And even then 'care' is not the right word.
I think there is a very good moral argument to be made that sees the wilfull destruction or disregard of nature as degrading to those that do it. Again I see this as consistant with an anthropocentric view and this does not rule out a desire to protect the eco-system.
It is out of self interest, but that doesn't rule out the possibility of caring for the eco-system in a way which goes beyond mere pragmatism. This is what makes us unique - the ability to care, to give meaning to existance that goes beyond instinct, and that is why I believe the world, in any meaningful way can only belong to us.