What is "good to Earth"? The Earth's ecosystem is merely a system. A system cannot be an active subject but a passive object, and therefore there is no condition for it to be in that is objectively better than any of the other infinite number of conditions it could possibly be in. There is no inherent evil or good to anything humans, or anything else, does to the ecosystem. The ecosystem is a neutral, balanced system and a system doesn't have the capacity to give a shit what members of it do.
Let me use an example of why the ecosystem is balanced and neutral. You kill a gazelle and that gazelle's condition will decrease. But the condition of the vultures eating the carcass will increase, as will the condition of all the living things the gazelle was damaging, as will the condition of all the living things competing with the gazelle for resources. A lot of animals are made happier because of what you did. So who's to say whether you've added a net plus or a net minus to the condition of the whole ecosystem by the action of killing the gazelle? For every winner there are a losers, for every loser there are a winners. See? The balance is level.
The ecosystem we have now is merely the current iteration of the Earth's ecosystem. The ecosystem changed almost 65 million years ago, when most of the dinosaur species became extinct. It changed again when the last Ice Age began to end. We would not have the ecosystem we do now if these past changes had not happened. So was it such a bad thing that millions upon million of species before us became extinct? It allowed millions upon millions of new species to be brought into existence in the many years since. That's neutral balance in my book. If all the mammals die now, new and equally valuable species will emerge in the future that would not have done otherwise. That's neutral balance too. So why is it such a bad thing if a lot of the current ecosystem becomes extinct? If you stick with the opinion that it is a bad thing, you have to accept that you have an irrational bias toward our current ecosystem over the future, and equally valuable, ecosystems yet to be born.
So sick of people applying human constructs of morality to a universe that doesn't adhere to them.
It's not such a hard thing to understand. We evolved a shared concept of right and wrong for our mutual benefit, for our species' survival. We have a vested interest in the Earth's current ecosystem remaining stable, since it's the same one that enabled us to climb to the top of the food chain and thrive. That's the basis for our desire not to destroy or create things that would threaten the balance.
However, the planet doesn't care. The planet is not a being with survival instinct. There is no 'good' or 'bad' when it comes to Earth.
If we blew the shit out of everything, if we somehow set the world spinning in a tangent towards the sun, it wouldn't be inherently, universally wrong.
If we created a self-sufficient, sustainable and stable society in perfect harmony with nature, treating every living thing on the planet with the utmost care, it also wouldn't be inherently, universally right.
Earth doesn't give a fuck.
It spins until it doesn't, we live until we don't, the ground we walk upon couldn't care less.
People gotta accept the socially constructed nature of their own morals, yo.
I've been trying to put all that comment into words for some time, because it's the sort of attitude which frustrates me when I see it in other people but it's quite hard to take the ideas against that attitude and put them into language which makes sense and isn't insensitive or alienating. So I sat down for at least an hour and honed that comment to distract me from a mildly painful girl-who-I-was-dating-for-a-few-weeks-and-really-quite-liked-has-a-new-boyfriend-who-isn't-me sort of problem. And it took a lot of honing; the first time I wrote it, the example was twice as long and about dying frogs and lizards and God only knows what else was going on.
I suppose I've avoided answering the OP's question with "no", because even though "no" is the logical conclusion of what I'm saying it's the same answer that's representative of the attitude neither of us like.
Do you think humans have contributed anything good to Earth?
← View full post
What is "good to Earth"? The Earth's ecosystem is merely a system. A system cannot be an active subject but a passive object, and therefore there is no condition for it to be in that is objectively better than any of the other infinite number of conditions it could possibly be in. There is no inherent evil or good to anything humans, or anything else, does to the ecosystem. The ecosystem is a neutral, balanced system and a system doesn't have the capacity to give a shit what members of it do.
Let me use an example of why the ecosystem is balanced and neutral. You kill a gazelle and that gazelle's condition will decrease. But the condition of the vultures eating the carcass will increase, as will the condition of all the living things the gazelle was damaging, as will the condition of all the living things competing with the gazelle for resources. A lot of animals are made happier because of what you did. So who's to say whether you've added a net plus or a net minus to the condition of the whole ecosystem by the action of killing the gazelle? For every winner there are a losers, for every loser there are a winners. See? The balance is level.
The ecosystem we have now is merely the current iteration of the Earth's ecosystem. The ecosystem changed almost 65 million years ago, when most of the dinosaur species became extinct. It changed again when the last Ice Age began to end. We would not have the ecosystem we do now if these past changes had not happened. So was it such a bad thing that millions upon million of species before us became extinct? It allowed millions upon millions of new species to be brought into existence in the many years since. That's neutral balance in my book. If all the mammals die now, new and equally valuable species will emerge in the future that would not have done otherwise. That's neutral balance too. So why is it such a bad thing if a lot of the current ecosystem becomes extinct? If you stick with the opinion that it is a bad thing, you have to accept that you have an irrational bias toward our current ecosystem over the future, and equally valuable, ecosystems yet to be born.
--
disthing
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
sega31098
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Good answer, dom.
So sick of people applying human constructs of morality to a universe that doesn't adhere to them.
It's not such a hard thing to understand. We evolved a shared concept of right and wrong for our mutual benefit, for our species' survival. We have a vested interest in the Earth's current ecosystem remaining stable, since it's the same one that enabled us to climb to the top of the food chain and thrive. That's the basis for our desire not to destroy or create things that would threaten the balance.
However, the planet doesn't care. The planet is not a being with survival instinct. There is no 'good' or 'bad' when it comes to Earth.
If we blew the shit out of everything, if we somehow set the world spinning in a tangent towards the sun, it wouldn't be inherently, universally wrong.
If we created a self-sufficient, sustainable and stable society in perfect harmony with nature, treating every living thing on the planet with the utmost care, it also wouldn't be inherently, universally right.
Earth doesn't give a fuck.
It spins until it doesn't, we live until we don't, the ground we walk upon couldn't care less.
--
Holzman_67
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
dom180
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
hey good to see you back, man.
--
disthing
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Thanks Holzman! although not sure how long I'll stick around.
I'm like a cat burglary or horny teenager - in and out, quick as possible.
People gotta accept the socially constructed nature of their own morals, yo.
I've been trying to put all that comment into words for some time, because it's the sort of attitude which frustrates me when I see it in other people but it's quite hard to take the ideas against that attitude and put them into language which makes sense and isn't insensitive or alienating. So I sat down for at least an hour and honed that comment to distract me from a mildly painful girl-who-I-was-dating-for-a-few-weeks-and-really-quite-liked-has-a-new-boyfriend-who-isn't-me sort of problem. And it took a lot of honing; the first time I wrote it, the example was twice as long and about dying frogs and lizards and God only knows what else was going on.
I suppose I've avoided answering the OP's question with "no", because even though "no" is the logical conclusion of what I'm saying it's the same answer that's representative of the attitude neither of us like.
But yeah, thank you. And welcome back to IIN :)
This.