"life is sacred"

[theskald]

I posted before the questions were added and my responses on page one probably answer those questions, but I'll run through them anyway.

I think you might be confusing this thread with the one that came later. The questions were always there.

Sacred means of greatest value. The most important resource. Whether humans exist or not, this remains true.

This I can't see. Value is something determined relatively and subjectively. For something to have value it must be valued by someone. This may just be semantics, in which case I'd appreciate clarification.

It means living. I don't like to kill plants, but I need to eat.

All life is sacred.

Even when life must be taken (whether to liberate people or eat), it is still sacred.

And this includes bacteria, algae, and mold? I think I do need a better definition of "sacred" from you, as this doesn't make sense to me.

No degrees. All species are all equal from an ecosystem perspective.

The "ecosystem" is an abstract, collective word, and by its very nature has no "perspective." This also means that it values no species over another, but this doesn't support the idea of sanctity.

(See: Deep Ecology) Though I do not agree with all of that philosophy, I agree with the part quoted below and some other things (replacement fertility, etc).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology

"Deep ecology describes itself as "deep" because it persists in asking deeper questions concerning "why" and "how" and thus is concerned with the fundamental philosophical questions about the impacts of human life as one part of the ecosphere"

I'm interested to know: the "why" and "how" of what?

 

[choxorn]

But the more like God it is (in terms of intelligence, or cognitive ability) the more consequential it is to kill it.

Prove to me that your God is intellegent.

 

[Ecofarm]

This I can't see. Value is something determined relatively and subjectively. For something to have value it must be valued by someone. This may just be semantics, in which case I'd appreciate clarification.

The interdependence of life. The web of life. We are all dependant on each other. I believe that all life has inherent value, but none has intrinsic value. (I got those reversed for a minute). Here, I diverge from Deep Ecology.

And this includes bacteria, algae, and mold? I think I do need a better definition of "sacred" from you, as this doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, it does. It makes perfect sense. They are just as valuable to the ecosystem as we are.

The "ecosystem" is an abstract, collective word, and by its very nature has no "perspective."

See: Ecocentrism.

Spoiler :

Ecocentrism is a philosophy that recognizes that the ecosphere, rather than any individual organism, is the source and support of all life and as such advises a holistic and eco-centric approach to government, industry, and individual.

Although in theory every educated person knows that the world is more than people, resources, and a vague environment to be protected, the very fact of seeing it as one spherical air-water-land system gives it a new and different reality. From a vantage point outside our home, a revealing perspective has shown us the planet for what it really is; a ball of living star dust, a four-and-one-billion year old miracle.[1].

The root of "eco" is "home," and the ecosphere is the home-sphere. Ecocentrism puts the ecosphere first. It recognizes the importance of the environment and the web of life and realizes that no single organism is more important than another. Ecocentrism does not even distinguish between animate life and inanimate matter or process. The entire "sphere" of life is important.

The writings of Aldo Leopold and his idea of the land ethic are a key element to this philosophy.

Thus, my username.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecocentrism

See also
Earth liberation
Deep ecology
Gaia hypothesis
Ecocentric embodied energy analysis
Ecological humanities
Biocentrism
Ecofeminism

This also means that it values no species over another, but this doesn't support the idea of sanctity.

Of course it does. ALL life is sacred. One cannot leave the "all" part out and remain consistant in my book.

"Deep ecology describes itself as "deep" because it persists in asking deeper questions concerning "why" and "how" and thus is concerned with the fundamental philosophical questions about the impacts of human life as one part of the ecosphere"

I'm interested to know: the "why" and "how" of what?

Existence.

I know, I know, this is all rather shocking. Most people hear my foreign policy and assume none of this. That's why I have my name and title. My foreign policy stems from those people being my equal and having the right to live free as much as I. I would give my life to free them, I enlisted during wartime.

 

[theskald]

The interdependence of life. The web of life. We are all dependant on each other. I believe that all life has inherent value, but none has intrinsic value. (I got those reversed for a minute). Here, I diverge from Deep Ecology.

Yes, it does. It makes perfect sense. They are just as valuable to the ecosystem as we are.

Species go extinct all the time and the ecosystem keeps on going regardless. Perhaps the ecosystem wouldn't be quite what we're used to, but that's not the ecosystem's problem.

See: Ecocentrism.

I don't see how linking to a description of a philosophy amounts to a defense of that philosophy, but maybe that wasn't your intention.

Of course it does. ALL life is sacred. One cannot leave the "all" part out and remain consistant in my book.

No, it doesn't, because not all life is essential for the entire ecosystem to remain stable, the "ecosystem" would be fine without humans. A few species—parasites, diseases, livestock and the like—wouldn't fare so well, but the ecosystem as a whole would still be there. The ecosystem by definition is a system comprised of living things, but that does not mean every individual life is important. Quite the opposite, actually, a lot of death can be a good thing, from an evolutionary standpoint, anyway.

Existence.

That's too spiritual for me to respond to in naturalistic sense, as it presumes existence has a purpose ("why"). If you truly believe that then I guess I have nothing more to say besides "what makes you think that?"

 

[Ecofarm]

That's too spiritual for me to respond to in naturalistic sense, as it presumes existence has a purpose ("why"). If you truly believe that then I guess I have nothing more to say besides "what makes you think that?"

I have the power to do good. I have freewill. I create my own "why"; it is not dictated from above. Further, I create my own "how".

I don't see how linking to a description of a philosophy amounts to a defense of that philosophy, but maybe that wasn't your intention.

You asked me to clarify my statement regarding an ecology perspective. You didn't mention that I needed to defend it.

I'm not interested in discussing the other stuff you mentioned, sorry. Too much work for me. Suffice it to say: yes, things go extinct... when they lose inherent value. Until they go extinct, they have it. Humans are well on their way.

 

[theskald]

I have the power to do good. I have freewill. I create my own "why"; it is not dictated from above. Further, I create my own "how".

To me that sounds less like an inherent quality and more like your relative viewpoint.

You asked me to clarify my statement regarding an ecology perspective. I tried.

I'm not interested in arguing the other stuff with you, sorry.

That's fine, no one's forcing you.

 

[Ecofarm]

To me that sounds less like an inherent quality and more like your relative viewpoint.

Deep ecology does not hand you the 'how' and 'why', it gives you the perspective to figure that out for yourself. No one 'how' or 'why' is correct.

That's fine, no one's forcing you.

How refreshing. Usually I get "OMG YOUZ CUTTED AND RUNNED!!11!!" Thanks for not being a jerk.

 

[theskald]

Hey, it's an internet forum, you can do whatever you want.

 

[Birdjaguar]

All life is sacred.

Why is non life not also sacred? Without it, there would be no life.

 

[Ecofarm]

Why is non life not also sacred? Without it, there would be no life.

It is, see: Deep Ecology.

But I didn't want to overload you guys.

A mountain's influence on people can be just as important as a teacher's. In fact, deep ecology holds that a significant natural experience is needed to see the light (but I don't agree with that part... just that an inanimate object's influence can be great).

Look back at my posts regarding my philosophy (other threads) and you will almost always see a note regarding inanimates.

Poisoning the water is the same as poisoning our bodies.

 

[choxorn]

I'm not interested in discussing the other stuff you mentioned, sorry. Too much work for me. Suffice it to say: yes, things go extinct... when they lose inherent value. Until they go extinct, they have it. Humans are well on their way.

They go extinct not when they lose their inherent value, but when:

A. They are hunted to death by another animal. Usually a human.

B. They are outcompeted for resources by another animal and starve to death.

C. The climate changes, and the new climate is one they can't live in.

Or any combination of those three. Inherent value has nothing to do with it. Did Mammoths lose their inherent value when the ice caps retreated 10,000 years ago, or did 90% of all life forms lose theirs at the Permian-Triassic Transition? No, the earth just decided "You know what, I think I'll screw these guys over!"

 

[Ecofarm]

They go extinct not when they lose their inherent value, but when:

A. They are hunted to death by another animal. Usually a human.

B. They are outcompeted for resources by another animal and starve to death.

C. The climate changes, and the new climate is one they can't live in.

Or any combination of those three. Inherent value has nothing to do with it. No, the earth just decided "You know what, I think I'll screw these guys over!"

A. This is an exceptional case. In a natural setting, a predator consuming all of its prey population is generally a very bad thing and quite rare. In this case, the species had too much inherent value to another species. There was an imbalance and likely both species have lost inherent value to the system, one will soon follow the other.

B. If they had inherent value, this would not occur. They fail to serve the ecosystem and so they get nothing in return.

C. If they cannot live in the environment, they are of no inherent value to it.

Did Mammoths lose their inherent value when the ice caps retreated 10,000 years ago, or did 90% of all life forms lose theirs at the Permian-Triassic Transition?

Yes. They had no inherent value to the newly emerging system or the transitionary period. Those who can manage to remain a part of the food chain and provide service to the environment survive. Other's do not. If they cannot live in a habitat, then they cannot very well provide services for that habitat, so they have no inherent value. Then, buh bye, of course.

Basically: Stop providing a service in the ecosystem and it's over. You can see why I have concerns for humans.

Everything that lives provides a service... that's why it is sacred. If it does not provide a service (or cannot due to habitat change) then it is not gonna live long.

In evolution, there are ultimately three choices:

1. Move to a new habitat where you have inherent value.
2. Adapt to the current habitat to provide services in, at least, a niche capacity.
3. Go extinct.

One must make a choice eventually, as climate and other factors change habitats. Humans cannot choose 1. I'd rather if we did not choose 3. That leaves 2. and we've got alot of work to do to get on that path.

 

[choxorn]

The Permian-Triassic was an unbelievable amount of supervolcanic eruptions, poisoning the air and oceans and killing everything. It still served its purpose to the environment, and the environment still screwed it over.

 

[Ecofarm]

The Permian-Triassic was an unbelievable amount of supervolcanic eruptions, poisoning the air and oceans and killing everything. It still served its purpose to the environment, and the environment still screwed it over.

Things that managed to serve a purpose during that period still live. Things that could not (or had no inherent value) did not.

A habitat is not a static entity. It changes. And if a species does not change with it, it may lose its inherent value and be gone tomorrow.

The points that you bring up are why I do not believe in intrinsic value. Your argument effectively dismantles the notion of intrinsic value, but inherent value in a changing system survives the assault. I know because I've had the same arguments with myself, over textbooks and philosophical works and with professors, many times.