TriGeoLight said:

Well because we only have one planet and if that species becomes extinct it won't be there for later generations to appreciate and if we keep the same mind set eventually it will only be humans. Plus using natural products and not replacing them is killing our oxygen supply thus killing us. Us as humans don't have to feel bad for any thing but we have the ability and the know how to save species and keep our planet thriving. My point being it's just that the big wig corporations like oil company's are more interested in money than protecting our environment. What if there was an oil spill and you were a fish it's still preventable by using bio fuels plus they dont even care that there aiding the extinction of our own race instead of creating a bio fuel in the place of gasoline and diesel. Why is it so hard for America and European countries to do it, Brazil is doing it. The big picture is that if we can't save them how are we going to save our self, and why are we aiding or own demise.

---

Zoboomafoo said:

To say that we should preserve an animal for any other reason than its own existence is selfish.

Why should we go against nature? you've avoided this question.  The AIDS virus doesn't care that its byproducts ruin lives, why should we.  We fought just as hard as every other species to get to the top of the food chain.

---

Zoboomafoo said:

It is not immoral to use or condone the usage of such materials or appliances which ultimately wipe out entire an entire species because it is natural.

---

If your definition of whether or not something is moral is whether or not it is natural, then you've subsequently concluded that everything is moral.

Nothing wrong with negating the conception of morality, of course, but with this construction you've proposed I don't think you're using it in the way they do anyway.

Quote:

Here is my logic:  natural selection implies that if your body cannot adapt to changes in the environment, then you will not live long enough to pass your genetics on.

Why should we feel bad for ruining the lives of other living things when it is their faults that they cannot adapt?

---

Describing the concept of natural selection isn't the same thing as determining responsibility for failure to adapt. There are many circumstances in which an organism will fail to adapt to a change in their environment in which it could not be reasonably stated that it was their fault that they failed to adapt. If the Sun explodes tomorrow are we to blame for our inability to instantly adapt to life without the very source of our existence?

I'm just suggesting that it won't work to use the concept of natural selection to choose sides in the battle of who is to blame for failure of adaptation - the organism that fails to adapt or the factor or organism that influences the environment in such a manner that the failing organism could not adapt to. Natural selection simply describes what happens when an environment changes and the impact the change has on a life-form, adaptation or extinction.

To take your position in another direction, we might as well ask "Why should we feel bad for shooting that guy in the face when it was their fault that they couldn't defend themselves"?. Morality is a subjective construction to begin with and it's our own choice as to the way we recognize our responsibilities for our actions and whether or not we should engage in them knowing their consequences. Ability to recognize and weigh the consequences and ability to empathize with something that is not us certainly go a long way, though.

TriGeoLight said:

AIDS isn't alive it's a virus

---

Merely a matter of semantics, and one that doesn't change the point he is making anyway.

Cactilove said:

Aids is threatening to our species existence, Obviously we ARE all selfish and we are going to put our survival long ahead of a virus's.
Everything you do is selfish, so this has a bit less to do with morality then most seem to place.
Basically I see nothing wrong with keeping a species around for our entertainment, on one hand they get to pass on their genes and their species survives, on the other we get to enjoy watching them.
On another note, it could seriously fuck up the balance of nature for awhile if a key species dies off.

---

Zoboomafoo said:

So many of our materials and appliances create byproducts which damage ecosystems.



It is not immoral to use or condone the usage of such materials or appliances which ultimately wipe out entire an entire species because it is natural.

Here is my logic:  natural selection implies that if your body cannot adapt to changes in the environment, then you will not live long enough to pass your genetics on.

Why should we feel bad for ruining the lives of other living things when it is their faults that they cannot adapt?

Your thoughts please.

---

Cactilove said:

Aids is threatening to our species existence,

---

Cactilove said:

It kills of member of our species who could still have precious genetic material.
What do you mean it doesn't spread to children?

http://www.unicef.org/aids/index.html

---

johnm214 said:

Cactilove said:

It kills of member of our species who could still have precious genetic material.
What do you mean it doesn't spread to children?

http://www.unicef.org/aids/index.html

---

I said it doesn't pass to infants well enough (during birth).

Unless you get it at birth, its unlikely you'll contract HIV untill you start having sex, and by that point you've allready started reproducing.  Even if you get HIV at that point, you'll still be around to raise the kid to a decent age where rearing is much less intensive and the kid can be put to work on a farm while their parents die/are dead.

This process can repeat- humans won't die out from AIDS.  Its not a quick enough killer and doesn't spread well enough.

---

Zoboomafoo said:

Describing the concept of natural selection isn't the same thing as determining responsibility for failure to adapt.

Sure it does.  Animal fails to adapt.  Animal fails to pass on its genetics.  Species goes extinct or evolves.

---

You've only reiterated the concept of natural selection, describing its mechanism once more.
You suggested that we shouldn't feel responsible for a failure of an organism to adapt because it's their responsibility.
Describing the concept of natural selection, which simply states that if a species doesn't adapt to changes in it's environment, it will not survive, doesn't suggest that, if such a failure occurs, the species is to blame, and not the environment.

The problem is asserting that one of them is to blame in the first place, something that doesn't make sense to do.

Quote:

If the Sun explodes tomorrow are we to blame for our inability to instantly adapt to life without the very source of our existence?

Our species' existence is based upon things going horribly wrong.  You've actually described the essence of our being.

---

No, I definitely wouldn't think that our existence is based upon things going horribly wrong. What horribly-gone-wrong things exactly have ever posed any real threat to the existence of our species as a whole? Predators and microbes?

Any given species has an entire list of possible changes in its environment that it simply could not adapt to if they occur too quickly, humans included.
You'll note that you never answered my question. If the Sun did explode tomorrow, would it be a matter of "ahh, shucks, we should have left the solar system faster, this is totally our fault"?
How much of a chance do you think that bears had to adapt to the presence of guns in their environment? None. They had a day, the day they showed up. Two days if you include arrows as being an evolutionary precursor to bullets.

Quote:

"Why should we feel bad for shooting that guy in the face when it was their fault that they couldn't defend themselves"

You just have a bone to pick with nature?

---

Is that what'd you say when you're on trial for shooting him?
Your honor, all I can say in the face of these charges is, what, you just have a bone to pick with nature or something?

Once again, you said:
"Why should we feel bad for ruining the lives of other living things when it is their faults that they cannot adapt?"

And I pointed out that the following statement
"Why should we feel bad for shooting that guy in the face when it was their fault that they couldn't defend themselves?"
is nothing more than another example of the same logic that you put forth with your statement.

What's the difference? Both statements operate on the exact same formula: We engage in a certain action, someone else suffers as a result of that action, we assert that it is their responsibility to avoid the consequences of our action, thus we have no reason to feel bad because it isn't our fault.

Yet your avoidance of actually responding to my analogy is likely evidence that you do not feel that, if we were to go up and shoot another person in the face, that they are to blame for it happening as they didn't defend themselves and that we, the shooters, have no reason to feel bad for murdering them.

Quote:

Byproducts of a species existence naturally inhibit another species development.

---

Quote:

  If we're the only species that has developed morality about our evolution, then is it actually not natural to be moral about it?

---