[ukmicky]

I really don't understand why we should be bothered about "animals".

All they do is run about, mindlessly killing and eating each other. Without any care for the cruelty and pain that this causes.

Humans are different, because we do care.  We have moral standards, which make us much kinder and nicer than all the disgusting lower animals.

I look forward to a future, where all lower animals have been eliminated from Earth's lands, seas and skies.

A fully human Earth, populated entirely by humans.  What's wrong with that?

Whats right with that . I think this is just a post by someone who craves attention

[charles1948]

You make a true point. But Isn't everyone on here seeking attention? Otherwise, why wouldn't they just keep their thoughts to themselves.  Instead of posting them on the Internet.

[Kryptid]

Otherwise, why wouldn't they just keep their thoughts to themselves.

To educate others.

[charles1948]

Otherwise, why wouldn't they just keep their thoughts to themselves.

To educate others.

Right.  Not to expand your own ego. Ok, if you say so!

[Colin2B]

I really don't understand why we should be bothered about "animals".

All they do is run about, mindlessly killing and eating each other. Without any care for the cruelty and pain that this causes.

How many cows have you observed.

[Kryptid]

which make us much kinder and nicer than all the disgusting lower animals.

Yes, it's kind and nice to make animals extinct on purpose...

Right.  Not to expand your own ego. Ok, if you say so!

Feel free to supply evidence that I'm here to stroke my ego.

[Bored chemist]

Otherwise, why wouldn't they just keep their thoughts to themselves.

To educate others.

Right.  Not to expand your own ego. Ok, if you say so!

Do you happen to have a mirror handy?

[Zer0]

...

Thanks & Credits - Sebs . Knowledge Channel/ YouTube.

P.S. - WE are the Only species on this planet that neglect & torture & keep the numbers of all Other Species on this planet regulated & in check...Except For Our Own Numbers!
☮️

[ukmicky]

...

Thanks & Credits - Sebs . Knowledge Channel/ YouTube.

P.S. - WE are the Only species on this planet that neglect & torture & keep the numbers of all Other Species on this planet regulated & in check...Except For Our Own Numbers!
☮️

  We are also the  only species that looks after ,nurtures ,rescues & encourages the population growth of other species. We are not however the only species that enslaves other species or kills and tortures other species.

[Zer0]

I really don't understand why we should be bothered about "animals".

All they do is run about, mindlessly killing and eating each other. Without any care for the cruelty and pain that this causes.

Humans are different, because we do care.  We have moral standards, which make us much kinder and nicer than all the disgusting lower animals.

I look forward to a future, where all lower animals have been eliminated from Earth's lands, seas and skies.

A fully human Earth, populated entirely by humans.  What's wrong with that?

🙄
WooW!
😏
Kindness & Compassion are just Stoopid words without any meaning atall!
😑
Just tryin to " Being Human " is soo hard & tuff nowadays, Right!
☹️
What a Pathetically Barbaric Post.
😔

P.S. - Evil...as has been showcased by History time & again, does Not realize it is EVIL!
🙏

[alancalverd]

All they do is run about, mindlessly killing and eating each other. Without any care for the cruelty and pain that this causes.

Unlike humans, who mostly despise torture and kill other humans because God tells them to do so.
AFAIK homo sapiens is the only species that hates its own kind for no rational reason or purpose.
The universe would be a more moral place without us.

[charles1948]

All they do is run about, mindlessly killing and eating each other. Without any care for the cruelty and pain that this causes.

Unlike humans, who mostly despise torture and kill other humans because God tells them to do so.
AFAIK homo sapiens is the only species that hates its own kind for no rational reason or purpose.
The universe would be a more moral place without us.

How can you say that the Universe would be a more moral place without us?

The Universe has no morals whatsoever.  Look at how it operates.  Stars explode into supernovae, blasting and incinerating how many inhabited planets over hundreds of light-years.

Even on our planet,  there are earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis, which kill innocent people without any moral justification.

The only morals that exist in the Universe have been created by us human beings.

If humanity ceased to exist in one second,  wouldn't all morals cease to exist?  Do the stars care about morality?

[alancalverd]

The only immoral acts in the universe are committed by humans. Everything else that happens is just physics and chemistry.

[Zer0]

Hi Charles!
😊

Just wanted to say " Thanks "!
🙏

I learnt a new lesson about interacting with Folks who have entirely Opposite views than yourself.
👍
The Conclusion is, no matter how distasteful anybody's views might seem, They still are Entitled to have Their Own Personal Viewpoint.

P.S. - Thank You for that lesson of Modesty & Humbleness.
😇
🙏
(U seem like a master philosopher...an Evil master that is)
🤭
Tc!
🍭

[ukmicky]

What is morality . Is it a standard that other beings could achieve or solely a human trait or way of thinking.

 Is it possible for an animal to show a trait or perform an action which  we could consider to be a moral act.

[charles1948]

What is morality . Is it a standard that other beings could achieve or solely a human trait or way of thinking.

 Is it possible for an animal to show a trait or perform an action which  we could consider to be a moral act.

I doubt that animals are capable of performing "moral" acts, in the human sense of the term.

Animals are governed entirely by their instinctive drives.  The most powerful of which are, probably, "desire" and "fear".

You can see these drives operating even in our domestic animals, such as cats and dogs.  These animals might have been expected, through their thousands of years of exposure to contact with humans,  to have taken on board some of our human "morality"..

Yet they haven't at all.  For example, suppose you're having your dinner in the presence of your dog.  Won't the dog snatch the food from your plate - driven by the dog's "desire" for food - unless you have trained the dog not to do that.

By inducing "fear" in the dog, as to the consequences of the food- snatching. The consequences needn't be anything harsh and crude, like physically beating the dog.

 An angry snarl from you may suffice. Or even a scowl on your face (dogs are possibly unique in being able to interpret human facial expressions)

Whichever it is, it will induce "fear" in the dog, sufficient to override its "desire" for the food.  Assuming you've kept it fairly well-fed to date.  So that it's not actually starving.

Of course if the dog is starving,  "desire" for food will override the "fear". Then the dog will not just eat the food on
your plate, but eventually you as well when the plate's empty.

The "morality" of these actions won't enter into the dog's head.  Though you will, through its jaws.

True?




.

[CliffordK]

If you are talking "replacement species", give it some time.

The first mammal appeared with the dinosaurs a little over 200 million years ago.
The hominid/ape divergence was probably 10 to 20 million years ago.
Homo Sapiens (pretty similar to us) evolved 200 to 300 thousand years ago. 
Homo Sapiens likely had favorable weather similar to our own during the Eemian interglacial period, a little over 100 thousand years ago.
Yet, almost all of our "modern" history (animal domestication, crops, stone construction, etc) dates to around 50 thousand years ago.

It is hard to predict what would replace us.  Some of the more intelligent species may be the elephants and whales, yet they lack opposable thumbs, although the elephant trunk is extremely dexterous.  There are, of course, the apes,that are perhaps 20 million years behind us.  Canines? 

During the next few million years, the earth will evolve significantly.  The current surface will be buried.  New volcanoes.  Surface weathering in some places.  Earthquakes and uplifting in other places.  Rain forests will get buried and begin making new carbon deposits.

Have we used up all the "reduced carbon"?  Not exactly.  Around 3 billion years ago, our planet had a mostly Nitrogen/CO₂ atmosphere.  Then life turned the CO₂ into oxygen and various hydrocarbons, leaving us with almost no CO₂ in the atmosphere, to the point that it was almost too low for plant life during the glacial periods, and thus dangerous for all life on the planet.

There remains the amount of reduced carbon on our planet, somewhere, equivalent to about 20% atmospheric oxygen.  And with all of our burning fossil fuels, we've changed that by about 0.01%.  I.E.  A lot of reduced carbon left somewhere.

Keep in mind that humanity also used sticks and stones for hundreds of thousands of years before finally discovering metals and smelting. 

Aluminum is supposed to be relatively common.  I know where I can find some green rock, probably fairly high in copper and other minerals.  Silicates, of course, are critical for modern life, and extremely common. 

A future society might learn to mine our current society, whether it is hunting for oxidized iron compounds to more long lived copper, brass, bronze,and various rare earth metals.  Fort Knox could be literally a gold mine once it is found. 

Lime is pretty good at preserving reduced iron which could be a big bonus for a developing society.

I.E.  If humans were to disappear (and most animals were to survive, what we leave behind will likely be a huge benefit to a future society. 

Of course, it might take quite a cataclysm to wipe out humanity, which could erase the world back to the mouse evolutionary stage

[Bored chemist]

I doubt that animals are capable of performing "moral" acts, in the human sense of the term.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150625112010.htm

[charles1948]

A future society might learn to mine our current society, whether it is hunting for oxidized iron compounds to more long lived copper, brass, bronze,and various rare earth metals.  Fort Knox could be literally a gold mine once it is found. 
.......what we leave behind will likely be a huge benefit to a future society. 

Thanks Clifford for your very valuable and insightful post.  Your post contains many interesting observations.
 From these, I've selected to quote in my reply,  just the one about the future use of metals.

This is because it reminds me of the 1940's  SF novel  "Earth Abides".  In that novel, modern civilisation gets wiped out by a virulent and deadly disease,  which kills off nearly everyone.  Leaving only a small number of survivors.

The survivors are attempting to rebuild society.  And they're having to do so from a primitive basis.. Which has reduced the survivors to using "bows and arrows".

The arrows need hard, sharp tips in order to penetrate.  Where can the penetrative power be obtained?

The survivors obtain it from the millions and millions of metal coins left lying around in the debris of the old, now extinct civilisation.  The old coins - the nickels, dimes and quarters, get "mined". Then hammered and beaten into new arrow-heads.

It's a long time since I read "Earth Abides", and my memory of it has faded .  However I do seem to remember that one of the characters in the book - was it "Ish", raises objections to this method of "mining".  On the grounds that it's not the true creation of new artefacts from raw materials, but more akin to mere "scavenging".

I think Ish gets confuted, but can't remember how.

I

[Halc]

The survivors obtain it from the millions and millions of metal coins left lying around in the debris of the old, now extinct civilisation.  The old coins - the nickels, dimes and quarters, get "mined". Then hammered and beaten into new arrow-heads.

It's a long time since I read "Earth Abides", and my memory of it has faded .  However I do seem to remember that one of the characters in the book - was it "Ish", raises objections to this method of "mining".  On the grounds that it's not the true creation of new artefacts from raw materials, but more akin to mere "scavenging".

Scavenging will definitely be prevalent at first, but it is limited. When this resource runs out, has enough 'civilization' been recovered to accomplish actual mining of new raw materials?  Thing is, our civilization has picked all the easy-to-get-to resources.  They'll not find fossil fuels to run their forges, so any new civilization that arises must be built on a foundation of more renewable materials.  Energy may well be attainable, but metals?  Where are they going to find that except by scavenging?

The USA was able to prevail in several wars (1812 war comes to mind) because it had all these resources (wood in particular) that had been stripped out by the more mature civilization of Europe at the time.  That advantage has now faltered since we've mined this continent down to the state of all the other ones now.