• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best places on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! Community members will not see the bottom screen advertisements.

Is the Environment Worth Saving Anymore?

2,377
Posts
12
Years
  • Seen Aug 25, 2015
I still dont see why that means they need to needlessly suffer and go extinct in large numbers. That is not nessesary at all. The fact is we cause a lot of suffering to animals and I do not think they deserve this. They are part of the environment too, same as plants and other organisms. If you save the environment, you should save everything that goes with it.
 

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen
4,307
Posts
15
Years
I still dont see why that means they need to needlessly suffer and go extinct in large numbers. That is not nessesary at all. The fact is we cause a lot of suffering to animals and I do not think they deserve this. They are part of the environment too, same as plants and other organisms. If you save the environment, you should save everything that goes with it.
If you were addressing me, I never said anything to the contrary.
 

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot
3,498
Posts
14
Years
  • Seen Aug 29, 2018
"Saving the environment" is inherently unnatural human meddling with the environment. Global warming is a myth. The Earth's environment naturally changes on its own.
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
@twocows, there are arguments that go beyond animals merely being emotional attachments of people. There are some intelligent species of animal out there, possibly who feel emotions and are self-aware. It makes the idea of "human" seem more of a spectrum than a disparate identity. There are clearly more intelligent and less intelligent humans so we accept variations in intelligence are not enough to keep someone from being "human" (or in other words, of having rights and protections). I'll just cut to the point I'm trying to make, which is that many of the things we as humans have which make us human and deserving of rights can be found in animals (or to flip the idea around, there are people who are not too dissimilar to animals) so perhaps we should think more about how we define out ethics.

"Saving the environment" is inherently unnatural human meddling with the environment. Global warming is a myth. The Earth's environment naturally changes on its own.
Is it "meddling" if humans try to undo damage that they've caused?

That was a rhetorical question aimed at showing the futility of using the word "meddling" in this context.
 

EJ

everything is purple
1,618
Posts
15
Years
  • Age 31
  • FL
  • Seen Mar 19, 2022
@twocows: to go along with what Scarf is saying, there have been experiments conducted to prove whether or not intelligent animals such as chimpanzees and dolphins are self-aware and the studies seem to say yes, there does seem to be a level of self-awareness and higher cognition in these animals present. I agree that animals are not humans but I also don't agree with just letting them die "cuz it's fine". No, it's not. All you have to do is take a simple Biology class to understand the actual ecology and how human beings threaten it.

@pinkie-dawn: what excellent points? Those were all extremely opinionated with no actual empirical facts to back it up.
 

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness
8,123
Posts
19
Years
"Saving the environment" is inherently unnatural human meddling with the environment. Global warming is a myth. The Earth's environment naturally changes on its own.
If we have the ability to do something collectively as a species, or at least acknowledge it cognitively... I don't see how that's "unnatural"?

The planet's climate does change naturally on its own, yes. Even if climate change is a myth (I don't believe that to be the case), wouldn't we, as humans, want humanity to last on this earth as long as possible?

Like with China, where they have to wear masks to counter the heavy smog, I would think it is in their interests crack down on that. It isn't healthy.
 
Last edited:

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot
3,498
Posts
14
Years
  • Seen Aug 29, 2018
Is it "meddling" if humans try to undo damage that they've caused?

That was a rhetorical question aimed at showing the futility of using the word "meddling" in this context.

I reject your premise that humans have damaged the environment.

If we have the ability to do something collectively as a species, or at least acknowledge it cognitively... I don't see how that's "unnatural"?

The planet's climate does change naturally on its own, yes. Even if climate change is a myth (I don't believe that to be the case), wouldn't we, as humans, want humanity to last on this earth as long as possible?

Like with Chine, where they have to wear masks to counter the heavy smog, I would think it is in their interests crack down on that. It isn't healthy.

If our species is meant to go extinct, then meddling with our fate is also unnatural. The same goes with polar bears. The dinosaurs are now extinct, and global warming caused by humans surely wasn't the cause.
 

EJ

everything is purple
1,618
Posts
15
Years
  • Age 31
  • FL
  • Seen Mar 19, 2022
I reject your premise that humans have damaged the environment.



If our species is meant to go extinct, then meddling with our fate is also unnatural. The same goes with polar bears. The dinosaurs are now extinct, and global warming caused by humans surely wasn't the cause.

Are you actually serious? There is significant scientific evidence that says otherwise and that indeed humans have played a role in global warming. Yes, I'm aware that the Earth naturally goes through changes but these aren't natural.
 

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness
8,123
Posts
19
Years
If our species is meant to go extinct, then meddling with our fate is also unnatural. The same goes with polar bears. The dinosaurs are now extinct, and global warming caused by humans surely wasn't the cause.
If meddling in our fate is unnatural, why is the meddling that works towards our supposed extinction quicker than what fate may have in store not unnatural? If we speed it up or slow it down, its unnatural either way. I'd rather slow it down.
 

Pinkie-Dawn

Vampire Waifu
9,528
Posts
11
Years
Well, I'm glad that's been settled. Time for my daily routine of raping, stealing, and murdering! I guess since "good" and "evil" are socially defined, that makes them meaningless and means my actions are completely justified. Your friend's an idiot.

Funny you should say that, because here is what Person A said about the moral issue:

Spoiler:


And here's what Person B says:

Spoiler:


In short, saving the environment may not be considered good nor evil.
 

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness
8,123
Posts
19
Years
Pinkie-Dawn, morals aren't dependent upon individuals are deities or laws. Morals form through society and cultural environments by relatively like-minded people and differ, to varying degrees, across the world. It isn't black and white, but who says it is? O_o
 

Pinkie-Dawn

Vampire Waifu
9,528
Posts
11
Years
Pinkie-Dawn, morals aren't dependent upon individuals are deities or laws. Morals form through society and cultural environments by relatively like-minded people and differ, to varying degrees, across the world.

He doesn't care, which is why he doesn't care about saving the environment. To him, a moral is still a moral no matter what made them.

It isn't black and white, but who says it is? O_o

As you said, society and cultural environments, which is why Person A doesn't believe in morals, because they're not official, so he could do pretty much whatever he wants in his life, including cutting down trees, killing little critters, and burn everything which pollutes our air.
 

EJ

everything is purple
1,618
Posts
15
Years
  • Age 31
  • FL
  • Seen Mar 19, 2022
@Pinkie: I laughed when they mentioned "nihilist". How old is this "Person A"? Just sounds like an edgy teenager that picked up a philosophy book. There are so many counterarguments to that philosophy.
 

Pinkie-Dawn

Vampire Waifu
9,528
Posts
11
Years
@Pinkie: I laughed when they mentioned "nihilist". How old is this "Person A"? Just sounds like an edgy teenager that picked up a philosophy book. There are so many counterarguments to that philosophy.

Person A has been a nihilist since he was 10, but he says he's a positive nihilist. He never read a philosopher book. He admits that he likes the environment; he's just saying that it can't be saved by us. As for counterarguments, here's what he said:

Spoiler:
 

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness
8,123
Posts
19
Years
As you said, society and cultural environments, which is why Person A doesn't believe in morals, because they're not official, so he could do pretty much whatever he wants in his life, including cutting down trees, killing little critters, and burn everything which pollutes our air.
There's a lot of things that aren't official. Humanity functioned before there great degree of order to it. Things are relative :\

And should he do those things, that doesn't mean morals don't exist... it just means that he lacks them. Or fails to obey them. They exist in the societal collective and some of them function as laws (which I guess would be "official"), he just ignores them. Doesn't make it true.

Regardless, they really says nothing about protecting the environment or not. Just shows your friend thinks weird
 

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen
4,307
Posts
15
Years
@twocows, there are arguments that go beyond animals merely being emotional attachments of people. There are some intelligent species of animal out there, possibly who feel emotions and are self-aware.
Then I'm fine with offering those species more protections, so long as they're also beholden to a basic moral code themselves. For instance, the "dolphin rape pods" (Google it) that have taken humans for that purpose should be hunted down just like a human rapist would be.

It makes the idea of "human" seem more of a spectrum than a disparate identity. There are clearly more intelligent and less intelligent humans so we accept variations in intelligence are not enough to keep someone from being "human" (or in other words, of having rights and protections).
The easiest and most reasonable way to define what is human (or any species, really) would be through genetics. The total variation in human genetics is not really that much, if I remember my science correctly. If one member of a species is "intelligent" (or whatever standard you want to use to define the scope of morality), then all members should be considered "capable of intelligence" and thus informed of and held to some reasonable moral standard.

I'll just cut to the point I'm trying to make, which is that many of the things we as humans have which make us human and deserving of rights can be found in animals (or to flip the idea around, there are people who are not too dissimilar to animals) so perhaps we should think more about how we define out ethics.
If you can prove a species is capable of some degree of moral understanding, then yes, I'm fine with treating them the same as we treat ourselves, provided they're also held to a reasonable moral standard as I said above.

@twocows: to go along with what Scarf is saying, there have been experiments conducted to prove whether or not intelligent animals such as chimpanzees and dolphins are self-aware and the studies seem to say yes, there does seem to be a level of self-awareness and higher cognition in these animals present.
I haven't seen these studies, but I'm not going to belabor that point since I addressed the implications above.

I agree that animals are not humans but I also don't agree with just letting them die "cuz it's fine". No, it's not. All you have to do is take a simple Biology class to understand the actual ecology and how human beings threaten it.
Like I said originally, protecting our own interests is an important endeavor. This means, among other things, not disrupting the environmental status quo more than necessary.


Funny you should say that, because here is what Person A said about the moral issue:

"To answer, morals are basically rules that we create in our head so that we don't go around killing people, Which is our original animalistic behaviour (At least, that's what I think)."
With you so far.

"Morality can be different for each person; It's not the same for everybody;
While some moral philosophers might agree on that point, I am not one of them. While some of the more minor rules might vary by society, the basic principles of right and wrong are universal.

Neither does it fall into the hands of a deity because the deity could say that rape and murder could be considered as 'good'."
Agreed.

"Although, you have to ask, what's stopping me from doing what people consider to be "bad" or "good"?"
Other people, presumably. This seems non sequitur and I'm not sure how it ties into anything else that's been said.

"I don't believe in morality tbh."

"Plus, I'm a nihilist, so, there's really no point."
Good for him/her. Morality is socially defined, that doesn't mean it "doesn't exist." You can choose not to believe in the air you breathe, that doesn't mean it's not there. Right and wrong do exist.

And nihilists are intellectual pariahs for a reason (or rather, there's a reason why most of them are young or stupid or both). The "point" is that happiness matters to most of us, even if you're unable to appreciate it yourself. You might not have any self-interest, but others do, and the axiom "there's no point in harming others" breaks pretty fast when there actually is a point (that being to serve one's own self-interest).

And here's what Person B says:

"Indeed... though the chances of US thinking that are somewhat unlikely; at least, in my case, black and grey morality."

"Ok, take black and white morality for example. The notion that everything is either good or bad. In black and grey, this is the notion that things are bad, and the good aren't necessarily good either; so, for example, true evil acts, with the 'good' guys being *******s to boot."

In short, saving the environment may not be considered good nor evil.
I'm not sure how that really relates to the issue at hand. Of course there are things that are going to have multiple implications, of course you're going to have people doing the right thing for the wrong reasons or the wrong thing for the right reasons or whatever variation on that theme you want. I don't think it's relevant here, though.

I think environmentalism isn't really a matter of morality, at least not from the typical "save the planet" drivel you hear most people spout. Like I said earlier, it's a matter of self-preservation and, potentially, self-perfection. It's "right" to protect the environment because, even if we don't see the consequences today, at some point down the line our descendants will. And that much is black and white: either we take steps to preserve our interests as a species down the line, or we don't. There aren't really any other moral implications to it that I can think of.
 
Last edited:
910
Posts
12
Years
There are a lot of intelligent responses here, so naturally I skipped most of them.
Disregard this post if we've covered what I'm about to say.

On topic:
Is the environment worth saving?
Only until we can transport entire continents and their inhabitants to an exoplanetary body similar to Earth so we can start over and not eff it up this time. As intelligent as we are, we're also incredibly oblivious to wide scale consequences of our mainly industrial progression but our furthering of our knowledge base.

In response to the food-chain topic (Humans > animals)
What happens when we finally shove it and decide "Humans ARE smarter for a reason so we declare ourselves top of the food-chain. Every other animal is inferior and must be slaughtered"?
We eventually run out of meat and end up having to eat genetically engineered beef patties whilst explaining to our grandchildren the now mythical beast, once known as the cow.
Animals are what put us on the top of the food chain. In fact without them, what chain?
This isn't a moral question this is a logic and common sense question.

In regards to morality in general.
Morality is a philosphical stand-point on a matter. It differs in every single existing organism because there is no scientific way of examining morality and wrapping it into a nice little package. Like for example Newton's 3 laws. There will never be 3-laws of morality because there are infinite variables and infinite scenarios to act out these infinite variables with infinite organisms(over time) to manage the infinite variables within infinite scenario's.

When it comes down to it, use your brain. Make a massive pro's and con's list and take into account every variable you can think of. It's why you have that massive chunk of stuff in your skull.
 

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness
8,123
Posts
19
Years
What happens when we finally shove it and decide "Humans ARE smarter for a reason so we declare ourselves top of the food-chain. Every other animal is inferior and must be slaughtered"?
We eventually run out of meat and end up having to eat genetically engineered beef patties whilst explaining to our grandchildren the now mythical beast, once known as the cow.
Animals are what put us on the top of the food chain. In fact without them, what chain?
This isn't a moral question this is a logic and common sense question.
That's not how farmed food supplies work. Someone doesn't chase down a wild cow with a pitchfork. They're farmed for a particular reason and populations are controlled to meet demand. It's more of a product than an animal.
 
8
Posts
11
Years
  • Seen Feb 11, 2013
Me, I keep the environment clean, other people "HERP DERP I iz gonna trash teh world lawl"
 
Back
Top