Are ethics real or are there just winners and losers?

[TimeTraveler]

We already have such people! They're called lawyers and politicians, teachers and preachers, city councilmen and mayors, voters and candidates, among many others.

TT, please try to understand ......ethics is the invention, INVENTION, of society ....it's as simple as that. It's not science, it's based somewhat loosely on emotions, as well as our basic upbringing and social learning.

You're trying to make ethics into a universally accepted science, and that just ain't gonna' work. There are just too many different people with too many different opinions about each and every thing in their lives! One code is not, repeat, NOT, going to work for each and every society.

But there is a code, a script, a science to survival of a species, and this is observable. We all know that our current society is unsustainable, it's not even debated anymore, so why should we not have sustainable science? It's a start isnt it?

Hell, TT, just get five or seven of your friends together and see how difficult it is to agree upon something as simple as what to order on the pizza! That alone should give you some idea about how difficult it is to get people to agree ....much less on something so important to society as ....ethics!

Maybe you are right, by my friends do agree on certain things. We agree to look out for one another, and to build a future for each other, take care of each others kids, and protect each other. I'm not saying ethics in the "legal" sense of the word, I don't think politicians, lawyers and chiefs by definition are ethical. What I'm saying is that ethics are the science of species survival, and unless humans learn to survive, we will be going extinct due to our inability to agree to and follow a global code of ethics. A really basic code of ethics is always required or any tribe, and humans cannot survive without society, as an individual would quickly die without the support of friends and family. Ethics therefore are essential.

That's because they're smart enough to know that it would be nothing but a long, emotional, maybe even violent, and neverending argument! All to teach nothing about ethics.

If we don't change, we will go extinct, how is that better?
Baron Max

You don't seem to understand what is at stake here. If humans do not move towards sustainable/ethical science, we will go extinct. The dinosaurs went extinct, now it's our turn, unless we decide to have sustainability, and sustainability requires ethics. Ethics are based in science and math, emotion clouds ethics, but the answers are defineable as there is a clear scientific right and wrong regardless of how individuals feel. Science proves that harming yourself, others, and the environment, is irrational, and because it is irrational it is considered wrong. What I'm saying is, it's not in humanities best interest, to live in this way, and it's only us hurting ourselves at this point, it's only us preying on and destroying ourselves, and until we figure out that we are the cause of all of our problems, we aren't going to make any progress.

Science is not human, and that is why our science is killing us. Sustainable science, or the ethics of sustainability basically says that which is most ethical is that which increases quality of life, extends the human lifespan, species lifespan, and brings the most progress. Basically, do whats best for yourself while also doing whats best for the species, is the basis of all human/humanist ethics.

Yeah you can come to the opposite conclusion and do whats worst for yourself, worst for your species, and make your future more miserable than your present, but honestly can anyone say this is rational?

[Oniw17]

But there is a code, a script, a science to survival of a species, and this is observable. We all know that our current society is unsustainable, it's not even debated anymore, so why should we not have sustainable science? It's a start isnt it?

But the survival and improvemnet of the species are only ethical depending on what your point of veiw is.

[Baron Max]

Basically, do whats best for yourself while also doing whats best for the species, is the basis of all human/humanist ethics.

Sure, maybe .....but there's a different idea about what's best for each person as well as what's best for the human race. In fact, my guess is that there's one different idea for each and every human on Earth!

So, how are you going to get all those people to agree? Espeically when most of the time, we can't even agree on what to have on our pizzas!!!

And also, you're making it out like science is some magic something ...it's not! Once your "science" has arrived a "the" standard of ethics, do you think that Osama would agree to it? ...just because it's "science"?

Baron Max

[TimeTraveler]

But the survival and improvemnet of the species are only ethical depending on what your point of veiw is.

No, it's fact. If you don't care, eventually the species ceases to exist. It's a fact of nature that a species which hates itself eventually gets it's wish.

So ultimately it does not matter what your viewpoint is, there really is only one right answer, and that answer is survival of the species, else you go extinct. It's the first law of nature.

[Oniw17]

No, it's fact. If you don't care, eventually the species ceases to exist. It's a fact of nature that a species which hates itself eventually gets it's wish.

So ultimately it does not matter what your viewpoint is, there really is only one right answer, and that answer is survival of the species, else you go extinct. It's the first law of nature.

It doesn't matter what's best for the species, people will always have different systems of ethics that they follow. How many people do you know who base morality on what's best for the survival and evolution of the species? I'm not saying I disagree with your way of thinking, just that many do. What species has hated itself and caused itself to go extinct? If you have no answer, it's not a fact, merely an assumption.

[Ogmios]

Baron Max,

Well, ye're speaking from only your own ideals ...

Well, I considered that goes without saying. Of course I speak from my point of view and using my models. That's the reason I'm talking to you..
And yes, I do only know myself. But I see no reason why anyone would be diffrent. Assides from having diffrent points of views.

Many people will lie and steal without giving it much thought

Many people will also vote [insert politician here], but does that mean we should move on to a despotic system of government?

That is to say, a lot of people are also stupid.

So how does one stop them without a system of ethics and the power to control it?

With a handgun and a word of wisdom. Someone comes at me with killing intent, I put him down. Someone wishes to co-exist, I help them. It would breed violence, sure.

It's not something that we walk around displaying at every moment. But humans are very emotional, and when someone does something to us, we get angry. And some people get angry enough to kill. Again, ye're seeing things from your own emotional viewpoint .....think about others like, say, Genghis Khan or Hitler or Saddam or Osama or ....? See?

I would also have you take note of your own highly emotional outburst in your post. You think that isn't expessing a lot of emotion and anger? How do you think others might react to that outburst? and you imply that ye're a nice guy??????

Did I ever imply I was a nice guy? I'm a JUST person. There is a fine distinction.

As for my emotions; I didn't really get that agitated, I just wanted to emphasise some things. But everything I do I do because I want to (I will it). And emotions breed wants. But I don't use my emotions to kill people, I use my anger to improve things. Or try to anyway. I do understand that hitting someone would change nothing, so violence seems just a stupid responce. I have nothing against using it, but see no reason to, either. I feel all the same things everyone else feels, indeed everyone feels the same way, but how they behave on these emotions is another thing. Trying to suppress emotions simply make you unable to react to them when they emerge, and THIS leads more to violence more than anger.

Besides, I see Saddam, Hitler and their kin more idealistic than emotional. No-one gets to be a head of the state by being an uncontrollable emotional wreck. They were all controlled and smart. They (ie.Hitler) didn't kill (ie. jews) in hate, but as a part of a plan (rule all). Create an enemy (jews), then protect the people (germans, all mankind) from the enemy (jews, demons, terrorists..).

Sure, maybe .....but there's a different idea about what's best for each person as well as what's best for the human race. In fact, my guess is that there's one different idea for each and every human on Earth!

So? All you have to do is figure out a system everyone agrees to. And to do this you'd have to figure out what people are willing to give away and what they will never give up. (That's where emotions come handy btw.)

perplexity,

Whatever gave that impression?
I am in effect banned from expressing my anger, even from discussing the subject in detail.

By whom? Why? Where? And most importantly, what are they going to do about it?

That is what usually happens; it is somehow supposed to be my fault that they don't know what it is.

I know; You're like this goth, who goes around whining about his cruel faith, in a very poetic fashion I might add. You're being overdramatic and bitch and whine about your cruel faith. Then (point two) bitterly talk to others about how it's their fault. (the message is between the lines.. Your "tone" and choice of words betray you.) And OF COURSE everyone hates that.

What you're trying to say is meaningless if the message is not received, thought WHATEVER conditions. And while you might blame others for not listening, the only thing you can ever do about it is to talk in a fashion that they cannot ignore you. I mean SLY, not LOUDER.

We would then be able to take a computer, and crunch numbers to figure out what ethical living actually is.

I agree with the fact that you could reduce study of ethics into mathematical calculations, but you DO really assume "scientist" are some type of gods. These are the same people who figured that everything was solved in the 19th century. The very problem is that the people who need to be taught are the people who have to figure it out. If the task was given onto some people then it would be just another religion, and would behave just like any other religion. "The Worship Of Omniscient Mathematics", with its "allseeing acolytes". We already have enough people telling us how to live.

The reason it's not in the schools so some nut-head couldn't bend everyone to his point of view. The point is to allow everyone to create their own system of ethics, so we wouldn't be stuck to "it's okay to burn your wife if she's over 50years old".

[spuriousmonkey]

My version is rather to the effect of "what was all the fuss about?".

And hence you keep bringing it up.

[Ogmios]

That if you're going to choose a mountain as an enemy, you'll look stupid trying to push it over?

You're still talking in past tense. About stuff I wouldn't know and couldn't care less about. And anger doesn't mean violence. There are other things to do with it. Hell, that's what this is all about.

You get angry at someone, and hit it. This is admired, but at some point someone will then come to tell you "you can't do that". Seeing as you can't hit stuff anymore, you abandon anger. Which are two separate things. How about being angry without hitting stuff? Like writing really angry letters.
ad infinitum. You refine your actions by doing what you must do, while removing things you can't do.

[Ogmios]

Ah, you misunderstand (perplexity).

It was me who was said to have wielded wield the "sword of truth", to "chop off limbs and heads", to have come in to "impersonate the devil himself", and if I linked you that particular posting, likely I'd be threatened with a ban again.

THIS is what I refered to "didn't care really!". I have no intrest in what you have done, but rather what you are doing. I suppose these are linked, but I care not.

What is my intrest? The good of humanity, I suppose. Maybe my peace of mind not having to hear sarcastic, bitter talk.

Trying to broaden my view by understanding all beings in my presence? Understanding the zeitgeist of my surroundings? I don't know. Just felt like doing it. So I will.

And if I knew what to do, would I not be doing it?
"hey maybe jumping from the roof isn't a good idea..?" "WELL DO YOU HAVE A BETTER 1!!!!" "well not really but.." "OKAY *JUMPS*".
That is, just because I don't have a better idea doesn't mean it's a good one.

Besides, what do I have to prove, that your posts are not particulary constructive and rarely contribute nothing but a snide remark about how stupid other are? I mean, am I going to stalk you now, in the intrests of gathering evidence? Besides, this is just my point of view, so I can't really prove anything either. Nor do I have the intrest of actually going trough tons of data just to prove something I already know.

Actually I'm trying to give YOU the evidence.

The stupidity was in the mountain's attempt to push me around.

Surely this is an illusion? Mountains do not move. Surely you simply assumed that you were not moving as you remembered never starting to move, simply to be stopped by something that was supposed to move with you?

[Ogmios]

mh. I'm starting to see why...

maturity and integrity

It might be just me, but you seem to cling to facts too much (for my tastes anyway). I'm integral about general principles, not every single utterance made. So I'm talking about general behaviour, you're asking

What did you hope to construct?

Was I not refering to general behaviour? Then you ask something in the lines of "give me one example" and I'd go, uh can't remember really. My point would take a 4000 word essay to seamlessly point out (or something like it). It is, afterall, basically not what you do, but how you do it.

But that's not what you look for. So it would have to be pointed and anal-ized from diffrent senteces, deconstructed and made clear.

And, you look at my words, but fail to connect with anything behind them. Take words out of context, attack them, slice and specialize. I might put my words better, put frankly I don't really have that much to prove. Maybe I'm doing this more out of principle than actual will. I consider this conversation as meaningless, but continue it on basic principle? (Compassion is good, after all!)

How does that work, then please?

Simple. You make me mad, I kick you. Then you wander "what made him mad?" and maybe discover! If I didn't, then you would be deprived of information, without which you might be crippled for life. Maybe. And maybe some bigger, more aggressive guy won't JUST kick ya.

[Ogmios]

Well, I'm not really expecting you to "get it". That's why I said "I'm doing this on principle".
But that is how it is supposed to work.

And, uh, I have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about anymore...

Seems to me that the madness is because of the winning and losing, the inability to account for the ethic, rather tempted therefore to treat me like a dog in the hope of a stalemate by virtue of a lowest common denominator.

I think it's more like your not "fighting fairly" (by some). You're not posing your opinions, but rather mocking everyone elses. You don't play your hand, don't put yourself at risk on the conversation. So everyone starts making it personal. They, after all, made their thoughts clear to be contested at will. You just attack without exposing yourself.

That might be considered strength, but so might making rude personal remarks about your behaviour or demeanor. You don't play fair, you deserved what ya got coming!

And it doesn't matter if it's right. If you give someone the justification to harm you, they will. They might be stupid for doing that, but you already knew that, right?

If your so smart, why don't you just tell us what YOU think instead of mocking everyone else?

[Ogmios]

"Belligerent bigots hate me because I prefer to keep an open mind.

Looks like you learned form THAT, then. "keeping an open mind", to me, means accepting all possibilities, also the most obvious. Believing in marginal options do not mean you have an open mind. Open mind accepts also the stupid answer as an option. No matter how stupid. (how does "integrity" and "open mind" go together anyway?)

It is irrational to form opinions because of matters that one has no direct control of, or no responsibility for.
For the most part it is a waste of time and energy otherwise better spent.

To understand something is to control it? Besides, we're resposible for all things that occur to us. In the sense that we did not stop them. You might whine about how it's someone else's job, but whining won't help you on that..

And, uh, you misquoted me, unless Stryder said the same thing as I did.

As for that, what has you exposing posts (or private messages whatever) to do with you not telling your own opinions? This is what I meant. You do not tell us what you think about the subject, just laugh at everyone elses posts. I doubt you were banned for trying to speak your mind? And if you were, uh, I doubt all your views are banned?

[sniffy]

Didn't Dawkins suggest that ethics may have evolved as part of Darwin's 'survival of the most adaptable' principle (not 'survival of the fittest' as everyone misquotes)? Ethics may therefore be simply another survival technique co-operate and multiply. One look at history suggests that those who live by the sword often die by the sword - sociopaths may rule but their rule is either brutally short or cut short brutally.

[TimeTraveler]

It doesn't matter what's best for the species, people will always have different systems of ethics that they follow. How many people do you know who base morality on what's best for the survival and evolution of the species? I'm not saying I disagree with your way of thinking, just that many do. What species has hated itself and caused itself to go extinct? If you have no answer, it's not a fact, merely an assumption.

Many species have hunted themselves down to extinction. The dinosaurs, many species of cat and dog (which yeah we aided in wiping out but were wiping themselves out). A lot of species have been wiped out, even past species of human have been wiped out. We are not the first model of human.

Old species get wiped out when they start to prey on their young, because then anything can trigger extinction, a virus, or just another aggressive species hunting them. Humans are constantly being preyed on by the new diseases, flus, viruses, bacterias, and other lifeforms which could easily wipe us out. It gets worse, not only can we be wiped out by a plague (and we almost were in the past), we can only be wiped out due to lack of food and clean water, due to environmental pollution, due to a lot of reasons.

It's not just our violence and hatred towards each other, it's also the amount of pollution and kind of environment it will create, it will be almost impossible to breed in an environment like that. Even if you manage to breed, it will be almost impossible to survive.

If you want to see how bad the world can get, look at south africa, and look at south america, and see how bad it can get. First food and water runs out, then medicine runs out, then there are no laws, and everyone is at war with everyone. There is nothing to prevent a war of all against all except laws.

[TimeTraveler]

Baron Max,

Well, I considered that goes without saying. Of course I speak from my point of view and using my models. That's the reason I'm talking to you..
And yes, I do only know myself. But I see no reason why anyone would be diffrent. Assides from having diffrent points of views.

Many people will also vote [insert politician here], but does that mean we should move on to a despotic system of government?

That is to say, a lot of people are also stupid.


With a handgun and a word of wisdom. Someone comes at me with killing intent, I put him down. Someone wishes to co-exist, I help them. It would breed violence, sure.



Did I ever imply I was a nice guy? I'm a JUST person. There is a fine distinction.

As for my emotions; I didn't really get that agitated, I just wanted to emphasise some things. But everything I do I do because I want to (I will it). And emotions breed wants. But I don't use my emotions to kill people, I use my anger to improve things. Or try to anyway. I do understand that hitting someone would change nothing, so violence seems just a stupid responce. I have nothing against using it, but see no reason to, either. I feel all the same things everyone else feels, indeed everyone feels the same way, but how they behave on these emotions is another thing. Trying to suppress emotions simply make you unable to react to them when they emerge, and THIS leads more to violence more than anger.

Besides, I see Saddam, Hitler and their kin more idealistic than emotional.

Hitler was religious, Saddam was very rational and paranoid.

No-one gets to be a head of the state by being an uncontrollable emotional wreck. They were all controlled and smart. They (ie.Hitler) didn't kill (ie. jews) in hate, but as a part of a plan (rule all).

It's not that simple, Hitler I think was emotional, he did commit suicide. So where is your evidence that he was not emotional? I think also he surrounded himself with very strong angry individuals and in this case it did not matter if he as an individual hated the Jews or not, his religion, his beliefs, could be interpreted in such a way so that hatred was a fair expression. Hitler was more like a religious leader, than a traditional ruler, he wrote a book that is almost like the bible, and people look up to him almost in the way people looked up to christ.

Create an enemy (jews), then protect the people (germans, all mankind) from the enemy (jews, demons, terrorists..).

Hitler killed more Germans than Jews. You can defend the political strategy of killing the Jews, but how exactly did it help Germany, or the German people? If it's all about being rational with you, either we are all people or none of us are people, so how can you or anyone say, "well if you are Aryan you are human, but if you aren't, you are an alien monster to be destroyed." Then turn this into "If you are Aryan you must have this look, blonde hair and blue eyes, be intelligent and not disabled or weak in any way, and be the perfect male or female.", Do you see how quickly a religion can turn from something rational to irrational?

So? All you have to do is figure out a system everyone agrees to. And to do this you'd have to figure out what people are willing to give away and what they will never give up. (That's where emotions come handy btw.)
I disagree, I think when you use examples like Hitler and Saddam, Saddam ruled by rational force, Hitler ruled by religious force. Hitler basically made the German people believe in the religion he was preaching. The only way Hitler can make sense to anyone is if that person believes in the concept of "race" and "eugenics". The only way a person can believe in these two things is to be educated in such a way so that these religious concepts make sense. In order to come to the conclusion that only one appearance or body type, is human and the rest arent, a person once again has to be taught that there is a hierarchy of personhood or humanity, from which you have alien and progressively up to human, all based on Aryan look, which is defined again by people. It was the religion, the ideology, and Hitlers communication skills which brought him to power. I don't think it had anything to do with the strategy because we see this happen all the time. You always see religious leaders first get people to believe in a common God, a Good and Evil, and once they believe that then it's easy to just declare yourself, or a your race, or your appearance as God, and everyone else as the devil.
perplexity,

By whom? Why? Where? And most importantly, what are they going to do about it?


I know; You're like this goth, who goes around whining about his cruel faith, in a very poetic fashion I might add. You're being overdramatic and bitch and whine about your cruel faith. Then (point two) bitterly talk to others about how it's their fault. (the message is between the lines.. Your "tone" and choice of words betray you.) And OF COURSE everyone hates that.

What you're trying to say is meaningless if the message is not received, thought WHATEVER conditions. And while you might blame others for not listening, the only thing you can ever do about it is to talk in a fashion that they cannot ignore you. I mean SLY, not LOUDER.


I agree with the fact that you could reduce study of ethics into mathematical calculations, but you DO really assume "scientist" are some type of gods. These are the same people who figured that everything was solved in the 19th century.
Religion has done a terrible job with ethics. You mentioned Hitler earlier, Hitler was very religious, he was a vegetarian, he had his beliefs and he stuck to them because he believed in them. Does that mean that killing millions of people is rational? You can debate the strategy, you cannot really debate the religion because people believe in religion in such a way so that it's impossible to change their mind, it's not debateable and it's pointless to debate religion with anyone ever. You can debate if it was rational to kill millions of people, considering what happened after this event, and how it damaged the image of Germany and the Aryan race, the German people, etc, you can have a rational debate about this.

The very problem is that the people who need to be taught are the people who have to figure it out. If the task was given onto some people then it would be just another religion, and would behave just like any other religion. "The Worship Of Omniscient Mathematics", with its "allseeing acolytes". We already have enough people telling us how to live.

No one is saying you should lose freedom of religion. We who like math and science prefer efficiency and accuracy of judgement over random religious jugements. You are correct, Hitler killed millions of people, as did many before him and after him, and can we say that these judgements are ever rational? The math can tell you the direct cause and effect of every action and you'll see what is rational just by seeing the effects. You'll see how killing causes an emotional ripple effect, you'll see how it damages both the killers and the survivors families, victims families, it basically taints everyone. If you want to examine it on the micro-level, Charles Manson, how do people view him? Do you view him as a rational man or an emotional man? Do you want to live next door to him? These things do influence global perception. Ethics have to be objective meaning you have to view it from all sides and all percpectives, from the perspective of the winner, the loser, the friends of the victim, the enemies of the victim, the friends and enemies of the winner, how it might influence world ideology and world religion, how it could influence global economics, policies, institutions, history, as well as billions of individuals minds. In the end, ethics are an actual science because if the human species were more ethical we would not be facing the current situations we face.


The reason it's not in the schools so some nut-head couldn't bend everyone to his point of view. The point is to allow everyone to create their own system of ethics, so we wouldn't be stuck to "it's okay to burn your wife if she's over 50years old".

You don't seem to get it. There are ethics mandated by what we call laws. I'm not saying we should control your religious beliefs, what I'm saying is that religion and ethics must be seperate. Emotion and ethics must be seperate.

Seriously, if you think that the best way to solve problems is to simply kill your problems and violently solve everything, yeah it might seem ethical to you, but it's not going to be ethical to anyone else in the room, as they will all begin to view you as the problem, and this creates more problems.

I guess you don't see that, ethics is actually a skill of reason, you have to be able to make good decisions to avoid conflicts. Some people prefer diplomacy not because they are weaker, but because wars are costly, no one really wins. If you get into a fight, even if you do win, you don't really win, you might kick the guys ass and get sued, you might kill the guy and go to jail, or he might kill you and go to jail, or it could be a situation of mutual suicide, mutual destrusction.

So to not apply ethics properly can lead to suicide, because ethics are what allow for decision making. Suicide itself is not ethical, but if you have no reasoning ability and an over-supply of emotion, there is the chance that you'll feel that suicide is good because it feels better than making the rational decision.

Do we have to keep teaching ethics through religion? do we have to tell you that suicide will take you to hell? These same people who are athiests, are the ones who don't want to come up with an alternative form of ethics. I don't care if people want to be athiests, but have some ethics, some standard ethics, otherwise believers of God are not going to trust athiests. Why would we trust a person who has no definable code of ethics, no religion, nothing?

If you have no "God" to tell you right from wrong, you better have math and reason, otherwise what seperates you from just being crazy?

[TimeTraveler]

Didn't Dawkins suggest that ethics may have evolved as part of Darwin's 'survival of the most adaptable' principle (not 'survival of the fittest' as everyone misquotes)? Ethics may therefore be simply another survival technique co-operate and multiply. One look at history suggests that those who live by the sword often die by the sword - sociopaths may rule but their rule is either brutally short or cut short brutally.

Ethics are older than man, maybe older than mammals and the whole current concept of evolution. Ethics are the code, the rules that individuals follow for the sake of the whole. If your cells did not follow any rules your body would not even be able to hold together.

The same applies to humans, it's religion that kept the species alive this long, and it's also organized religion which caused some of the genocides and other situations. In general religion is vital to the survival of the species, but it can also cause the death of the species, it's a double edged sword.

The reason we need scientific ethics now is because religion alone will not work anymore. We need greater accuracy. If you can have sophisticated science, to the point where one man can push a button and wipe out all life on earth, I think you need to have a more sophisticated system of ethics. We are still ethically in the stone age. A few of us are ethically inclined and therefore able to say we are out of the stone age, but until the majority of people are out of the stone age we are in deep shit. Do you really think we will be able to live by caveman survival of the fittest strongest might makes right ethical style forever? What are we going to do when the crazy guy/girl also happens to have his/her finger on the button that can kill all life on earth? Do you want to have to rely on his ethics? What if he has the ethic to destroy everyone?

[Ogmios]

I browse these threads to find my thoughts, not because I was already full of opinions ready to burst out.

So why do you comment? Why is it important for others to know that you have read their post?

[sniffy]

time traveller
you seem a bit mixed up about the definition of ethics
Ethics are rules or codas created by individuals and societies generally, some may be derived from religious teachings others may oppose religious teachings. The problem is that ethics differ between one society and another and even between individuals.

Those who interpret Darwin's main principal as 'survival of the fittest' are misinterpreting his theory. 'Survival' means literally survival of those best adapted to changing situations. Humans are already in deep shit. That is not to say, however, that we can't adapt our ways and therefore our 'ethics'. If we can't or won't we won't survive that's for sure.

[Oniw17]

Many species have hunted themselves down to extinction. The dinosaurs, many species of cat and dog (which yeah we aided in wiping out but were wiping themselves out). A lot of species have been wiped out, even past species of human have been wiped out. We are not the first model of human.

The dinosaurs were not A species, not even close. You can't prove that they hated themselves, eating other species of dinosaurs was no different than you eating a chicken. That IS survival.

Old species get wiped out when they start to prey on their young, because then anything can trigger extinction, a virus, or just another aggressive species hunting them.

The only reason a species will prey on their own young is because there is nothing else to eat. Lions do it for the survival chances of their own young, which will increase if there's less lions to eat the food. Also, so that the females will mate with them, rather than caring for the children that they already have. It's not about the species, it's the genes.

Humans are constantly being preyed on by the new diseases, flus, viruses, bacterias, and other lifeforms which could easily wipe us out. It gets worse, not only can we be wiped out by a plague (and we almost were in the past), we can only be wiped out due to lack of food and clean water, due to environmental pollution, due to a lot of reasons.

If it wasn't for trade and how easy it is to travel these days, plague and disease wouldn't have very high chances of wiping out our entire speccies, just like it never did when everyone was separated in the past. What plague or pandemic affected people from every continent before 1000? Diseases have NOTHING to do with people hating the species in the first place.

It's not just our violence and hatred towards each other, it's also the amount of pollution and kind of environment it will create, it will be almost impossible to breed in an environment like that. Even if you manage to breed, it will be almost impossible to survive.

Our world doesn't has the worst atmosphere it ever has you know. That's why there is evolution, for when those things happen.

If you want to see how bad the world can get, look at south africa, and look at south america, and see how bad it can get. First food and water runs out, then medicine runs out, then there are no laws, and everyone is at war with everyone. There is nothing to prevent a war of all against all except laws.

[/QUOTE]
How on earth did we survive before laws? I guess laws were ALWAYS there.

[Ogmios]

perplexity,
Uh, ok. Makes sense.

And I rather meant why is it important for you to let others know that you've read their post but you did just answer that.