Should civilization be destroyed?

[Cyndonian Legion]

Scale matters. The Hoover Dam has changed the local landscape far more than your typical beaver dam. Termites bring up their mounds in plains. Humans tear down forests and dramatically re-shape the environment to put up their own structures. No termite mound has had the destructive effect on the local flora and fauna that building New York City has had.

Would the termites and beavers care if it did? Should they?

[Eireann Fae]

Would the termites and beavers care if it did? Should they?

Probably, seeing as they're much more reliant on the balance of nature to survive. Humans lack such concerns because we can survive more or less apart from nature by now, with our GMO crops and domesticated animals able to grow damn near anywhere we please. Beavers and termites lack that luxury.

As for the second question, yes, I believe they should. Just as I feel Humans should take more care of the environment.

[Ifreann]

Which is a useless distinction. We're as much part of life on Earth as anything else.

I agree, although a case can certainly be made that a large range of human activities, from deforestation to the propagation of GMO crops, are contributing to the destruction of biodiversity. This will likely impact the long term ability of biotic populations to adapt to new conditions. While it's not destroying "the planet", it is resulting in an unprecedented mass extinction of flora and fauna, and may very well result in a seriously reduced number of species on Earth.

At the same time, humans have the intelligence to know this is a problem, and attempt to solve it. If biodiversity were threatened in a world without us, plants and animals would simply die off until the problem went away, or they did. Humans could actually do something about it.

---

I personally think nature has a way of balancing it out, like creating diseases to kill us.

Nature does not work that way.

[East Fancainia]

If you don't believe in the Civilization, then get the hell off the internet.

[Cyndonian Legion]

Would the termites and beavers care if it did? Should they?

Probably, seeing as they're much more reliant on the balance of nature to survive.

Really? They have the capacity to do this?

Humans lack such concerns because we can survive more or less apart from nature by now, with our GMO crops and domesticated animals able to grow damn near anywhere we please. Beavers and termites lack that luxury.

And if they had that luxury? Or had the capacity to create that luxury( as we did, when we were in the same position as them)?

As for the second question, yes, I believe they should. Just as I feel Humans should take more care of the environment.

How do you defend this, from a natural principle? Or, can you?

If another species were in our shoes, or a situation similar to ours, would they and should they reduce and keep themselves in primitivism? What are the justifications for this and reasons for this?

For the record, I actually give a damn about the environment.

[Plopburger]

No, and it staggers me to think people would consider this. Civilisation brings all good and no bad. Destruction of civilisation brings all bad and no good. It's a complete non-choice for any sane person.

[Norstal]

Oh, I realize that Humans are a part of nature. I just think that we're the most destructive animals in nature, and the most prone to fucking up our environment. Most animals adapt to suit their environment - Humans adapt the environment to suit themselves, for better or, more often, for worse.

I personally think nature has a way of balancing it out, like creating diseases to kill us. Also, since our society is built largely on morals, survival of the fittest is no longer part of human genetics. So we are breeding more and more mentally disabled/defective people. We will eventually die, and nature will eventually win. I think nature is the last thing we need to worry about destroying, since ultimately it will destroy us.

I really don't understand how you came into the conclusion of, when we expand our gene pool, there will be more mentally disabled/defective people. I don't know where you live, but here in LA, not everyone does incest.

Also, "survival of the fittest is no longer part of human genetics?" Really? Explain to me why people get their skin darker when they're out on the sun for a prolonged time. Sure we don't hunt for our food anymore, this doesn't mean its gone completely. Like Ifreann said, this is not how nature works.

[Eireann Fae]

Really? They have the capacity to do this?

They... Have the capacity to rely on nature? Yes?

And if they had that luxury? Or had the capacity to create that luxury( as we did, when we were in the same position as them)?

You think I would favour sentient beavers and termites raping the Earth any more than I do Humans? I don't think any species should cause the harm we do.

How do you defend this, from a natural principle? Or, can you?

How do I defend preserving the natural balance of a world without sentience from a natural principle? I guess by saying that sentient beings are no better than non-sentient ones, and oughtn't destroy the habitat of everyone else just because they know how to...

If another species were in our shoes, or a situation similar to ours, would they and should they reduce and keep themselves in primitivism? What are the justifications for this and reasons for this?

They probably would not, but I think they should at least take steps to ensure that their continued advancement doesn't directly harm every other species on the planet.

For the record, I actually give a damn about the environment.

Nice to know.

No, and it staggers me to think people would consider this. Civilisation brings all good and no bad. Destruction of civilisation brings all bad and no good. It's a complete non-choice for any sane person.

Yeah, because atomic bombs are such a good thing to bring into the world :roll:

[Norstal]

No, and it staggers me to think people would consider this. Civilisation brings all good and no bad. Destruction of civilisation brings all bad and no good. It's a complete non-choice for any sane person.

Yeah, because atomic bombs are such a good thing to bring into the world

You think the destruction of civilization will make Nuclear power plants safer or completely remove the ICBMs sitting in our silos?

[Plopburger]

Yeah, because atomic bombs are such a good thing to bring into the world

You think the destruction of civilization will make Nuclear power plants safer or completely remove the ICBMs sitting in our silos?

Nuclear bombs are not civilised, but the science and rational exploration of reality that allowed us to create them certainly is. And that's a good thing.

The products of civilisation are not neccessarily all good. Civilisation itself is.

[Eireann Fae]

Yeah, because atomic bombs are such a good thing to bring into the world :roll:

You think the destruction of civilization will make Nuclear power plants safer or completely remove the ICBMs sitting in our silos?

I think the lack of what you call civilization would never have led to those things in the first place. I also think such things can, today, be dismantled, not that it matters. Neither has/will happen(ed).

[Meryuma]

Well, for my part I don't think it would be very attractive if the only things you could say in all possible languages were eat, sleep, and reproduce.

Wow. Really? As an amateur linguist, I'd like to point out that this is bullshit. The relationship between language and thought is much more complex then one simply one determining the other. Besides, language developed in the Paleolithic.

[Norstal]

You think the destruction of civilization will make Nuclear power plants safer or completely remove the ICBMs sitting in our silos?

I think the lack of what you call civilization would never have led to those things in the first place. I also think such things can, today, be dismantled, not that it matters. Neither has/will happen(ed).

Well, civilization preserved the existence of cows, oxes, horses, chickens, turkeys, koi fishes, pigs, sheep, red ants, bees, wheat...
While civilization destroyed things such as dodos (and admit it, dodos are useless anyways!).

So you can't really say we're the environmental devil. Yes, nukes wouldn't have been created if it wasn't for us, but then again, uranium and plutonium occurs naturally. So does hydrogen.

[Cyndonian Legion]

They... Have the capacity to rely on nature? Yes?

To care. You said probably.

You think I would favour sentient beavers and termites raping the Earth any more than I do Humans? I don't think any species should cause the harm we do.

I was never under such an illusion. I was simply wondering why you make the distinction between what animals do and have/would have had the capacity to do, in comparison to what humans do; concerning the argument that animals shape their environment and so we have the right to as well. Scale does matter, and we have the largest mass-population-geography ratio in comparison to any other species. And then we have more innovation.

How do I defend preserving the natural balance of a world without sentience from a natural principle? I guess by saying that sentient beings are no better than non-sentient ones, and oughtn't destroy the habitat of everyone else just because they know how to...

We're not destroying it just because we know how to. We're destroying it because it makes our life convenient, largely efficient, and sustainable for our species, and we know how to. We're no better than non-sentient beings, as you said, and they'd do so if they could. Why shouldn't we?

They probably would not, but I think they should at least take steps to ensure that their continued advancement doesn't directly harm every other species on the planet.

I agree.

Yeah, because atomic bombs are such a good thing to bring into the world

It has and continues to save lives.

[Rogernomics]

Destroy everything before Jersey Shore 3 airs.

[Brewdomia]

Yeah, because atomic bombs are such a good thing to bring into the world

Atomic bombs have prevented the most deaths in human history.

[Gauthier]

Destroy everything before Jersey Shore 3 airs.

Take a more direct and practical approach. Destroy Jersey.

[Rogernomics]

Destroy everything before Jersey Shore 3 airs.

Take a more direct and practical approach. Destroy Jersey.

Good idea, never thought of that.

[New Korongo]

I do not think it could even be possible to destroy civilization.

[Eireann Fae]

I think the lack of what you call civilization would never have led to those things in the first place. I also think such things can, today, be dismantled, not that it matters. Neither has/will happen(ed).

Well, civilization preserved the existence of cows, oxes, horses, chickens, turkeys, koi fishes, pigs, sheep, red ants, bees, wheat...
While civilization destroyed things such as dodos (and admit it, dodos are useless anyways!).

So you can't really say we're the environmental devil. Yes, nukes wouldn't have been created if it wasn't for us, but then again, uranium and plutonium occurs naturally. So does hydrogen.

No, civilization domesticated cows, oxes, chickens, etc. Wild horses get on fine, and so do wild turkeys and pigs. Ants aren't exactly an endangered species, and neither are bees. Wheat would still survive if we weren't here to tend it, and even if it didn't, it probably wasn't needed anyway. All the creatures you listed might not exist in their exact form had we never fucked with them, but they'd still exist, in one form or another.

Also, Dodos aren't the only thing we've wiped out. (an early result in Google)

Uranium and Plutonium of course exist in nature. But they're pretty inert until Humans start fucking with them.

To care. You said probably.

Oh.

I was never under such an illusion. I was simply wondering why you make the distinction between what animals do and have/would have had the capacity to do, in comparison to what humans do; concerning the argument that animals shape their environment and so we have the right to as well. Scale does matter, and we have the largest mass-population-geography ratio in comparison to any other species. And then we have more innovation.

By nature, we have almost unlimited rights. I have the right to kill you and burn the planet to the ground, if nothing can stop me. Doesn't make it a desirable action/outcome. Humans may have more complex 'needs' than other creatures, but we waste a lot in fulfilling these needs. A bachelor doesn't need an eight-bedroom mansion on his own private square mile of miniature golf course, and we don't need sprawling structures of glass and steel to be productive little office workers in.

We're not destroying it just because we know how to. We're destroying it because it makes our life convenient, largely efficient, and sustainable for our species, and we know how to. We're no better than non-sentient beings, as you said, and they'd do so if they could. Why shouldn't we?

If they could do so, they'd probably be sentient beings, and I'd disapprove of them destroying the environment in the same way. Like I said, we could do without a lot of our industrial wasteful ways. Cars are so convenient because our civilization has largely separated us from one another. It is efficient in some ways, but very inefficient in others. I don't think our species should come first just because I'm a member of it. Sue me.

It has and continues to save lives.

It'll also probably start another ridiculous war (if it's confirmed that Iran has "the bomb", U.[SN]. will likely go to war over it, don't kid yourselves). Most Humans are just too selfish and petty to control the power of weapons of mass destruction.

[Natapoc]

So pre-civilized people are 'ignorant' are they? You sound like you are the one who is ignorant. Sure they wouldn't know about computers, calculus, etc, but they do know how to live in tune with their environment, how to survive with very little, know what is and is not edible at what timeduring the year, how to find food.

Right. I can do all of those things, but with computers and calculus. I'll take the easier, more satisfying and progressive life, thanks.

So basically they would be ignorant in our world, and we would be ignorant in theirs. Its a matter of perspective.

No, I'm pretty sure I'm not ignorant of their world. Its pretty shitty. But, you're right, I suppose only you yourself are knowledgeable of these things.

How many words do people really need or use anyway? I honestly don't care either way.

The barrier of language is already bad enough, you want to make it worse? You may not care, but the majority of the human population does. I care about beauty and I care about the development of empathy. Go grunt, moan, and point in a fucking cave somewhere if you want, I'll have none of it.

Stonehenge is pretty damn impressive, but the type of society that I, and I think Natopoc are talking about is pre Stonehenge stuff. Hunter-gatherers and such.

Go live with other hunter-gatherers there then. Seriously, why are we even discussing this?

The idea that people who wish to eliminate civilization should go attempt to isolate themselves into one of the few remote corners not yet completely dominated by civilization is absurd.

Think for a moment if you wanted civilization to "go away" what does that mean exactly?

Well, it means you want other people to stop civilization. If you want other people to do (or not do) something do you figure it would be a good tactic to isolate yourself from other people?

Or do you instead think it would be a good tactics to try to persuade as many people as possible to help you end civilization by engaging as many people as possible in discussion about it?

Do you imagine then that someone who wishes to bring about the end of civilization would quite correctly use any tool at his/her disposal to do so including the internet?

This is of course with the exception of those primitivists who believe that we are already past every tipping point and that civilization will crumble on it's own and that nothing can be done to speed up or slow down the process.

Do you see then how illogical your request is?

[Cyndonian Legion]

Do you see then how illogical your request is?

Do you see the impracticality in yours?

Its honestly a good chance for you to experience it yourself and ponder "Can I, eventually, convince the whole of humanity to do the same?"

Even so, there's nothing illogical about it. I just think idiots like you should isolate yourselves voluntarily and do us all a favor.

[Natapoc]

Do you see then how illogical your request is?

Do you see the impracticality in yours?

Its honestly a good chance for you to experience it yourself and ponder "Can I, eventually, convince the whole of humanity to do the same?"

Even so, there's nothing illogical about it. I just think idiots like you should isolate yourselves voluntarily and do us all a favor.

Ah flaming now are you? What exactly do you mean by "idiots like me." What viewpoints to you assume I have that make me an "idiot"

[United Dependencies]

Do you see then how illogical your request is?

Do you see the impracticality in yours?

Its honestly a good chance for you to experience it yourself and ponder "Can I, eventually, convince the whole of humanity to do the same?"

Even so, there's nothing illogical about it. I just think idiots like you should isolate yourselves voluntarily and do us all a favor.

Hey now, we can disagree with people but calling them names starts to push the bounds of civil discussion.[not a mod]

[Trollgaard]

Do you see then how illogical your request is?

Do you see the impracticality in yours?

Its honestly a good chance for you to experience it yourself and ponder "Can I, eventually, convince the whole of humanity to do the same?"

Even so, there's nothing illogical about it. I just think idiots like you should isolate yourselves voluntarily and do us all a favor.

Watch your mouth.