Quote:
Originally Posted by troymc
In some ways that is true. But they can also impact us on a species level if you think of ecological balance. The majority of our oxygen comes from algae & forests. So the suffering of the trees due to global warming, infestation, deforestation, etc. impacts our atmosphere, directly impacting us - same with algae suffering due to oil spills, pollution, etc. Birds are a major controlling factor of insect populations - if the birds suffer they will fail to thrive, the insect population will boom and we will suffer - disease, crop damage, etc.
|
I was thinking about finding an example along the same lines. Bee populations are declining at the moment and that has a direct, negative impact on fruit plantations. The most recent suggestion of the reason why, is the wide-spread use of mobile phones (can't remember the exact explanation, sorry). I.e. bees suffer, and fruit and vegetable production decline as a result. Algae on the other hand.... are not a good example, because they are so numerous and versatile that you can always find some that thrive whatever the conditions are - one algea population will suffer -> another will thrive. The blue-green algae that can be such a nuisance to humans, were in its heyday (eons ago), a great contributer to creating the atmosphere we enjoy today (as far as I remember from what I've read).
Quote:
Originally Posted by troymc
No, I have to disagree with you here. I think the tree was even more valuable alive. Is Methuselah just another old tree? Is Eugénie Blanchard just another old woman?
This seems like a question of intrinsic values. Does an object have value in and of itself? Or does it only have value once we acknowledge it and give it to it?
hmm...maybe I'm not such a relativist after all....  |
But you wouldn't have known that that exact tree was that old. Imagine if you had seen it and had not known about its age, would you have felt anything except what you might feel about any tree? I'm not sure we talk about the same notion of "value" here. What I meant was that the knowledge about its "specialness" made it significant, gave a special meaning - but ironically, that knowledge wouldn't have come to light unless the tree was felled. If I met Eugenie Blanchard and didn't know her exact age, yes, I am sure I would think she was just another old woman (at least age-wise). We humans tend to value that which stands out, which makes it visible and different. But we can't put value on it unless we are aware of the difference. Hence, "Prometheus" wouldn't have had its special value before you knew about its age. Now, that you know about its age - yes, it's easy to argue that it would be more valuable alive.
But had you not known about its age, how could you have argued that it was more valuable alive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by troymc
Oh I definitely agree - the Earth will be fine either way. The question you bring to mind is whether or not we value our place on it. And whether we place any value on respecting the other living things we share it with.
|
As far as I can see, we - as a species - don't put any value into respecting the other living things we share the earth with, and I don't think we value our own place on it either. It's really only when our own survival comes into play that we react. As a species.
That's actually a good, general question; what can we say about our morality as human beings, based on our actual behaviour rather than - or compared to - our convictions?