Why do some people value animals over human lives?

[oarabbus]

:confusedshrug: I just don't get it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm against animal cruelty, it's disgusting and abhorrent. But you know the train problem? Something like, 5 people are about to be hit by a train, you can flip the switch and divert the train, but it will then kill a single individual?


If there was a human being trapped on one side, and 10 animals on the other... sorry Fido, but I'm saving the human being. Again, I am NOT condoning any kind of violence or mistreatment of animals, but does anyone else out there consider a human life to be more valuable than that of an animal? PETA types will absolutely roast you for being an animal hater and despicable person for saying this, but don't explain their logic.

[bdreason]

Because Animals are innocent, while Humans are guilty.

[miller-time]

Because humans are able to understand what is happening to them while animals aren't. It kind of makes their situation seem even more tragic. They seem so much more helpless because they have no idea what to do or why it is happening. Probably not the only reason but it is part of it I think.

[Clyde]

I was going to make this thread. lol

To people with pets, would you let a perfect stranger die if it meant your pet could live?

yup, my dog is part of my family.

[KingBeasley08]

Don't get it either. Fck animals. We got to the top of the food chain by shitting on everyone else so keep it that way

[oarabbus]

I hope all of you stating that animal lives > human lives are vegetarian or vegan?


Please don't try to explain your rationalization that your dog or cat is more valuable than a human life, but not a cow or sheep.

[oarabbus]

yup, my dog is part of my family.


And if it was someone else's dog you had to let die to let a stranger live?

What about if it was a choice between your dog or your cousin? Or a friend? Or a cardiac surgeon?

[Jailblazers7]

I hope all of you stating that animal lives > human lives are vegetarian or vegan?


Please don't try to explain your rationalization that your dog or cat is more valuable than a human life, but not a cow or sheep.

I think it isn't necessarily inconsistent to be carnivorous and consider animal life more valuable. It could be for the reasoning stated in the Matrix how humanity is a virus that is slowing destroying life on earth.

We have exited the food chain, which has broken any link we had with nature. In a lot of respects, we are no longer a contributing part to the cycle of life outside of human society. To some people, that might be a terrible reality that is contributing to the current state of the environment. I don't think it would be ridiculous for someone to use that as a reason to state that animal life is more valuable than human life.

[MavsSuperFan]

:confusedshrug: I just don't get it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm against animal cruelty, it's disgusting and abhorrent. But you know the train problem? Something like, 5 people are about to be hit by a train, you can flip the switch and divert the train, but it will then kill a single individual?


If there was a human being trapped on one side, and 10 animals on the other... sorry Fido, but I'm saving the human being. Again, I am NOT condoning any kind of violence or mistreatment of animals, but does anyone else out there consider a human life to be more valuable than that of an animal? PETA types will absolutely roast you for being an animal hater and despicable person for saying this, but don't explain their logic.

Not a fan of PETA. People eating tasty animals is more my thing, but this is kind of a straw man argument. Who is saying kill 1 human to save 10 animals?

[oarabbus]

I think it isn't necessarily inconsistent to be carnivorous and consider animal life more valuable. It could be for the reasoning stated in the Matrix how humanity is a virus that is slowing destroying life on earth.

We have exited the food chain, which has broken any link we had with nature. In a lot of respects, we are no longer a contributing part to the cycle of life outside of human society. To some people, that might be a terrible reality that is contributing to the current state of the environment. I don't think it would be ridiculous for someone to use that as a reason to state that animal life is more valuable than human life.

I think if someone feels that animal lives are more valuable is because they're "innocent" "helpless" "unable to understand their situation" or what have you, and eats meat, contributing to these poor helpless animals being caged, chained and butchered, it is very hypocritical.

Now, if someone were to say "cats and dogs are more valuable than humans, but not cattle/pigs/chickens" then I'd really want to hear their rationale, but at least there is no cognitive dissonance or hypocrisy. BTW I'm not trying to attack people in this topic and say they're hypocrites. This is just how I see it and I'd like to know how others feel.




Not a fan of PETA. People eating tasty animals is more my thing, but this is kind of a straw man argument. Who is saying kill 1 human to save 10 animals?


I am saying that, it's a hypothetical twist of the common ethical dilemma. Train can either go on the path to run over a guy on the tracks, or the other path has 10 animals. I'm gonna flip the switch and save the person.

[Marcus Thornton]

Obviously those people are supporting human population control.

[MavsSuperFan]

I am saying that, it's a hypothetical twist of the common ethical dilemma. Train can either go on the path to run over a guy on the tracks, or the other path has 10 animals. I'm gonna flip the switch and save the person.
That's obvious that's like saying I'm not going to rape kids

Who's going to not do that? Maybe 1% of the population is not going to do that

[Jailblazers7]

I think if someone feels that animal lives are more valuable is because they're "innocent" "helpless" "unable to understand their situation" or what have you, and eats meat, contributing to these poor helpless animals being caged, chained and butchered, it is very hypocritical.

Now, if someone were to say "cats and dogs are more valuable than humans, but not cattle/pigs/chickens" then I'd really want to hear their rationale, but at least there is no cognitive dissonance or hypocrisy. BTW I'm not trying to attack people in this topic and say they're hypocrites. This is just how I see it and I'd like to know how others feel.

Never said that wasn't hypocritical but I can understand the cognitive dissonance for the majority of the population on a topic like this. The one quote by Byron kind of fits for the majority of society "In England the only homage which they pay to Virtue - is hypocrisy."

[T_L_P]

Caring for animals too much can be bad for you.

Look at Tony Soprano.

[oarabbus]

That's obvious that's like saying I'm not going to rape kids

Who's going to not do that? Maybe 1% of the population is not going to do that


Well we already have one who would rather let a stranger die than their dog. I can understand the reasoning behind that, but I don't have a dog so I can't legitimately weigh in.

What I'm saying is by choosing to save the human over the 10 animals, is that a human life is more valuable than an animal life. I just don't see any way in which an animal life is more valuable than a human's.

If truly 1% of the population would not do that, then this topic is moot. However, I believe more people than that would choose to save the "innocent animals".

[MavsSuperFan]

Well we already have one who would rather let a stranger die than their dog. I can understand the reasoning behind that, but I don't have a dog so I can't legitimately weigh in.

What I'm saying is by choosing to save the human over the 10 animals, is that a human life is more valuable than an animal life. I just don't see any way in which an animal life is more valuable than a human's.

If truly 1% of the population would not do that, then this topic is moot. However, I believe more people than that would choose to save the "innocent animals".
The scenario is totally different.

10 animals is not the same as one object you have a personal connection to.

Would you rather a random human die, that you've never met or have your house burned down and no one be injured?

Vested interests make the situations uncomparable to your original example

[Dresta]

:confusedshrug: I just don't get it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm against animal cruelty, it's disgusting and abhorrent. But you know the train problem? Something like, 5 people are about to be hit by a train, you can flip the switch and divert the train, but it will then kill a single individual?


If there was a human being trapped on one side, and 10 animals on the other... sorry Fido, but I'm saving the human being. Again, I am NOT condoning any kind of violence or mistreatment of animals, but does anyone else out there consider a human life to be more valuable than that of an animal? PETA types will absolutely roast you for being an animal hater and despicable person for saying this, but don't explain their logic.

How can you be against animal cruelty but then eat meat? But then, i guess you just had to get how disgusting you find it in to prove your moral virtue :applause: .

If there are 1 million dogs on one side and one human being on the other, i am saving the human being. Anyone who spends their time campaigning on the behalf of animals should be picked up and dropped off in the Congo somewhere.

[RedBlackAttack]

The question is fundamentally flawed and, if you simply look at the way the question is being asked, you'll come up with some answers.

Humans are animals. We've evolved to have a highly functional brain relative to the other species on this planet, but we are animals.

Pulling humans out of the animal population and placing them on a tier above every other living thing on the planet is precisely the problem I have with a lot of people when it comes to this discussion.

In fact, if you look at our role on Earth and the way we arrogantly overpopulate and destroy virtually all natural resources, you may come to the conclusion that the exact opposite is true. Most other animals live harmoniously with their natural environment. We beat it and destroy it until it fits our short-term needs and only our short-term needs.

That's why I've never understood the reasoning behind disregarding the lives of all other animals and putting us on our own tier.

[9erempiree]

Catch 22 here.

People don't value animals over humans. The ones that do value animals or humans are those that became attached to the animal as a pet. That right there is cruelty to animals. Withholding an animal for your guilty pleasure of having something to pet at. Stop rubbing the damn animal and stop letting the damn animal run your life.

A friend of mine has a dog and he doesn't hang out with us because he has to go home and let the dog out.:facepalm

I once invited a girl over to the house for dinner and she declined because I won't let her bring the dog into my house. She said she needed to bring the dog over so she can let it out for a pee/sh!t. :wtf:

People are too consumed with animals to be honest with you. That is the real question here....Are humans too consumed with their damn pets?

[Dresta]

The question is fundamentally flawed and, if you simply look at the way the question is being asked, you'll come up with some answers.

Humans are animals. We've evolved to have a highly functional brain relative to the other species on this planet, but we are animals.

Pulling humans out of the animal population and placing them on a tier above every other living thing on the planet is precisely the problem I have with a lot of people when it comes to this discussion.

In fact, if you look at our role on Earth and the way we arrogantly overpopulate and destroy virtually all natural resources, you may come to the conclusion that the exact opposite is true. Most other animals live harmoniously with their natural environment. We beat it and destroy it until it fits our short-term needs and only our short-term needs.

That's why I've never understood the reasoning behind disregarding the lives of all other animals and putting us on our own tier.
Arrogantly overpopulate? If by that you mean develop societies so efficient that they are capable of catering for millions, or developing medicines that lessen the precariousness of human life, then you are effectively arguing against human life and against the extension, prolongation and proliferation of it. We don't live in our 'natural' environment because that would be a thoroughly miserable existence, and if you are so desperate to return to nature why don't you go and live in a jungle somewhere?

****ing animal nuts man :facepalm .

[9erempiree]

Pet owners are the ones being cruel to animals. Come on guys, you are locking them up in your house. Forcing or not forcing them to walk. Feed them packaged food when you should be cooking for them. Letting them shit without wiping their ass for them.

It's a damn shame that these pet owners don't even brush their dogs' teeth. Cruelty at its finest what I mentioned.

Lets be serious, you owners put your dogs on a freaking leash.


Only purpose of a dog is to be outside in the backyard guarding and protecting the house.

[miller-time]

That's why I've never understood the reasoning behind disregarding the lives of all other animals and putting us on our own tier.

Because the survival of a species requires the species to look out for itself. All (or most) animals put their own species above others - every animal places itself on its own tier, we just happen to be human and therefore from our perspective we are on the top tier. The question could be more accurately worded by saying "non-human animals" as opposed to just animals.

[DeuceWallaces]

Arrogantly overpopulate? If by that you mean develop societies so efficient that they are capable of catering for millions, or developing medicines that lessen the precariousness of human life, then you are effectively arguing against human life and against the extension, prolongation and proliferation of it. We don't live in our 'natural' environment because that would be a thoroughly miserable existence, and if you are so desperate to return to nature why don't you go and live in a jungle somewhere?

****ing animal nuts man :facepalm .

Stop being an idiot. That is not what arrogantly overpopulate has to insinuate. There is some ground between being a nomad and destroying the earth with our society. People can value an animal more than human x without having to be naturalists or a hypocrite because they have a couple burgers a year.

There is no context to the OP's argument, just incoherent ramblings. Who are these people he's talking about? Why are the humans dying? Which animals are we saving? Do we know the people or the animals? Just a whining troll thread.

[CelticBaller]

Don't get it either. Fck animals. We got to the top of the food chain by shitting on everyone else so keep it that way
This

[Dresta]

Stop being an idiot. That is not what arrogantly overpopulate has to insinuate. There is some ground between being a nomad and destroying the earth with our society. People can value an animal more than human x without having to be naturalists or a hypocrite because they have a couple burgers a year.

There is no context to the OP's argument, just incoherent ramblings. Who are these people he's talking about? Why are the humans dying? Which animals are we saving? Do we know the people or the animals? Just a whining troll thread.
Well, seeing as those are the means that allowed us to overpopulate, i don't see how it could insinuate anything else without being incorrect. Human beings are not having more children than ever before, but the population is growing because 1. The growing complexity of world economy has become capable of sustaining it (i.e. people not dying from want and starvation as frequently) 2. Medicinal control over pestilential diseases that had before acted as an suppressant on excessive population growth has limited the frequency of early death.

Either way, these are preventing a lot of human misery and suffering, so to call them 'arrogantly overpopulating' is ridiculous. If he would rather the majority of human beings not survive to adulthood again, then that is his prerogative, but to call the attempt to stem such a capricious mortality 'arrogant' is ****ing idiotic.

[RedBlackAttack]

Arrogantly overpopulate? If by that you mean develop societies so efficient that they are capable of catering for millions, or developing medicines that lessen the precariousness of human life, then you are effectively arguing against human life and against the extension, prolongation and proliferation of it. We don't live in our 'natural' environment because that would be a thoroughly miserable existence, and if you are so desperate to return to nature why don't you go and live in a jungle somewhere?

****ing animal nuts man :facepalm .
This is the "love it or leave it" rationale you often see from overzealous nationalists when they encounter someone who is willing to honestly critique some of the country's ills. Just because you're able to step back from the situation and honestly evaluate our place does not mean that you should have to go live in a jungle and get chased around by tigers... "That'll learn 'em!"

I'm simply pointing out the facts of human existence. It took humans until 1804 to reach the 1 billion mark. Now, just 210 years later, we are at 7 billion. If that rate of growth continues, we'll hit 8 billion by 2028. There will come a point where this planet can no longer sustain the growing overpopulation.

We are becoming massively overpopulated. It isn't conjecture or debatable. It's a simple, accurate assessment. I'm not even saying there is anything we can necessarily do about it, but there's no denying it.

[DeuceWallaces]

US birth rates have held pretty steady the past 25-30 years while our knowledge of Earth's CC has grown and pointed at the dangers of this. People still arrogantly overpopulate today; there's no need and it's irresponsible to have so many kids in modern times given what we know.

Furthermore, preventing the misery and suffering of the living through modern medicine does not mean you should go balls out and have 3-5 kids while ignoring the repercussions. That would be arrogantly overpopulating. You can respect the limits of nature while still embracing society and technology.

[9erempiree]

US birth rates have held pretty steady the past 25-30 years while our knowledge of Earth's CC has grown and pointed at the dangers of this. People still arrogantly overpopulate today; there's no need and it's irresponsible to have so many kids in modern times given what we know.

Furthermore, preventing the misery and suffering of the living through modern medicine does not mean you should go balls out and have 3-5 kids while ignoring the repercussions. That would be arrogantly overpopulating. You can respect the limits of nature while still embracing society and technology.

Dumbest thing I have ever heard. First you mention we are at a steady pace and then say we are over-populating.:facepalm

Trying to put a limit on something as natural as reproduction and starting/growing a family is dumb.

[RedBlackAttack]

US birth rates have held pretty steady the past 25-30 years while our knowledge of Earth's CC has grown and pointed at the dangers of this. People still arrogantly overpopulate today; there's no need and it's irresponsible to have so many kids in modern times given what we know.

Furthermore, preventing the misery and suffering of the living through modern medicine does not mean you should go balls out and have 3-5 kids while ignoring the repercussions. That would be arrogantly overpopulating. You can respect the limits of nature while still embracing society and technology.
The most "arrogant" part of the scenario, for me, is that people basically refuse to talk about it. This may be humankind's most dire looming threat, yet it has no place in the political dialogue or mainstream consciousness.

It's like most people accept the fact that we're overpopulated and it is growing, but there's a sense that we'll work it out down the road and we'll figure out a way to make it work. That's true arrogance.

[Dresta]

This is the "love it or leave it" rationale you often see from overzealous nationalists when they encounter someone who is willing to honestly critique some of the country's ills. Just because you're able to step back from the situation and honestly evaluate our place does not mean that you should have to go live in a jungle and get chased around by tigers... "That'll learn 'em!"

I'm simply pointing out the facts of human existence. It took humans until 1804 to reach the 1 billion mark. Now, just 210 years later, we are at 7 billion. If that rate of growth continues, we'll hit 8 billion by 2028. There will come a point where this planet can no longer sustain the growing overpopulation.

We are becoming massively overpopulated. It isn't conjecture or debatable. It's a simple, accurate assessment. I'm not even saying there is anything we can necessarily do about it, but there's no denying it.Population did not suddenly grow like that because people started having more children; it happened because we became capable of sustaining more life, more efficiently. Population growth is dependant on that, so these 'facts of human existence' you are pointing out are little more than scare-mongering myths, and the overpopulation myth has persisted for several centuries now.

What you're saying isn't conjecture or debatable, i'll give you that, it's just completely incorrect.


US birth rates have held pretty steady the past 25-30 years while our knowledge of Earth's CC has grown and pointed at the dangers of this. People still arrogantly overpopulate today; there's no need and it's irresponsible to have so many kids in modern times given what we know.

Furthermore, preventing the misery and suffering of the living through modern medicine does not mean you should go balls out and have 3-5 kids while ignoring the repercussions. That would be arrogantly overpopulating. You can respect the limits of nature while still embracing society and technology.
What are you blabbering about? Who is 'arrogantly overpopulating'? The US needs people to have more children considering how difficult it is going to be to support the baby-boomer generation.

How is having 3-5 kids not 'respecting the limits of nature'? If you can afford to sustain them, then there is no problem. And what exactly are 'the limits of nature'? apparently 2 kids according to you, but i'd really like you to try defining this ridiculous concept a bit more accurately.

[Dresta]

The most "arrogant" part of the scenario, for me, is that people basically refuse to talk about it. This may be humankind's most dire looming threat, yet it has no place in the political dialogue or mainstream consciousness.

It's like most people accept the fact that we're overpopulated and it is growing, but there's a sense that we'll work it out down the road and we'll figure out a way to make it work. That's true arrogance.
Yeah, that's because it only exists in your mind.

[RedBlackAttack]

Population did not suddenly grow like that because people started having more children; it happened because we became capable of sustaining more life, more efficiently. Population growth is dependant on that, so these 'facts of human existence' you are pointing out are little more than scare-mongering myths, and the overpopulation myth has persisted for several centuries now.

What you're saying isn't conjecture or debatable, i'll give you that, it's just completely incorrect.
Overpopulation can occur from a myriad of sources, including but not limited to "having more children." A decline in mortality rates can also lead to overpopulation, as it absolutely has in our case.

I don't see why that would lead you to dismiss the potential problems we may have down the road and our refusal to enter this problem into the national and/or international conversation.

Humankind is growing by about 74 million people every year, per the UN. We're expected to be over the 10 billion mark by 2100. Are you asserting that there is no problem, here? That the planet will be able to house us indefinitely, regardless of how fast the population grows?

[DeuceWallaces]

Ha, according to Dresta:

1) Overpopulation is not a problem.
2) Have as many kids as you can afford.
3) We need even higher birth rates so we can support and care for the biggest birth wave of the past 60 years.

That makes a lot of sense.

[9erempiree]

Ha, according to Dresta:

1) Overpopulation is not a problem.
2) Have as many kids as you can afford.
3) We need even higher birth rates so we can support and care for the biggest birth wave of the past 60 years.

That makes a lot of sense.

Let me guess.

Only child.

No kids.

No girlfriend.

-OR-

Limp dick.






That rat poison.:oldlol:

[tomtucker]

Ha, according to Dresta:

1) Overpopulation is not a problem.
2) Have as many kids as you can afford.
3) We need even higher birth rates so we can support and care for the biggest birth wave of the past 60 years.

That makes a lot of sense.

and this really is what is ruining the earth, and causing animals to suffer as well.............to many humans, also means less space for animals.

all those 3rd world shitholes where they multiply like rats, and treat animals like shit at the same time...........may they die and burn in hell

[tomtucker]

even the nicest person has a shitty side..........no animal will backstab you, talk shit, have ulterior motives................they are who they are, they are pure and you can trust them.............animals are better then humans

[9erempiree]

even the nicest person has a shitty side..........no animal will backstab you, talk shit, have ulterior motives................they are who they are, they are pure and you can trust them.............animals are better then humans

and dogs probably think we are the greatest things in the world too.

[gigantes]

:confusedshrug: I just don't get it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm against animal cruelty, it's disgusting and abhorrent. But you know the train problem? Something like, 5 people are about to be hit by a train, you can flip the switch and divert the train, but it will then kill a single individual?


If there was a human being trapped on one side, and 10 animals on the other... sorry Fido, but I'm saving the human being. Again, I am NOT condoning any kind of violence or mistreatment of animals, but does anyone else out there consider a human life to be more valuable than that of an animal? PETA types will absolutely roast you for being an animal hater and despicable person for saying this, but don't explain their logic.
based on your complete ignorance upon everything relevant which you've just mentioned...

are you really that much of a deliberate ****tard to intentionally bury your worthless head in the sand... really??

[oarabbus]

How can you be against animal cruelty but then eat meat? But then, i guess you just had to get how disgusting you find it in to prove your moral virtue :applause: .

If there are 1 million dogs on one side and one human being on the other, i am saving the human being. Anyone who spends their time campaigning on the behalf of animals should be picked up and dropped off in the Congo somewhere.

Yes I did feel the need to include that disclaimer because I've had this discussion crash and burn before it even started, as people would try to attack my animal hating, apparently sociopathic ways rather than discuss the issue at hand.

For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with anyone eating meat; I also do not believe animal lives to be as valuable as human lives. Which I have clearly stated.


based on your complete ignorance upon everything relevant which you've just mentioned...

are you really that much of a deliberate ****tard to intentionally bury your worthless head in the sand... really??

You can be ignorant about something, but not ignorant "upon" something. I'm ignorant about the relevant points I brought up myself?

I don't know what you're trying to say, please clarify how much of a deliberate ****tard and how worthless I am, better luck next time.

Damn I'm just trying to stimulate a discussion man feel free to pick apart my arguments and describe how wrong they are, but at least contribute something.

[IamRAMBO24]

:confusedshrug: I just don't get it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm against animal cruelty, it's disgusting and abhorrent. But you know the train problem? Something like, 5 people are about to be hit by a train, you can flip the switch and divert the train, but it will then kill a single individual?


If there was a human being trapped on one side, and 10 animals on the other... sorry Fido, but I'm saving the human being. Again, I am NOT condoning any kind of violence or mistreatment of animals, but does anyone else out there consider a human life to be more valuable than that of an animal? PETA types will absolutely roast you for being an animal hater and despicable person for saying this, but don't explain their logic.

Society has a materailsitic mindset, so they can only view human interactions as physical. But social interaction is mental: we value things that make us feel good. From a psychological perspective, there are sh*ttier people than animals and even things. Some people place animals and things over human lives and it's all psychological.

[oarabbus]

even the nicest person has a shitty side..........no animal will backstab you, talk shit, have ulterior motives................they are who they are, they are pure and you can trust them.............animals are better then humans


Yeah you're right about the bolded... but how about rats/other rodents, or bears, snakes, wasps, mosquitos, termites, etc? No, it's not their fault for acting upon their instincts, but as human beings it is to our advantage to not have termites destroying the foundations of our homes, mosquitos spreading disease, and snakes biting people etc.



Society has a materailsitic mindset, so they can only view human interactions as physical. But social interaction is mental: we value things that make us feel good. From a psychological perspective, there are sh*ttier people than animals and even things. Some people place animals and things over human lives and it's all psychological.

OK, but what about the intelligence of a human being, and our higher level of consciousness? Simply the fact that you were able to write what you wrote, and the fact that we experience a level of consciousness where we can have this discussion makes us superior to animals.

[Stempel, HERB]

Let me guess.



he's been engaged to a blood elf for the past 7 years.

[IamRAMBO24]

Ha, according to Dresta:

1) Overpopulation is not a problem.
2) Have as many kids as you can afford.
3) We need even higher birth rates so we can support and care for the biggest birth wave of the past 60 years.

That makes a lot of sense.

This is a very narrow view of humanity and incredibly inhumane. What are you going to do about the increased population? Start killing babies, take away people's rights and limit the amount of children or outright find creative ways to wipe out the population?

So generic.

Here is another solution: humans are creative creatures; when we are faced with a problem, guess what, find a f*ckin solution; this is the reason why we are still dominating this planet and every other species have died out and are going to die out except domesticated animals which we have made our little b*tches.

As we populate, we will naturally take up all our resources until there are not anymore left, but guess what, we have a planet called "Mars" that we can inhabit with a ton of natural resources we can use to keep on living. And the great thing about this is once we conquer mars, we can move to the next planet, and then the next, and so on and so forth.

This is call moving forward. Wiping out the population is backwards thinking.

[IamRAMBO24]

OK, but what about the intelligence of a human being, and our higher level of consciousness? Simply the fact that you were able to write what you wrote, and the fact that we experience a level of consciousness where we can have this discussion makes us superior to animals.

Our rational intellect has nothing on our emotions. This is a huge misconception of our materialistic mindset.

[DeuceWallaces]

This is a very narrow view of humanity and incredibly inhumane. What are you going to do about the increased population? Start killing babies, take away people's rights and limit the amount of children or outright find creative ways to wipe out the population?

So generic.

Here is another solution: humans are creative creatures; when we are faced with a problem, guess we, find a f*ckin solution; this is the reason why we are still dominating this planet and every other species have died out and are going to die out except domesticated animals which we have made our little b*tches.

As we populate, we will naturally take up all our resources until there are not anymore left, but guess what, we have a planet called "Mars" that we can inhabit with a ton of natural resources we can use to keep on living. And the great thing about this is once we conquer mars, we can move to the next planet, and then the next, and so on and so forth.

This is call moving forward. Wiping out the population is backwards thinking; colonizing planets is forward thinking.

Why don't we just travel back in time to warn our past selves, or maybe create an alternate universe or dimension to send the surplus population? How about floating cities?

[IamRAMBO24]

Why don't we just travel back in time to warn our past selves, or maybe create an alternate universe or dimension to send the surplus population? How about floating cities?

Stop trying to derail an obvious legit solution. There are already talks of Mars colonization as we speak, so to compare it to "floating cities and time travel" is complete utter bullsh*t. The soil on Mars can be useful for construction and industrial materials, compounds with high chemical energy can be manufactured, solar power can be used for energy, they can even use certain processes to make food, etc.

It is extremely practical and can solve the population problem. By the time the earth blows over (about 100 years right?), we will have the technological advances for affordable space flight and affordable space stations to make this plausible (it'll be quicker if the situation calls for it). That is the beauty of humans having such a gifted human mind. We solve problems, not give up and wipe out half of the population out of fear.

[russwest0]

I was going to make this thread. lol

To people with pets, would you let a perfect stranger die if it meant your pet could live?

Yes. Is that even a serious ****ing question?

[MMM]

why do people value animal life over plant life?????

[Lamar Doom]

To people with pets, would you let a perfect stranger die if it meant your pet could live?

yep, without hesitation or guilt

[oarabbus]

why do people value animal life over plant life?????

Because plants do not have feelings, do not feel pain, and aren't conscious, as far as we know.

On the other hand, humans have more complex emotions and are more conscious than animals ergo a human life should be valued over an animal life - at least that is one interpretation.

Hence the topic.



yep, without hesitation or guilt


Yes. Is that even a serious ****ing question?


And what if it was not a stranger? What if it was...

a) a pregnant mother
b) a pediatric oncologist
c) your friend/cousin/uncle/aunt

[tomtucker]

Yeah you're right about the bolded... but how about rats/other rodents, or bears, snakes, wasps, mosquitos, termites, etc? No, it's not their fault for acting upon their instincts, but as human beings it is to our advantage to not have termites destroying the foundations of our homes, mosquitos spreading disease, and snakes biting people etc.




OK, but what about the intelligence of a human being, and our higher level of consciousness? Simply the fact that you were able to write what you wrote, and the fact that we experience a level of consciousness where we can have this discussion makes us superior to animals.

of course mosquitos and rats have to be squashed, they spread disease.

[Smoke117]

You don't get it? You ever been in a family of abusive drunks, drug addicts, and all together selfish *****? I take it you haven't. People value animals more than humans because an animal never screws you over, puts conditions on your love, or back stabs you after years of friendship. If you don't get it then you haven't lived or experienced enough of our human race.

[iamgine]

:confusedshrug: I just don't get it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm against animal cruelty, it's disgusting and abhorrent. But you know the train problem? Something like, 5 people are about to be hit by a train, you can flip the switch and divert the train, but it will then kill a single individual?


If there was a human being trapped on one side, and 10 animals on the other... sorry Fido, but I'm saving the human being. Again, I am NOT condoning any kind of violence or mistreatment of animals, but does anyone else out there consider a human life to be more valuable than that of an animal? PETA types will absolutely roast you for being an animal hater and despicable person for saying this, but don't explain their logic.
There are different values:

One is universally agreed value: "All human lives are equal" or "Humans are more valuable than animals".

Second is subjective value: "My family/pet/money is more important than a stranger" or "A rapist is worth less than dirt".

For example, my family is worth more than all the strangers in the world. I would let everyone else die before my family. This is despite knowing that all human lives are equal.

Not hard to understand at all.

[Micku]

Some animals are more important to the benefit life preservation than humans. Like Einstein said, if all the bees die on the Earth, humans would only have four years to live.

But if all the bees do die, this will cause a dominos effect since bees pollinate plants, which helps them reproduce. If this does not occur, they will die out and become extinct. Animals that eat plants, in generalize guess, will die out too. We are talking about a mass extinction based upon one animal species.

I think humans don't really have an significant positive contribute to the ecosystems of the world if we all die out. But correct me if I'm wrong. I always wondered about that.

I just figure if you look at that type ideology that humans don't contribute to the world's ecosystem in a positive attribute, then we are not the most important animals to preserve this planet we're in. Thus, we are insignificant. We could be consider as leaches or a virus without predators to check and balance us.

And with that, I think it is logically to hold some animals above human lives to extent for the preserve life as we know it. This will cause us to live longer as well on this planet as well as other animals. And like that, we're not the most important animals on the planet to keep life going.

Plants>Humans on Earth. Plant powah 4 life.

[Micku]

Because plants do not have feelings, do not feel pain, and aren't conscious, as far as we know.

On the other hand, humans have more complex emotions and are more conscious than animals ergo a human life should be valued over an animal life - at least that is one interpretation.

Hence the topic.


I can see that. But without plants, you'll have more mass extinction. Humans are unique due to their conscious and incredible intellect, but I don't think they are more important than plants that keeps us and a lot of other humans to survive. Complex emotions and the ability to self aware doesn't matter with preserving life and the facet of survival. Plant life are more important than us at keeping life around, at least as we know it.

So, in that way plants should be more valued than humans. Plants could cause multiple mass extinction if they die out. Humans would not...at least I don't think. Even though humans aren't as important to the Earth, we would strive upon keeping ourselves alive.

[bingo123]

In most of these cases where someone says he would rather choose a few strangers to suffer or die for the well being of an animal, they are talking about their pet.
How can someone say that? Just imagine on one side you have 100 stangers and on the other you have one person you love the most. Now you have to choose who lives, whats your choice?

[kurple]

To people with pets, would you let a perfect stranger die if it meant your pet could live?
yes

[Random_Guy]

yup, my dog is part of my family.
this, to answer the OPs question, i think animals are obviously more important when you're connected, if it was some random ass animal then nah.

[MMM]

never own a pet but i think in most cases i would choose a stranger over a pet. Losing a pet would be difficult but the stranger could have a family to support, etc. If the stranger was a child or female i think the odds are in the favour of the stranger over the pet.

[Random_Guy]

never own a pet but i think in most cases i would choose a stranger over a pet. Losing a pet would be difficult but the stranger could have a family to support, etc. If the stranger was a child or female i think the odds are in the favour of the stranger over the pet.
well then you are putting the question into context. Then can just as well assume that the person is the biggest douche or an asshole.

[bingo123]

never own a pet but i think in most cases i would choose a stranger over a pet. Losing a pet would be difficult but the stranger could have a family to support, etc. If the stranger was a child or female i think the odds are in the favour of the stranger over the pet.

I can understand that. Thats why I posted that other scenario in my previous post. How many strangers would you "sacrifice" for the life of your loved ones?

[iamgine]

I can understand that. Thats why I posted that other scenario in my previous post. How many strangers would you "sacrifice" for the life of your loved ones?
"Sacrifice" is the key word.

If sacrifice means to kill or murder, most people wouldn't sacrifice any stranger.

If sacrifice means strangers just died on their own, most people would agree.

[bingo123]

"Sacrifice" is the key word.

If sacrifice means to kill or murder, most people wouldn't sacrifice any stranger.

If sacrifice means strangers just died on their own, most people would agree.

My bad on wording it.

[Dresta]

Overpopulation can occur from a myriad of sources, including but not limited to "having more children." A decline in mortality rates can also lead to overpopulation, as it absolutely has in our case.

I don't see why that would lead you to dismiss the potential problems we may have down the road and our refusal to enter this problem into the national and/or international conversation.

Humankind is growing by about 74 million people every year, per the UN. We're expected to be over the 10 billion mark by 2100. Are you asserting that there is no problem, here? That the planet will be able to house us indefinitely, regardless of how fast the population grows?
You really need to understand that humankind is incapable of significantly outgrowing its capability to sustain itself. It simply cannot do so. If the number of people on the planet cannot be provided for, then the population will recalibrate itself to a stable equilibrium as it has always done, and as it did for thousands of years before our advances in production, technology and medicine brought on perpetual growth.

I don't see how you can be so certain what the future will bring when we have dealt with every population increase thus far (despite perpetual naysayers) and population growth is already on a downward curve from its initial explosion, and future technological developments cannot be guessed at. If it is climate change you are harking on about, then who is to say that nuclear fusion will not be perfected over the coming century? This would solve all our problems relating to energy and environmental damage.

But then i guess we could just keep 'arrogantly overpopulating' :lol. As if people's desire to have children has anything to do with arrogance, vanity maybe, but arrogance pfff.... rubbish.


Ha, according to Dresta:

1) Overpopulation is not a problem.
2) Have as many kids as you can afford.
3) We need even higher birth rates so we can support and care for the biggest birth wave of the past 60 years.

That makes a lot of sense.
Precisely. I'm glad your comprehension isn't faulty.


Yes I did feel the need to include that disclaimer because I've had this discussion crash and burn before it even started, as people would try to attack my animal hating, apparently sociopathic ways rather than discuss the issue at hand.

For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with anyone eating meat; I also do not believe animal lives to be as valuable as human lives. Which I have clearly stated.

Yeah, i guess i underestimated the extreme animal love on this site, combined with a contempt towards human beings that is reminisce of a one-party totalitarian state. Some guys in here would probably implement a one child policy if they had the chance, despite the US being a considerably underpopulated land mass, with a ton of room to grow.


"Sacrifice" is the key word.

If sacrifice means to kill or murder, most people wouldn't sacrifice any stranger.

If sacrifice means strangers just died on their own, most people would agree.
Except those two instances are really the same: in both cases, the stranger would die as a result of the decision of the person who chooses their pet. In both cases, the decision maker is directly responsible, and though some may still be able to justify killing in order to save their pets in this instance, if they had to be involved with the process by having to notify the family and see those repercussions then they may choose differently. Basically, there is a huge difference between the abstract and reality in this hypothetical.

[The Iron Sheik]

**** people and **** animals. problem solved.

[step_back]

Because Animals are innocent, while Humans are guilty.

What is innocent about the animal kingdom?

[Qwyjibo]

I would murder any of you to save my cat. Or just for fun. Whatever.

[iamgine]

Except those two instances are really the same: in both cases, the stranger would die as a result of the decision of the person who chooses their pet. In both cases, the decision maker is directly responsible, and though some may still be able to justify killing in order to save their pets in this instance, if they had to be involved with the process by having to notify the family and see those repercussions then they may choose differently. Basically, there is a huge difference between the abstract and reality in this hypothetical.
Result is the similar but those two things are not really the same at all. It's like if I know terrorist is going to bomb WTC but doesn't tell anyone. Versus if I kill many people myself. Those two aren't the same at all.

[Dresta]

Result is the similar but those two things are not really the same at all. It's like if I know terrorist is going to bomb WTC but doesn't tell anyone. Versus if I kill many people myself. Those two aren't the same at all.
Not doing something when something could easily be done is equal in responsibility, though not necessarily in malice.

[iamgine]

Not doing something when something could easily be done is equal in responsibility, though not necessarily in malice.
Not sure I agree.

[gts]

F*ck the stranger. I'm saving the animals so I can eat them later

[Dresta]

Not sure I agree.
So if a nuke is planted in New York City, and a person unrelated to the bomb has a button in front of them that will disarm the bomb, and they know this is what it does and what will happen if they don't do anything, that if this person let the bomb go off they do not carry the same responsibility for the consequences of what has happened as the planter of the bomb?

[CeltsGarlic]

So if a nuke is planted in New York City, and a person unrelated to the bomb has a button in front of them that will disarm the bomb, and they know this is what it does and what will happen if they don't do anything, that if this person let the bomb go off they do not carry the same responsibility for the consequences of what has happened as the planter of the bomb?

Now change that there is a dog instead of a human placed next the bomb disarmer. He would push it.

[Horde of Temujin]

**** humans, especially the light skinned ones

[iamgine]

So if a nuke is planted in New York City, and a person unrelated to the bomb has a button in front of them that will disarm the bomb, and they know this is what it does and what will happen if they don't do anything, that if this person let the bomb go off they do not carry the same responsibility for the consequences of what has happened as the planter of the bomb?
I'm saying not helping is not equal to murdering people yourself.

[oarabbus]

Stop trying to derail an obvious legit solution. There are already talks of Mars colonization as we speak, so to compare it to "floating cities and time travel" is complete utter bullsh*t. The soil on Mars can be useful for construction and industrial materials, compounds with high chemical energy can be manufactured, solar power can be used for energy, they can even use certain processes to make food, etc.

It is extremely practical and can solve the population problem. By the time the earth blows over (about 100 years right?), we will have the technological advances for affordable space flight and affordable space stations to make this plausible (it'll be quicker if the situation calls for it). That is the beauty of humans having such a gifted human mind. We solve problems, not give up and wipe out half of the population out of fear.


The first crazy shit Rambo says that I agree with :applause:

It's much easier said than done and our bodies are not built to survive in space or other planets, but space colonization is the only option in the endgame for humanity. At some point humanity will become extinct, but if we want to delay that, we have to look to space.

[Nick Young]

Because humans are able to understand what is happening to them while animals aren't. It kind of makes their situation seem even more tragic. They seem so much more helpless because they have no idea what to do or why it is happening. Probably not the only reason but it is part of it I think.
Animals arent helpless. How did their species survive so long? It is condescending to view animals as helpless victims just because their brains don't work the same as ours. Your animalist words disgust me. You are no better then white supremicists.

[TheMan]

:confusedshrug: I just don't get it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm against animal cruelty, it's disgusting and abhorrent. But you know the train problem? Something like, 5 people are about to be hit by a train, you can flip the switch and divert the train, but it will then kill a single individual?


If there was a human being trapped on one side, and 10 animals on the other... sorry Fido, but I'm saving the human being. Again, I am NOT condoning any kind of violence or mistreatment of animals, but does anyone else out there consider a human life to be more valuable than that of an animal? PETA types will absolutely roast you for being an animal hater and despicable person for saying this, but don't explain their logic.
PETA are bunch of hypocrites, they're for killing Pit Bulls just because they're Pit Bulls...fvck them.:rant

[FaceBack]

Because empathy is a narcissistic behavior, OP.

[FaceBack]

Animals arent helpless. How did their species survive so long? It is condescending to view animals as helpless victims just because their brains don't work the same as ours. Your animalist words disgust me. You are no better then white supremicists.

:banghead: How dare those animals not move to another free flowing river when their indigenous home gets dammed by humans. It's not our fault fish can't walk.

[Overdrive]

If there was a human being trapped on one side, and 10 animals on the other... sorry Fido, but I'm saving the human being. Again, I am NOT condoning any kind of violence or mistreatment of animals, but does anyone else out there consider a human life to be more valuable than that of an animal? PETA types will absolutely roast you for being an animal hater and despicable person for saying this, but don't explain their logic.

The deal is that a human being knows that it can die, without being confronted by death itself. So the one human quite possibly got there by his own mistake or wrong doings. The animals not. They don't know what a train is or that it might kill them. In the very last moment they maybe get it.

Not saying I'd take the animals over the human, I generally hate these scenarios(kill one save the other) and couldn't decide. Basically I'd try to save both.