Humanity should kill itself.

Started by Daxisheart, May 31, 2009, 02:50:25 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

Vell

Quote from: Daxisheart on June 01, 2009, 09:51:11 pm
Sorry, internet down, I have to go, so real quick:

those are natural disasters, unavoidable, and are a part of nature. Do we need to pollute? No. Do we need to take more than we need and shit over everything else? No.

I'll be back in probably 30-40 minutes.


Guys. he's not listening. this is not a debate. a Debate is two sided with each side carefully considering the other and allowing it a possibility in one's mind before stating their own opinion. he's just forcing his on ours. he's just a wanna-be depressed moron who has little to no excuse for being a whiny baby. I suggest locking this, or moving it to spam.

Starrodkirby86

Let's wait until what he says after coming back. You probably might not get his full position or words in this part because of his Internet and the lack of time he has in writing it.

What's osu!? It's a rhythm game. Thought I should have a signature with a working rank. ;P It's now clickable!
Still Aqua's biggest fan (Or am I?).




Vell

alright, moddy. then I shall respond.

Responding to questions.

Do we need to pollute? actually, at this point in time... yes. People ARE looking for alternative fuels, but at the moment to keep society... societal, it is necessary to use the fuel we have. so we must pollute.

ok. pollution unavoidable. do we all need to die? NO! sooner or later there will be a major mass-extinction(AKA the IceAge/whatever happened to the dinosaurs) Earth has them. several times all life has been wiped from the earth(or so i've been taught) and it's always come back. even if we make it desolate and destitute and a literal wasteland, Earth comes back. you can raze an entire forest, and turn that into a desert, eventually small plants will pop up, and then slightly bigger ones, and eventually you will have a forest again. it's called Natural Succession or somethin, Iunno, it's been a while since I had a class on this.

your turn now,I'm bored.

Daxisheart

I'm going to try to adress as many points as possible since my last real post. I do try to listen to others and respond in turn, sorry if it sounds like I'm pushing it on you.(then again, you should see the kinds of reactions I get on RMXP's religion thread a while back...)

Kagutsuchi: I've sort of answered yours already, those are natural disasters and unavoidable. NATURAL disasters. It's a part of nature for it to happen. Volcanoes erupt. Cyclones destroy. You can't really blame a single person for it, there's really nothing to blame, shit happens.
Now pollution and stuff, however, you can blame. That company that dumps waste into the ocean? Yeah, you can actually blame people for that.

Now, for something related: Humanity pollutes. Yeah, we exist, and we do that. So, humanity = pollution, no humanity = no pollution. Pollution is so that thus, can be stopped, if humanity is gone from this world. So, pollution and damage to the environment and all this can be stopped. But it doesn't, because we exist and we are too selfish to do anything. And by anything this means more than two or three people out of every 100(I wish) recycling- that means something like 99 out of every 100 people recycling for an actual impact on the environment. I mean, if people actually actively do that, and various other things, maybe it can work.

Namkcor: I think I just adressed you in the above paragraph, but I want to add something: If humanity didn't exist, it wouldn't even be needed to recycle alumnium...

The mass killings thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill
admittedly, that was probably an accident. Still...

Holocaust a couple years back: Although I hate it, since it was a discriminatory type of killing, in the end it did benefit us somewhat(like all wars). Let's see, if it didn't exist, then let's add 11 million people to the world population. And increase it by however many generations in between. Do all that for all of the wars, and human overpopulation would be even more of a freaking problem, and it's a huge enough problem even now. And even with these catastrophes, humanity still manages to one up nature and grow even more. Sure, tsunamies and hurricanes and holocausts may kill of thousands and millions of people, yet if you look at the world population ten, twenty years later, it's still exponentially higher.
"Oh hey look godless stuff": ShowHide
What is really, really interesting is that while Abrahamic Christians give so much importance to their own free will, by their very definition of their God they deprive Him of free will.
The concept that He is not human and thus not derive the same morals as us really does not work. If his idea of morality, good or evil, is beyond us, is beyond our comprehension, why should we care? If he judges that not saving a woman from being raped a murdered a moral decision, then we should still trust him?
god i am such an atheist asshole.

I am on such a coolkid atheist rampage this week.

Subsonic_Noise

Well if you want to look at the holocaust that way (I hate it when people say something like that  :roll:)
I think it did much more harm the the earth than it avoided. Think about all the pollution as the result of
the production of tanks, highways, airplanes etc. and all the nature destroyed during the war. I'm sorry but
you totally fail with this argument.

@Blizzard: Yeah I'm from Germany, what's strange about that? o.O

Vell

Blizz speaks german fluently I believe.

impulszero

Quote from: UltaFlame on June 01, 2009, 10:29:06 pm
Do we need to pollute? actually, at this point in time... yes. People ARE looking for alternative fuels, but at the moment to keep society... societal, it is necessary to use the fuel we have. so we must pollute.


if i can say u're wrong would u trust me?
ex.1. > Solar energy can reproduce much more energy that fuel and nuclear energy
ex.2. > Wing Energy can produce more energy
ex.3. > Hydro energy can blah blah blah....
dont trust? just google the "solar/hydro/wind energy facts"
The point is we pollute cuz country like (ex.)america needs money. there is safer and un-polluted ways of geting energy, but its have no profit for country of that tipe. The country that are based on economy will never accept other recource who dont give profit.
<br /><br />Order is for idiots, Genius can handle Chaos.

Vell

meh. not like I've done any actual research. of course, I'm aware of these things, but ya know, I never bothered to check if they were sufficient. I say we'll all either die when the next ice age comes along, or some huge super-disaster. if humanity can survive that, then I say we deserve to live. until then let us go on till we're tested.

and btw. species go extinct and pop up like their going out of style - always. We have no change on that. sure, we could kill less, but it's natural for species to go extinct. all things must die eventually. we all will too. Humanity is not eternal.

Daxisheart

I'm just saying; it would be easier if humanity died now.

Ps: I'm pretty sure that for every living species, 100 have gone extinct.
"Oh hey look godless stuff": ShowHide
What is really, really interesting is that while Abrahamic Christians give so much importance to their own free will, by their very definition of their God they deprive Him of free will.
The concept that He is not human and thus not derive the same morals as us really does not work. If his idea of morality, good or evil, is beyond us, is beyond our comprehension, why should we care? If he judges that not saving a woman from being raped a murdered a moral decision, then we should still trust him?
god i am such an atheist asshole.

I am on such a coolkid atheist rampage this week.

Vell

so we're not doing anything wrong. How can you be so sure we're ACTUALLY csusing so much destruction? have you monitored the earth and everything that's happened to it SINCE IT'S CREATION?! I doubt the polar ice caps have been there since day 1. did you know most of the land was covered in a giant ICE BERG? as in, ALMOST ALL OF IT?

besides, we've already changed the face of the world far too much. without us there anymore, all of the space we've used will just go to waste. by the time 'nature' has completely eradicated every trace of us and begun 'healing' from us, if we didn't die we'd have found several ways to live 'co-existently' with 'nature'. Humans are a part of nature. Species ARE the face of the earth, Living beings ALWAYS change it.

your biggest issue here is treating 'nature' as something apart from humanity. 'oh, we're above all those dumb animals and lifeless things in the background, but we're harming them, so let's die.' humans are as much a part of nature, and are as natural, as everythign around us. the world, the EARTH, has checks and balances.  the different forms of trees that live change the shape of the earth, the different creatures that live allow other different species to live, and so on. Humans just don't realise that they ARE natural. they are as susceptible to mother nature as everything else. in fact, we're equivalent to everything else. it takes more than 4 bullets to the forehead to make a bear stop charging you. sure, it'll be dead soon, but it'll live long enough to kill you and continue for a short while.  read this in a book couple years back. one bullet to our rm and we can't move at all. I know you have all those movies and stuff that show people taking three bullets and moving like it's easy. it won't be. in fact, you'd probably be unconscious, if not dead. blood loss does that to ya. so withotu our technology we wouldn't even be around still. your probably still incredibly young and see thigns in black and white. there's always another side to the coin. theres always a light to the dark, and dark to a light.

Valcos

Im pretty sure killing of people would cause more pain. Just imagine people dropping dead everywhere! I know id go insane and probably kill myself or something :^_^':
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."
-Oscar De La Hoya

Diokatsu

Quote from: Daxisheart on June 01, 2009, 09:51:11 pm
Sorry, internet down, I have to go, so real quick:

those are natural disasters, unavoidable, and are a part of nature. Do we need to pollute? No. Do we need to take more than we need and shit over everything else? No.

I'll be back in probably 30-40 minutes.

But our greed is part of our nature. That's why capitalism works. You'd be harming another nature to save one.

Vell

Quote from: myself, thank you.Humans just don't realise that they ARE natural. they are as susceptible to mother nature as everything else

Reno-s--Joker

I don't understand... for the sole reason that we pollute and damage the environment? I don't see burning toxic clouds, zero plant-life and super overheated greenhouse effects yet - oh wait - that's Venus. Just because there is no-one to blame for Venus' state does not mean the situation is not the same. If we seriously went and killed everyone that was to blame for something then no-one and nothing would progress. People aren't pure and they make mistakes. If no-one makes mistakes then no-one learns, etc etc.

Anyhow, if you wanted to be technical - who said the environment (that is plants and animals) is natural anyway? When it all boils down to it, the universe is made up of particles, predominantly hydrogen. Why don't we just destroy the universe in a reverse Big Bang so it can all go back to the way it was? Life is a weird sort of anomaly in a non-organically dominated universe.

I think someone's being a little short sighted here. Personally I think that humanity has realised its mistake fairly early (only a few hundred years since the Industrial Revolution in the billions that the Earth has existed). There are enough people trying to solve the environmental problem in other less drastic ways than mass suicide. This is an opinion which is kinda like "Yeah, all stupid people should be killed." No. As much as I hate them, who says I'm not one? Who is to decide? Who will thank us when we all kill ourselves; when the remorseless Sun drags the Earth into itself and destroys all our efforts?

Why was reproduction invented - why is sex fun? Why does death and the dead smell so bad (although some strange people whom I will run away from might think otherwise)? Life and the living want to survive. They were created/developed (choose whatever you will) that way. So we should not kill ourselves over some misguided idealism.

Anyhow, it's good to see you're so passionate about our planet you would sacrifice your life for it. I don't want to you sacrifice your life - I'd rather you do something more productive. Please?

...
Okay I'm probably repeating what everyone has said already. D:

Vell

this 'debate' is about him repeating himself, and us repeating ourselves. we've all said more or less the same thing these whole three pages.

Blizzard

Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.

Daxisheart

Well, I got nothing. I'm repeating myself too much, and ulta's points are pretty valid. There are some stuff I might say in response, but it doesn't feel related to this topic enough. Anyways, I'm out, sorry bout that.
And I'm not saying am I sacrificing my life, just arguing that one SHOULD. Big diff. Either way, even if everyone agrees that humanity should do such and such, we won't.
Or at least I won't.
PS: INTERNET'S BACK! final-freaking-ly
"Oh hey look godless stuff": ShowHide
What is really, really interesting is that while Abrahamic Christians give so much importance to their own free will, by their very definition of their God they deprive Him of free will.
The concept that He is not human and thus not derive the same morals as us really does not work. If his idea of morality, good or evil, is beyond us, is beyond our comprehension, why should we care? If he judges that not saving a woman from being raped a murdered a moral decision, then we should still trust him?
god i am such an atheist asshole.

I am on such a coolkid atheist rampage this week.

fugibo

Quote from: Daxisheart on June 03, 2009, 11:12:14 am
Well, I got nothing. I'm repeating myself too much, and ulta's points are pretty valid. There are some stuff I might say in response, but it doesn't feel related to this topic enough. Anyways, I'm out, sorry bout that.
And I'm not saying am I sacrificing my life, just arguing that one SHOULD. Big diff. Either way, even if everyone agrees that humanity should do such and such, we won't.
Or at least I won't.
PS: INTERNET'S BACK! final-freaking-ly


That makes Winston Smith.

LurkerKoetsu

In OP's defense. People agree with him, and he has a point.

Even though he's the winner of the debate, it wont change a damn thing.

Diokatsu

Quote from: LurkerKoetsu on June 25, 2009, 03:36:50 pm
In OP's defense. People agree with him, and he has a point.

Even though he's the winner of the debate, it wont change a damn thing.

Go kill yourself if you feel like it. More room for me and less consumption.