Human life more important than the life of a tree?

As the only species that destroys their environment on a massive scale regularly, and usually with little to no rehabilitation

As the only species that destroys their environment on a massive scale regularly, and usually with little to no rehabilitation, isn't the whole tree/biosphere vs humans point moot?

Quote from: Wendy on November 01, 2010, 10:31:51 AM

It's definitely A. In my opinion, there's a clear dividing line between the life of a plant and the life of a person. However, the line gets fuzzier(again, in my opinion) the more developed the life form gets. By developed, I mean able to feel and react to pain, and generally close to sentience. Also, to take the comparison a step further, would you kill a street junkie with AIDS if it meant saving the life of another human? If so, would you do it under any circumstance? There's a BIG difference between killing someone who is threatening a third person's life and cold-bloodedly slaughtering him to indirectly save somebody's life.

So why is a person's life more important than a plant's?

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on November 01, 2010, 07:53:07 PM

Quote from: Wendy on November 01, 2010, 10:31:51 AM

It's definitely A. In my opinion, there's a clear dividing line between the life of a plant and the life of a person. However, the line gets fuzzier(again, in my opinion) the more developed the life form gets. By developed, I mean able to feel and react to pain, and generally close to sentience. Also, to take the comparison a step further, would you kill a street junkie with AIDS if it meant saving the life of another human? If so, would you do it under any circumstance? There's a BIG difference between killing someone who is threatening a third person's life and cold-bloodedly slaughtering him to indirectly save somebody's life.

So why is a person's life more important than a plant's?

I'm able to get away with it because of my religious beliefs.

Human life comes first, doesn't matter who we are talking about.

Quote from: Mykael on November 01, 2010, 10:22:57 AM

Is that the trees or the humans?

Lol. Every species overpopulates until it destroys its environment in at least a small way. That is a premise of survival of the fittest. Competition for limited resources that are unable to support the population.

The fact that we are good at locating resources and extending how many of us can survive is the only difference.

Quote from: Crustinator on November 08, 2010, 01:38:23 PM

Is that the trees or the humans?

It's mostly the humans, mexican fighting trees are the only species capable of what we do.

Quote from: Raist on November 08, 2010, 01:55:18 PM

Lol. Every species overpopulates until it destroys its environment in at least a small way. That is a premise of survival of the fittest. Competition for limited resources that are unable to support the population.

The fact that we are good at locating resources and extending how many of us can survive is the only difference.

Typically, a species that would destroy its environment due to overpopulation does not have the intelligence to think about destroying it or not. Additionally, these species do not destroy large sections of ecosystems, and anything that is destroyed is purely for survival, not for gluttony or other pointless purposes.

bawwwwww

The world would continue perfectly happily without the human race. Lack of trees would be a disaster.

The world would continue perfectly happily without the human race. Lack of trees would be a disaster.

It's mostly the humans, mexican fighting trees are the only species capable of what we do.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 08, 2010, 01:36:57 AM

It's common knowledge that trees are almost useless for producing oxygen, and yet I believe you still misunderstood the point of my post. I was applying my focus to Chris' intentions and content rather than the technicalities. He defined 'importance' as a function of the food chain, and I was calling attention to this larger picture than any potential implications. I too, do not feel like arguing over how much the biosphere would suffer from the loss of all trees, but surely you would agree humans do not sustain trees the same way trees sustain humans, right?

The reason I feel comfortable saying 'plants', is because I am referring back to the debate structure rather than the insignificantly imposed details. It was largely a response to Wardogg's chain of logic, in which plants would make for a better illustration. There was no reason to limit the example (Edit: I assume plants are not made in god's image), and at no point was I implying plants are trees.

I would say that within the past 50 years humans have increased trees numbers and fitness. Most logging companies either replant the trees they harvest, or recut the same woods every so many years allowing the trees to repopulate and remake a forest.

Trees at most supply us with building materials and fruit, as far as importance goes, I see that as an abstract concept unimportant in this debate. All I wanted to say was trees and humans do not depend on each other.

How does that make us the only one that does it?

All you have proved is a lack of premeditation on the animals part.

As the only species that destroys their environment on a massive scale regularly

What if the person were very small and the turtle very large?

What if the person were very small and the turtle very large?

The impact of trees vanishing from the face of the Earth would be incalculable.

Humans vanishing from the face of the Earth would lead to a few extinctions

Quote from: Raist on November 13, 2010, 06:01:00 AM

Humans vanishing from the face of the Earth would lead to a few extinctions

...

Chihuahuas... maybe hamsters... Can't think of any others.

Farmed cows

Quote from: Raist on November 13, 2010, 06:01:00 AM

Humans vanishing from the face of the Earth would lead to a few extinctions

...

Chihuahuas... maybe hamsters... Can't think of any others.

Dogs

Quote from: Raist on November 13, 2010, 02:15:52 PM

Dogs

Nope I''m pretty sure dogs have got the fucking and killing thing sorted.

Quote from: Crustinator on November 13, 2010, 03:58:52 PM

Quote from: Raist on November 13, 2010, 02:15:52 PM

Dogs

Nope I''m pretty sure dogs have got the fucking and killing thing sorted.

Bulldogs are unable to mate or give birth unaided.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 12, 2010, 01:37:41 AM

The impact of trees vanishing from the face of the Earth would be incalculable.

I would argue that the same could be said about humans vanishing from the face of the Earth.  How would such a thing not have a huge impact?

Food chains are almost always short, and therefore very few things depend on carnivores/omnivores.

I still think that an intelligent, self aware, inventing species is more valuable than one that isn't even sentient.