Human life more important than the life of a tree?

  • 91 Replies
  • 11313 Views
*

Vindictus

  • 5455
  • insightful personal text
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #60 on: November 08, 2010, 01:09:28 PM »
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?

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #61 on: November 08, 2010, 01:38:23 PM »
As the only species that destroys their environment on a massive scale regularly, and usually with little to no rehabilitation

Is that the trees or the humans?

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #62 on: November 08, 2010, 01:55:18 PM »
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?

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.

Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #63 on: November 08, 2010, 05:12:06 PM »
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.



There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8896
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #64 on: November 08, 2010, 05:19:37 PM »
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.




So religion automatically renders that the only answer for you? How does that work?
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Vindictus

  • 5455
  • insightful personal text
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #65 on: November 08, 2010, 06:20:11 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.


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

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #66 on: November 09, 2010, 01:38:12 AM »
Is that the trees or the humans?

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


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

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

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

*

spanner34.5

  • 4642
  • feck arse drink
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #67 on: November 09, 2010, 02:09:06 AM »
The world would continue perfectly happily without the human race. Lack of trees would be a disaster.
My I.Q. is 85. Or was it 58?

*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #68 on: November 09, 2010, 07:22:54 AM »
The world would continue perfectly happily without the human race. Lack of trees would be a disaster.

What would be perfectly happy in a world?
Is mars any less happy than earth?
Venus?
Jupiter?

They suffer from a high degree of lack of trees, and humans, and seem to be getting along just as merry.

And would the lack of trees really effect a tardigrade?  An animal that can survive a vacuum or temperatures as high as 150 C?

Berny
Is a Raccoon life more important than the life of a badger?

To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #69 on: November 09, 2010, 07:25:44 AM »
The world would continue perfectly happily without the human race. Lack of trees would be a disaster.

A disaster for us.

Yes, the world would be better without us, but 'better' is a word that we invented. Animals and plants cannot compare. They would be none the wiser.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #70 on: November 09, 2010, 02:14:54 PM »
It's mostly the humans, mexican fighting trees are the only species capable of what we do.

Really? You should take a look at the Amazon. Despite our best efforts the trees there have pretty much taken over what was once a beautiful savannah. The Co2 they pump out has altered our environment irrevocably.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #71 on: November 12, 2010, 01:37:41 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.
Sources? Not that it affects the hypothetical scenario of all trees vanishing, but I'm just curious because it conflicts with the little I've heard.

Edit:
"From 1990 - 2000, about two percent of the world's forest cover - roughly 10 million hectares - was lost and not recovered, according the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). That rate continues today."
-http://ecology.com/features/quietevolutiontrees/quietevolutiontrees.html

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.
That's directly; it ignores the importance via lower status on the food chain and such. Trees have many other implications like providing food and habitats for hundreds of thousands of species. The impact of trees vanishing from the face of the Earth would be incalculable.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 01:42:17 AM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Vindictus

  • 5455
  • insightful personal text
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #72 on: November 12, 2010, 03:58:31 AM »
How does that make us the only one that does it?

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

I never said no other species do it.

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


*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #73 on: November 12, 2010, 04:38:51 AM »
What if the person were very small and the turtle very large?
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #74 on: November 12, 2010, 09:58:34 AM »
What if the person were very small and the turtle very large?

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #75 on: November 12, 2010, 11:20:43 AM »
What if the person were very small and the turtle very large?


*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #76 on: November 12, 2010, 07:59:00 PM »
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?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #77 on: November 13, 2010, 06:01:00 AM »
Trees vanishing from the face of the Earth would be a small mass extinction if that.

Humans vanishing from the face of the Earth would lead to a few extinctions, but it is rather unfair to compare how many species depend on producers vs consumers. 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.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #78 on: November 13, 2010, 11:32:48 AM »
Humans vanishing from the face of the Earth would lead to a few extinctions

...

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

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #79 on: November 13, 2010, 11:58:05 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

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #80 on: November 13, 2010, 12:40:10 PM »
There are some real leaf eating noobs on this forum.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #81 on: November 13, 2010, 12:54:56 PM »
Farmed cows

I think the bulls might save the day.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #82 on: November 13, 2010, 02:15:52 PM »
Humans vanishing from the face of the Earth would lead to a few extinctions

...

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

Dogs, some of the more protected animals. A couple things that lack a sustainable habitat or a predator to keep them in check.

Like I said we are a top of the food chain predator, not much relies on us.

I'd also like to point out that the tile of the thread is about "a human" or " a tree" not about which species is more important.

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #83 on: November 13, 2010, 02:23:47 PM »
Well then I reckon a human. The trees don't seem to have much of an opinion.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #84 on: November 13, 2010, 03:58:52 PM »
Dogs

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

Also we has no predator to keep us in check. ZOMG we're going to the wipeouts!

The fact that nothing relies on us means that no one will notice us when we're gone. :'(

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #85 on: November 13, 2010, 04:48:21 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.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #86 on: November 13, 2010, 05:05:01 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.


I'm happy. Are you?

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #87 on: November 14, 2010, 01:18:53 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?
I don't presume it wouldn't have a large impact.
A comparison can include two extremes. ???

Food chains are almost always short, and therefore very few things depend on carnivores/omnivores.
How is this helping your argument?

Quote
I still think that an intelligent, self aware, inventing species is more valuable than one that isn't even sentient.
More valuable in a perspective favoring sentience, yes.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2010, 01:25:30 AM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #88 on: November 14, 2010, 08:38:14 AM »
My point was, if something's value is based solely on how much depends on it, then you can simply look at a food chain. I don't think this debate is about that.

Also, since this is only about "a tree" or "a human" how many things depend on the species is irrelevant.

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Human life more important than the life of a tree?
« Reply #89 on: November 14, 2010, 08:40:44 AM »
Well it actually says 'human life' rather than 'a human life'. But if he means 'is mankind more important than one tree?' the answer is yes.