ok sorry i mixed the relationships up but i'm talking about naturally helping another species- not animal rights and whatnot- give me an actual example of us having an actual natural relationship other than parasitism- i mean like: certain species of ants eat the sap coming out of a tree and protect the tree- they are fed, given shelter- and the tree is helped also- i can't think of something where humans actually helped another species without having to think about it...i mean are the ants really thinking about helping the tree- they're thinking about eating and getting shelter.
plus what i'm saying about the train guy is if his motive was known he'd be punished- and should be punished mercilessly, it's completely stupid that by chance he should be let off the hook and maybe do it again in the future- which may end up happening and if there were only innocent school kids on that train then he'd prolly be let off the hook because maybe he had sources that told him that the train could have terrorists or something. this also may produce people getting punished less because they kill trainfulls of people and they say they thought a terrorist was on it. he should be punished without the fact that there were terrorists in mind. And some people who were asked that question said the person they loved- so don't be so sure, maybe you would save the room full of people but when it comes down to it a lot of people would pick the person they loved and be selfish- maybe not so many people here but i've heard it asked and about half the people said the person they loved because they knew they were good, and had proof of it. Also if newspapers didn't know about the room full of people you'd be looked at like a hero and rewarded- even if you had a selfish intent. Which is completely unfair and shitty. I truly believe that intent is what needs to happen- that's why minority report's system worked well before it was tampered with- a persons intent was to kill a person and they were punished for it.
for the other questions: 1. I would meet Napoleon and Jesus or God if they count...simply because- Napoleon rules man and I'd have so much explained if I could just find out whether or not Jesus or God exist. 2. If I could not fail I would create millions of really good charities that couldn't fail because then they would stay standing and be able to help people forever.
morgan, commensalism is when one helps the other and the other is unaffected. mutualism is when both are benefitted. we're not just parasites, we help many species by keeping at bay others, and hurt many species, but the world is all in delecate balance and we disrupt it no more than any other species.
train guy: and even if he MEANT to do bad, he did good, and there is no way anyone would know he really WANTED to do bad. he should be punished for killing the innocent and rewarded for killing the guilty. and obviosly you would save the room with more people because then there would be more human minds, more progress.
that probably didn't make much sense if you guys aren't all inside my head...
Humans taking and giving: Humans though many call ourselves useless doing nothing but destroy earth, I personally think that we are like any other species, think of the three biological relationships: commensalism- both help eachother parasitism-one hurts the other but is helped and...the one where one is helped and the other is neither helped nor harmed there are many of all of these relationships and we fit into almost all of them depending on what situation we are looking at, i suppose with the environment we are parasites...maybe we're just parasites- that was the thing that we drew but there are tons of other parasites...so sure it's bad that we're parasites but can humans truly help it- we try to but is it really achievable? Intentions vs Actions: the train thing, well the man should be punished just the same because his intentions were bad, if anybody else had done such a thing and only innocents had died with the same intention then why should they be treated any differently, it was by chance that that trian happened to have such horrible people on it. It's like the question: would you save someone you love deeply or a room full of strangers from a burning building that will collapse after you leave with one of the two? this room of strangers could be anyone- by luck it could range from brad pitt to jesus to hitler...by chance you'd be made a hero if it was a room full of innocents or villan if it was a bunch of bad terminators... Abortions: There are far too many bitter hurtful people in this world because of their childhoods- why bring a soul into this world if all that is going to happen to it until it is 18 is going to hurt it?
humans give just the same to the planet as anyone else. they do all that alex says, but they also take more, but that makes sence, we're at the top of the food chain. do panthers give anything to the rain forest? no, they just eat the smaller animals. they're not food, they just eat and then litter the ground with their bodies. humans do the same on a larger scale, we destroy some of the environment and save some of the environment. the real evolutionary advantage we have over other animals is our technology, and as we evolve further, we develop more efficient technology that gives more to the planet.
hmmm....hard question....this is the type of question that people ask when they intend the answer to be no, and then try to live cleaner lives (not meaning to imply any motives for you for asking this question park), which is why I'm going to say yes, and give my reasoning. contrary to the thoughts that this question conveys, I believe that humans do not take anything more then any other species does. I feel that we are the dominant species on the planet for a reason, we were evolved to that status. It was not like one day some neanderthal said, ok, I'm going to become the dominant species on this planet, grunt! no, humans evolved naturally above birds and fish and dogs to be come more then them, and birds and fish and dogs---what do they give to the enviornment----their waste---fertilizer, and their dead bodies, exactly the same as humans---aside from some birds which polinate plants.....but so do humans--sure we do it for our reasons, but isn't this sorta getting back to the last question. those species that die out as a result of human products...well, by my logic, that is natural, and so by saving them, even if only for a period of time to keep them from becoming extinct, we do far more then any other animal---does any other animal intentionally protect another, simply for that animal's well-being, the only time that happens is in a mutualistic or comensalistic (Yeah Mr. Levin!) symbiotic relationship. So therefore I state exactly the opposite, humans give more to the planet then any other animal alive.
Humans give nothing other than more humans. In any other animal, though, the goal of that species is to out live any other animal by spreading your seed. But they do give meat and "sport".Humans do give, but only after they're dead. Bugs eat our flesh. Birds and fish eat bugs, humans and larger animals, like dogs and cats, eat birds and fish, and so on and so forth.
Ok, i know i didnt answer the last question, but i was busy, and now theres to many posts...so im going to skip this one...but on my way back from NY city yesterday, a question came into my head...as in opinionated question. I remember hearing somewhere as a quote or fact either way that "humans are the only species that takes without giving." In a overall sense this seems correct. We dont give meat to feed others, we dont grow a supply of food without taking other sources, and so on and so on.... But on the other hand, humans do give, but only because they started the problem. We contribute to sciences, and the so called "preservation" of environment, although we are to blame for the destruction. Can anyone think of anything humans ACTUALLY contribute as in give without take?...
i dunno about hostility...but the redundancy is my fault.....I keep rephrasing and re-asking the same/similar questions because I wanna see if anyone can see it from another point of view.......because I honestly can't decide.........actions and intentions are both extremely important....it's just a question of who you are asking....
AHHH I'm back....from vaction that is, mentality is a different story, correct me if im wrong but the conversation has got a bit hostile, not to mention redundant. what about a topic that is something less about human morals or situations based on the future, rather on the past. Like what about ancient mysteries....maybe I'm just weird, but I'm really interested in stuff like atlantis, present day beliefs on something like king arthur, or just theories and opinions on alleged mythological places and people.
Ok. Kip Durron was a good person, even though what he did was bad. He was a person with good intentions that happened to do something bad. In a reverse example, lets say a man goes on a killing spree and kills a nother person who's going to kill the president (Lets say Bush is not in office). He may have saved one life but his intentions were bad. That and the ends of this situation don't justify the means.
PS Ok not much better but I tried. And how do you get those pictures to stay on all your posts?
intention vs action hitler was wrong in action, so even though his intentions were good, he was a bad man. action vs action kip durron saved the galaxy. good person, even though intermediate events made him bad. ends vs. means same as kip durron, he saved the galaxy by killing people. zack found silence by cutting out burno's tongue. the sacrifices are worth it, so zack and kip are good people.
the end justifies the means, the final result outweighs everything.