Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

RedditIsShit9922 t1_iudv74a wrote

Reply to comment by Real_Richard_M_Nixon in The New World: Envisioning Life After Climate Change by nevernotdating

humans turned the vast majority of the planet into torture chambers. even a global nuclear war would be more compassionate than allowing humans to continue this shit.

−8

Real_Richard_M_Nixon t1_iudvthd wrote

Ok buddy, maybe you should be the change you want to see in the world.

>!But actually, find God, you’re starting to worry me.!<

−3

RedditIsShit9922 t1_iudwzdc wrote

"hey lets talk about you rather than the issue!"

−2

No_Opening_5128 t1_iue4qnh wrote

But you are the issue, according to your own logic. Didn’t you just say humans deserve extinction? And you yourself are human. So if you were consistent with your own theory you would end your existence. Now I don’t want you to do that because your theory is actually wrong and your mindset is too. But I am just pointing out to you that you are inconsistent in your beliefs.

3

RedditIsShit9922 t1_iuebynz wrote

If my death caused all other humans to die, then you are right that my position would imply killing myself. Since it does not, your argument is just a non sequitur.

But for the sake of argument, lets pretend that my death actually would cause all other humans to die and that, therefore, I would be a hypocrite for not killing myself. Guess what? That still would be irrelevant for the truth of what I am saying. Suggesting otherwise is a Tu Quoque fallacy which in turn is just a special case of ad hominem which in turn is "hey lets talk about you rather than the issue!"

So yeah, "hey lets talk about you rather than the issue!" is all this boils down to again.

1

No_Opening_5128 t1_iueiomg wrote

I mean what do you want me to say to address your “argument”? That no, humans don’t deserve to die? I’ve already said that. Regardless, your position is disingenuous, or at least delusional, because if you truly thought humans deserve to go extinct then you wouldn’t give a single shit about what happens to humans. If our actions cause us to go extinct, then why does it matter? And if your argument is that other life forms don’t deserve to suffer because of it, then what is your solution exactly? Because I don’t see what else it could be other than worldwide genocide. And since that is obviously never going to happen, your position is unserious and irrelevant.

4

RedditIsShit9922 t1_iuhzh7a wrote

>I mean what do you want me to say to address your “argument”?

If you got something to say about the issue, do so. If not, then do not. You may remain silent for all I care. But do not give me that ad hominem shit. I am so tired of it. It is fucking everywhere. Nobody talks about the actual issues anymore, but rather just go after who is saying it; or by extension who these people can be associated with etc.

Who says something is irrelevant for the truth of the statement. A rapist saying that rape is bad does not make it good just cause he is a hypocrite.

>If our actions cause us to go extinct, then why does it matter?

There are other sentient beings we torture and kill. I am convinced that the overall amount of suffering on the earth could be greatly reduced if humans disappeared.

However, I am not a Utilitarian. I view human behavior, most notably our irresponsible use of unearned knowledge, to be inherently evil and thus deserving of retribution.

>And since that is obviously never going to happen

Climate change could potentially lead to conditions that make humans go extinct.

1

No_Opening_5128 t1_iui10c5 wrote

> Nobody talks about the actual issues anymore, but rather just go after who is saying it; or by extension who these people can be associated with etc.

We’re talking about it now. So why don’t you state your position clearly? What is your solution to the problem you are pointing out? I mean what would you do to resolve it? Not something vague like “humans should go extinct”.

> I view human behavior, most notably our irresponsible use of unearned knowledge, to be inherently evil and thus deserving of retribution.

What does this even mean? What unearned knowledge? How is it unearned and how would it be earned? What is the knowledge itself?

1

RedditIsShit9922 t1_iui9kvj wrote

The initial comment was about an article that speculates humans surviving the climate catastrophy. I reacted to this saying that I hope humans will be wiped out by it. That is all.

I cannot do anything to resolve the problem of human nature. There is no moral progress, only technological progress. Technological power outpaced human capacity to act responsibly, which remained on the same level it was when we were still inhabiting caves. As a result, living things are being burned and tortured alive in all the creative ways humans can devise. It would be poetic justice if humans ended up burning themselves to ashes as well, thus ending their brutal reign and allowing nature to renew itself.

>How is it unearned and how would it be earned?

The use of scientific power doesn't require the same discipline that is needed to first attain it. Intellectual rigor and reason is used to initially unlock the power, but once the key has been found any witless brute has access to it. The result is the corruption of practical reason which thinkers such as Horkheimer have pointed out; reason is merely being used as a means to an end. This purely instrumental use of reason ignores all obligations and duties that arise when the same capacity to reason is applied to judging ourselves. Despite being capable, the human mind hates to reflect on itself and can't bear to submit itself to rational scrutiny.

Reason is like a benevolent goddess who blessed some degenerate mud dweller with all kinds of amazing wonders but instead of holding her in veneration, the ingrate turned her into his harlot. To me, that makes the human animal the lowest of all animals.

1

No_Opening_5128 t1_iuikjbm wrote

> I reacted to this saying that I hope humans will be wiped out by it. That is all.

Ok, fair enough.

> I cannot do anything to resolve the problem of human nature. There is no moral progress, only technological progress. Technological power outpaced human capacity to act responsibly, which remained on the same level it was when we were still inhabiting caves. As a result, living things are being burned and tortured alive in all the creative ways humans can devise. It would be poetic justice if humans ended up burning themselves to ashes as well, thus ending their brutal reign and allowing nature to renew itself.

It would be poetic indeed, I can’t argue with that. The only thing that I would add is that human beings are the victims of their own ignorance as well, we too are living beings that suffer from our mistakes. I guess I say that because I don’t view our potential extinction as punishment or justice, but merely as neutral consequence of our own behavior. It’s not a good or bad thing, it is just equivalent to a child learning the consequences of his actions the hard and painful way.

> The use of scientific power doesn’t require the same discipline that is needed to first attain it. Intellectual rigor and reason is used to initially unlock the power, but once the key has been found any witless brute has access to it. The result is the corruption of practical reason which thinkers such as Horkheimer have pointed out; reason is merely being used as a means to an end. This purely instrumental use of reason ignores all obligations and duties that arise when the same capacity to reason is applied to judging ourselves. Despite being capable, the human mind hates to reflect on itself and can’t bear to submit itself to rational scrutiny.

Can’t argue with this either to be honest.

> Reason is like a benevolent goddess who blessed some degenerate mud dweller with all kinds of amazing wonders but instead of holding her in veneration, the ingrate turned her into his harlot. To me, that makes the human animal the lowest of all animals.

Although most people it seems do not have much reason at all. Can’t even misuse what you do not have.

I find myself agreeing with most of what you said, but I think maybe the only disagreement is in how we respond to these ideas. I might be wrong, but I think you are somewhat bitter and the prospect of human extinction almost satisfies you. Whereas I view it as an avoidable tragedy, and it is tragic not because people will not exist, as I don’t view that as inherently bad, but because we have destroyed and squandered away what we have been given, when we could have been so much better.

1