The human race and our need to save the world. Is it purely selfish?

[russianrocket]

Enjoy my rant. Don't know how coherent most of it is, but I typed it out as it flowed out of my mind.

So I was sitting down and thinking. Why does everyone want to save the world. We've all heard the old
" the world doesn't need saving, it can take care of itself".
Isn't that genuinely true? What is our reason for trying to save the world? To me is seems like it's out of nothing but self preservation, physically, mentally, and spiritually. Has nothing to do with trying to save the world itself. It's 100% selfish. Not selfish per person, but selfish as far as the entire human collective is concerned. Our being on this planet is the only issue, but that goes against the whole self preservation thing, so we aren't willing to disappear anytime soon.

So is it really the planet we are saving, or the world as we know it, which sustains our own existence? 98% of all animals that ever lived have died. I can't even recall how many animals have gone completely extinct. As far as time is concerned ( tho really, we made time up), we are completley insignificant specks. Just a single grain of sand in a planet sized sandbox.

We try to save other animals or stop their suffering. Most of that effort goes to feed animals, which are only around BECAUSE of us for the most part. Due to breeding, and due to eliminating their pray. Aside from fish, which then again, we also make, as well as increase their numbers by eliminating predators.

A million years frmo now, all the animals we see today might be gone, and replaced with completely different animals. Is anything we are doing, or have done, or will do really that important then, and what do we or will we have to show for it? We just stopped things from happening in our life times, and possibly a few future life times, and all because WE want something. If they all died, we'd be screwed. If we destroy the planet, WE would be screwed. Not the planet. The planet is, and will be perfectly fine, and has been 100's of magnitude worse off then it is now. Only our own perspective makes things out to be "bad" or "destroyed". Planet doesn't care about these types of things tho. It will recycle us, and start fresh, just like it has before.

To test just how selfish we all our, I'll pose a hypothetical question, silly as it may sound.

If we had the technology to make a time machine and to stop the asteroid from hitting us, should we? That would save a lot more animals then we are now, as well as allowing the planet to be "healthy" for much greater period of time. Sure, we won't be around, but why are WE so important, if we are supposedly so concerned about saving everything else?

So what's more important, us, or the planet? And why do we make such a big deal about saving the planet, when in essence, it's really all about US US US.
And no matter what we do to try to save " the planet", we never look further then what will be best for us. And honestly, who are we to know what us doing something now, will actually do in the future? We are some of the most short sited creatures ever. At least animals know how to live in the now.

[rei]

i can only speak for myself.

any efforts i may do which seek to honor the environment here - i don't do them for future generations. i do them because i feel how much Gaia deserves it.

yes, you probably scoff at the anthropomorphizing of the planet. i am not speaking of the physical structure of the planet though, i'm speaking of its sentient awareness. labeling that awareness is just for convenience, basically.

what i do, i do for Gaia. it is a way to respect her when so many don't bother. it isn't about the future either, not for me anyway.

but i don't even recycle, thanks to Penn and Teller's revealing episode on the subject. plenty of hippies have given me flack for that, but oh well.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by rei

i can only speak for myself.

any efforts i may do which seek to honor the environment here - i don't do them for future generations. i do them because i feel how much Gaia deserves it.

yes, you probably scoff at the anthropomorphizing of the planet. i am not speaking of the physical structure of the planet though, i'm speaking of its sentient awareness. labeling that awareness is just for convenience, basically.

what i do, i do for Gaia. it is a way to respect her when so many don't bother. it isn't about the future either, not for me anyway.

but i don't even recycle, thanks to Penn and Teller's revealing episode on the subject. plenty of hippies have given me flack for that, but oh well.

Even if we anthropomorphizing the planet, we do less to the planet, then the planet does to itself. Why do you think that our impact on the planet is so great? It's only through our own perception, and the feelings we experience ourselves, that make us think the planet is getting hurt. Trees are part of the planet, but are they really the planet? Do you know how much of the materiel that we use today didn't even originate on this planet? if the planet was alive, it would just as soon destroy us, then save us.

Most planets get hit with asteroids all the time. This planet is just lucky that it only happens every once and awhile. One SMALL hit does more damage then the collective efforts of anything we've ever done. Any of the garbage we put onto this planet will be gone eventually. Plastic came out of the ground, and the ground will take it back. There is no need to recycle to save the planet except for our own preservation.

Put this in perspective, if you feel that the planet is a sentient being. If you compare your life span to the planet, our existence and subsequent mistreatment of the planet, would be like us experiencing something done to us that last a mere.00000001 of a second. Why would that matter to a planet, when the worlds population of termites weighs TEN TIMES more then humans combined. That's just termites. We are so extremely insignificant, that it amuses me to see humans thinking this planet not only cares about us, but cares what we do.

[Michael Chui]

I've always been under the impression that the vast collective we are concerned about saving the planet because we need it in order to survive at this point. Me, personally, I grew out of fussing over the planet in middle school. Well, the collective we, minus Batman.

Because, you know,



I'm sure the rest of us will get there eventually.

[rei]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

if the planet was alive, it would just as soon destroy us, then save us.

ah, yeah, we see this quite differently. your perspective sounds focused on a Darwinistic, reductionist, material, physical level frame. sounds a bit pessimistic or cynical as well, though i would imagine you would call this realism.

i'm a (jaded) idealist. i label myself as such consciously, knowing it is an identifier. the planet could easily destroy us, look at all the natural intense weather patterns, earthquakes, etc. the planet obviously has the means and force needed to carry out such a thing. and yet, it doesn't. it allows the vast majority of us to continue existing here. and since so many share a perspective like yours, or take one of total apathy, i enjoy being an exception in feeling gratitude and reverence for the planet (i would rather be part of a majority in feeling this way, but i do enjoy the opportunity to demonstrate that gratitude and reverence even when it is not part of the standard view). reverence for both the ground that my feet touch when i move and for the awareness that breathes this realm into existence.

maybe it's a side effect of being a shaman with several pagan friends, but for whatever reason i have confidence in experiencing the sentience animating this planet (from the metaphysical/etheric level). if you choose to see these things using your current frame, i don't expect you to understand where i'm coming from on this.

oh, and my intention in acting with reverence for Gaia isn't about "saving" her. it is about honoring her.

of course, since this started as a rant, i don't need to assume you're interested in exchanging perspectives hmm? i am curious about exactly what motivated the rant in the first place.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by rei

ah, yeah, we see this quite differently. your perspective sounds focused on a Darwinistic, reductionist, material, physical level frame. sounds a bit pessimistic or cynical as well, though i would imagine you would call this realism.

i'm a (jaded) idealist. i label myself as such consciously, knowing it is an identifier. the planet could easily destroy us, look at all the natural intense weather patterns, earthquakes, etc. the planet obviously has the means and force needed to carry out such a thing. and yet, it doesn't. it allows the vast majority of us to continue existing here. and since so many share a perspective like yours, or take one of total apathy, i enjoy being an exception in feeling gratitude and reverence for the planet (i would rather be part of a majority in feeling this way, but i do enjoy the opportunity to demonstrate that gratitude and reverence even when it is not part of the standard view). reverence for both the ground that my feet touch when i move and for the awareness that breathes this realm into existence.

maybe it's a side effect of being a shaman with several pagan friends, but for whatever reason i have confidence in experiencing the sentience animating this planet (from the metaphysical/etheric level). if you choose to see these things using your current frame, i don't expect you to understand where i'm coming from on this.

oh, and my intention in acting with reverence for Gaia isn't about "saving" her. it is about honoring her.

of course, since this started as a rant, i don't need to assume you're interested in exchanging perspectives hmm? i am curious about exactly what motivated the rant in the first place.

That's only because recorded history has been around for a few thousands years! The planet is a few billion years old. Just because it doesn't happen NOW, doesn't mean anything. Just means that in the .000001% of the planets life span, it's not doing anything. 100 years from now it can be an ice age.

What motivated my rant is all the self righteous hypocritical people blaming the end of the world on everyone else but them. Because we are nothing but selfish beings. Yet, most of them are just as selfish.

[Karanime]

Saving the planet is saving ourselves.

There's literally no other reason to "save" the planet. This is why I just don't understand lightworking. In the grand perspective of things, serving others serves nothing.

Selfish is good. Blame us for it. We're doing more than they are.

/<3

[Mounds]

I'm kind of in the same boat Russianrocket. I think the planet cares about us as much as it cares about grass.
I am inclined to agree with your rant. The human race can be extremely selfish when it comes to it's own survival. I think that stems partly from the fact that there has been a general attitude for too long that the planet is ours for the taking. We are really insignifigant if we look at the big picture (btw, 99% of species have gone extinct).
An example of human ignorance that gets me really, really fired up is birdwing butterflies. The entire genus (Orinthoptera) are listed under CITES, which means you need a permit to acquire them. Why are they there in the first place? Because people like pretty butterflies. So the collectors are turned into monsters while the locals in PNG chop down the rainforest to make way for agriculture. So then the Orinthoptera population drops due to no habitat. Bugs happen to be pretty incredible. They can bounce back in population quickly (laying enormous amounts of eggs, short lifecycle). If they have no habitat though, they are doomed. Everyone feels good that the butterflies are protected, they won't let the locals breed them (CITES II and CITES III species) to sell to collectors, thereby giving them an alternative source of income and the butterflies are worse off than ever. Complete ignorance.
Another is polar bears. They finally got protection (I get extra pissy about this one since polar bears live in my province). So what did the polar bears actually get? Nothing. Greenhouse emmisions lead to melting ice caps, which lead to polar bears not having food, leading to starvation or possibly entering towns in search of food, where they will get shot. Fail.
I'm not going to lie. I drive to work, I use paper, I have natural gas in my house. I'm also trying to change some stuff. For the last four years, I've been working on a cleaner and renewable source of electricity and heat, using biomass. It's very big in Sweeden but so far, North America is yet to catch on. All comes down to the bottom line.

[SomeRandomGuy]

Personally, I don't feel that I'm trying to save the planet. I'm trying to help make up for the negative things the human race as done to the planet. You're right, the planet will continue to exist regardless of what humans do. We are changing the planet, however, and I do what little I can to minimize the impact that I have. I don't do this for self-preservation. I do this because I believe it is the right thing to do. I am part of a species that is moving farther and farther from nature, and doing real harm to the environmental and ecological balance. I can't undo the wrongs that have been done, but I can at least try to minimize the harm that I do. If I can convince a few others along the way to do likewise then that's even better.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

Personally, I don't feel that I'm trying to save the planet. I'm trying to help make up for the negative things the human race as done to the planet. You're right, the planet will continue to exist regardless of what humans do. We are changing the planet, however, and I do what little I can to minimize the impact that I have. I don't do this for self-preservation. I do this because I believe it is the right thing to do. I am part of a species that is moving farther and farther from nature, and doing real harm to the environmental and ecological balance. I can't undo the wrongs that have been done, but I can at least try to minimize the harm that I do. If I can convince a few others along the way to do likewise then that's even better.

But making up for negative things we've done to the planet, moving closer to nature, and any "harm" to the environment as well as the ecological balance, have nothing to do with the planet. It's all about us. The earth is balanced always. It's just isn't always balanced for sustaining OUR life. Which is why I said, anything we do ( at least the majority of us) is for pure self preservation, even if it's for the preservation of our emotions.

[SomeRandomGuy]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

But making up for negative things we've done to the planet, moving closer to nature, and any "harm" to the environment as well as the ecological balance, have nothing to do with the planet. It's all about us. The earth is balanced always. It's just isn't always balanced for sustaining OUR life. Which is why I said, anything we do ( at least the majority of us) is for pure self preservation, even if it's for the preservation of our emotions.

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. I'm not doing the things I do to help sustain our life. In your example with the asteroid, I would not go back in time to change that. If an asteroid were headed for the planet today I would not try to prevent it, unless humans were the cause for the coming collision. You say that the earth is always balanced, but do you not believe that humans impact that balance? I guess, if you don't believe any impact on the planet, then I can understand your stance.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. I'm not doing the things I do to help sustain our life. In your example with the asteroid, I would not go back in time to change that. If an asteroid were headed for the planet today I would not try to prevent it, unless humans were the cause for the coming collision. You say that the earth is always balanced, but do you not believe that humans impact that balance? I guess, if you don't believe any impact on the planet, then I can understand your stance.

The only impact of balance that we have on the planet is as far as WE are concerned. The planet is balanced in one way or another, always, and our perception of it not being balanced has nothing to do with it. Even if we have any impact on it whats so ever. Just because a planet is no longer able to sustain a certain type of life in a certain type of way does not mean it's not balanced.

What is your idea of balance, that has nothing to do with sustaining our life?

[Michael Chui]

The point I think that russianrocket is trying to make is,

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

I'm trying to help make up for the negative things the human race as done to the planet.

Why are they negative?

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

We are changing the planet, however, and I do what little I can to minimize the impact that I have.

What's wrong with impact? (I think that's more Karanime than russianrocket.)

[russianrocket]

Exactly.

[SomeRandomGuy]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

The point I think that russianrocket is trying to make is,

Why are they negative?

What's wrong with impact? (I think that's more Karanime than russianrocket.)

I believe that spewing poison into the air, using up natural resources faster than they can regenerate, using technology to fight against rather than living in tune with nature, etc are actions that have a negative impact. Those acts go against nature, rather than complimenting it.

One could, however, argue that humans are meant to behave in such a way. You could say that our the way we treat the planet, the impact we have on ecosystems, is our nature. You could even go as far as suggest that using less resources and being more environmentally conscious has a negative impact, because that isn't how humans are meant to behave. That would be a valid opinion, it just isn't one that I agree with.

My point is that we can never know exactly what nature intended for us as a species. We each make that judgement based on our own experiences and understanding of the available information. I see those things I described as being negative, and against our nature, so seek to minimize my contribution. I am not doing this for self-preservation, I do it because I believe it is the right and respectful thing to do.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

I believe that spewing poison into the air, using up natural resources faster than they can regenerate, using technology to fight against rather than living in tune with nature, etc are actions that have a negative impact. Those acts go against nature, rather than complimenting it.

Again, why? Why is it negative? You're being dogmatic, though I suppose you know that since you started that off with "I believe".

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

One could, however, argue that humans are meant to behave in such a way.

Why does purpose have anything to do with it? In a story, one character's purpose is to be the hero, and another's purpose is to be the villain. There's no "positive" or "negative" impact associated with it here. What the storyteller's choice on the character of the hero and the character of the villain may have a positive or negative impact.

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

My point is that we can never know exactly what nature intended for us as a species.

Nature can stuff her intentions up her ass. I'm not her peon. If she doesn't like the way I do things, she can zap me with a lightning bolt. Come on, now. Anthropomorphize harder.

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

I see those things I described as being negative, and against our nature, so seek to minimize my contribution.

But you have no reason for your perspective? It's just the gospel according to Carson? At least policy-makers have the decency to recognize that we're doing this for the children. Hell, at least posit the sentient planet idea that rei has, which is at least a basis.

[Mounds]

What we are doing is negative. The dominant species on the planet can't operate with enough efficiency to keep it's own habitat from being in shambles. In the meantime, humans decimate virtually every other population on the planet, sometimes even their own race.
I've always told people that plants and arthropods will inherit the planet. I bet if we looked one million years in the future, there would be no mammals, fish, birds, amphibians and reptiles.

[SomeRandomGuy]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Again, why? Why is it negative? You're being dogmatic, though I suppose you know that since you started that off with "I believe".

I began with "I believe" because one could argue that in the grand scheme of things that acts aren't negative. I believe that they are, as do many others. Not everyone agrees with that perspective, however, and my goal isn't to change their minds. My goal with posting in this thread wasn't to change minds, it was simply to share my reasons for doing what I do, which are contrary to the theme in the OP that people only do such things for selfish reasons (self-preservation).

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Why does purpose have anything to do with it? In a story, one character's purpose is to be the hero, and another's purpose is to be the villain. There's no "positive" or "negative" impact associated with it here. What the storyteller's choice on the character of the hero and the character of the villain may have a positive or negative impact.

As RR pointed out, the earth is in balance. I view humans as being part of that balance. I feel that we are simply a part of nature, equal to all living creatures. I do not believe that our role is to lord over our environment and other creatures and try to force our will upon them. The more that humans move away from living in tune with nature, the more than the planet and other creatures must change in order to maintain the balance. I'm not claiming there are heroes and villains in this situation. I simply want to live my life as part of the natural order, rather than being selfish and trying to force my will upon nature and other living beings.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Nature can stuff her intentions up her ass. I'm not her peon. If she doesn't like the way I do things, she can zap me with a lightning bolt. Come on, now. Anthropomorphize harder.

You are well within your rights to hold this opinion. Not everyone has a respect for nature, and I am not here to change that. I can see where it would be difficult for someone who does not cherish and respect nature to understand my perspective.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

But you have no reason for your perspective? It's just the gospel according to Carson? At least policy-makers have the decency to recognize that we're doing this for the children. Hell, at least posit the sentient planet idea that rei has, which is at least a basis.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, I have plenty of reason for my perspective. I grew up in an are where the land and natural resources have been exploited for generations. The landscape is scarred by human acts. It saddens me to drive through the area and think of the old-growth forests that have been cleared and other damaging acts that have been done by my people. It pains me to know that such beautiful and ecologically rich areas as the Smokey Mountains National Park are being impacted by negative human acts. There are days that the air pollution there is so bad that warnings to hikers are issued, as it present a health hazard.

I could go on and on, but I hope you get my point. I have a deep love and connection to nature, and have seen firsthand the damage that humans have done (and continue to do). I realize the impact that my actions can have, and am continually trying to minimize that impact. I believe that most people would do the same to reduce/prevent harm to a place, item, or creature that they cared about.

Oh, and who is Carson?

[russianrocket]

I didn't see anything in your post that contradicted my original point.

[SomeRandomGuy]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

I didn't see anything in your post that contradicted my original point.

Would you care to elaborate? I don't see my reasons as having anything to do with self-preservation, but I'd like to hear why you think they do.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

Would you care to elaborate? I don't see my reasons as having anything to do with self-preservation, but I'd like to hear why you think they do.

Because it has nothing to do with saving the planet it self. It has to do with saving it for yourself. And keep in mind, I didn't say that it's self-preservation, as in you personally won't survive. I said that as a HUMAN RACE, trying to save the planet is selfish. As you mentioned, the planet is NOT out of balance, and anything that we consider out of balance only has to do with US. There for no matter what we do to change anything, it only pertains to US. We are trying to control the planet, whether we are trying to exploit it, or trying to "save" it. You trying to save it IS trying to force your will on nature. You don't like the way it is now for your own personal reasons, and now we are trying to control the planet and make it look like what we want it to look with out knowing any of the consequences ( doing something you think is good doesn't mean it will bring about a "good" outcome) and that is as selfish as it can get.

How can it be anything but selfish? Trying to save animals? Why do we need animals? The earth got rid of 99% of all animals, with out our help.

[Eric L]

I am being honest when talking here:

What if I told you that I know how to do this, entirely, from beginning to end and that my intent and intellect is so powerful and pure that I already see it happening already?

Would you be open to hear what I have to say?

This is the only answer I wish you to give me. I am not saying I can do such a thing.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Eric L

I am being honest when talking here:

What if I told you that I know how to do this, entirely, from beginning to end and that my intent and intellect is so powerful and pure that I already see it happening already?

Would you be open to hear what I have to say?

This is the only answer I wish you to give me. I am not saying I can do such a thing.

If I were to say that I'm not open to hear a point of view, then I'd be no better then most of the close minded people I try to debate with.

But I'll also be honest in saying that I don't believe anyone has a true answer to anything in this world of any real consequence. No one can foresee the future in any meaningful way. And the way you perceive the power and purity of your intent, more then likely is not the "truth" either, as it is just that, your own perceptions of it with what ever limited information your brain has been capable of gathering, out of the trillions of bits of information actually out there. No matter how many books you think the information in your mind can fill, ignoring the fact that you can't even touch 99.9% of that information.

[Eric L]

I am guessing this made someone feel uneasy, I felt my heart pound so wildly nearly instantly after I wrote it. Was this you?

russian, you said that you beleive. flaw. everywhere. It is not a perception either.

People will start to think that I am insane and I will prove to them just how right they are. The only people who can get me are people who can allow me to be open and have agood general understanding of things.

To tell you the truth: This body, that I have, shakes so hard because of all the knowledge it has...

You took this post as though I said I could do this, when I clearly said I did not claim I could do such things.

Are you well?

[Andrew Brunelle]

I just want to say that us as humans want to save "our world," not the world of nature or for any other species that does not benefit us in some way. Saving the planet is narrow-minded self-interest. We simply do not want to go extinct because we think we are the best species ever and for us to go away would be a tragedy. But there would be no one left to label it as a tragedy. All the other species would breathe a collective sigh of relief, thinking, "It's about time! We can finally go back to living on the Earth in balance!"

That is, if there are any species left. We have a tendency to accelerate the extinction of most every other species while propping up the species that benefit us the most. Selfish again. We've turned the Earth into our servant instead of our master. We deplete landbase after landbase for our own personal use with no regard for any other species or habitat. Sure, we save small portions of the Earth as "nature reserves," but even those are expendable if we need to drill for oil.

So, yes, our need to save the planet is entirely selfish and we should just crash and burn and hopefully start over with a better understanding of our home planet.

[SomeRandomGuy]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Because it has nothing to do with saving the planet it self. It has to do with saving it for yourself. And keep in mind, I didn't say that it's self-preservation, as in you personally won't survive. I said that as a HUMAN RACE, trying to save the planet is selfish. As you mentioned, the planet is NOT out of balance, and anything that we consider out of balance only has to do with US. There for no matter what we do to change anything, it only pertains to US. We are trying to control the planet, whether we are trying to exploit it, or trying to "save" it. You trying to save it IS trying to force your will on nature. You don't like the way it is now for your own personal reasons, and now we are trying to control the planet and make it look like what we want it to look with out knowing any of the consequences ( doing something you think is good doesn't mean it will bring about a "good" outcome) and that is as selfish as it can get.

How can it be anything but selfish? Trying to save animals? Why do we need animals? The earth got rid of 99% of all animals, with out our help.

I can agree with part of what you are saying here. You could argue that everything humans do are done for selfish reasons. Some people may view helping an old lady cross the as street as an act of kindness, while other could view as is selfishness, since the person must receive some good feeling for doing the act. A wealthy person donating all of their wealth to the poor could be seen as selfless, while others could view it as selfish, since the person must get some satisfaction out of helping others. If I sacrificed my life to save the life of a loved one you might view it as a selfish act, since I wanted the other person to live.

On other pieces we are not in agreement, however. You seem to think that people like me want to interfere with nature by saving all animals, etc. That, at least in my case, simply isn't true. You are right, animals do naturally become extinct. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, that is part of the natural cycle. When animals become endangered or extinct, however, because of the acts of humans, then that is different. When humans endanger a species by destroying habitat, killing the food supply, or introducing non-native predators, I support stepping in and trying to help. When humans can't enjoy a National Park because of the heavy air pollution, I see the need to change the behavior that caused the pollution. When old-growth forests are being cut down so humans can have bigger houses and nice furniture, I feel the need to do my part to reduce the problem.

If you consider those reasons to be selfish, then that is ok. I don't feel that we understand each other, but since I'm not trying to convert you to my line of thinking I'm ok with that.

[SomeRandomGuy]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

I just want to say that us as humans want to save "our world," not the world of nature or for any other species that does not benefit us in some way. Saving the planet is narrow-minded self-interest. We simply do not want to go extinct because we think we are the best species ever and for us to go away would be a tragedy. But there would be no one left to label it as a tragedy. All the other species would breathe a collective sigh of relief, thinking, "It's about time! We can finally go back to living on the Earth in balance!"

That is, if there are any species left. We have a tendency to accelerate the extinction of most every other species while propping up the species that benefit us the most. Selfish again. We've turned the Earth into our servant instead of our master. We deplete landbase after landbase for our own personal use with no regard for any other species or habitat. Sure, we save small portions of the Earth as "nature reserves," but even those are expendable if we need to drill for oil.

So, yes, our need to save the planet is entirely selfish and we should just crash and burn and hopefully start over with a better understanding of our home planet.

I don't agree with this viewpoint. I have no interest in saving only those species that benefit me personally. I agree, that would be selfish. I believe that much of what you describe is how the world works, but that is not how many of us view it. Personally, if I could end the harm humans do to nature by sacrificing my own life I would gladly do so. I also disagree with the idea that humans are the best species and it would be tragic if we became extinct. I believe that humans are one of (if not the most) harmful species on the planet and that most other species would be much better off if we did become extinct. That doesn't seem selfish to me, but maybe others will disagree.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Eric L

I am guessing this made someone feel uneasy, I felt my heart pound so wildly nearly instantly after I wrote it. Was this you?

russian, you said that you beleive. flaw. everywhere. It is not a perception either.

People will start to think that I am insane and I will prove to them just how right they are. The only people who can get me are people who can allow me to be open and have agood general understanding of things.

To tell you the truth: This body, that I have, shakes so hard because of all the knowledge it has...

You took this post as though I said I could do this, when I clearly said I did not claim I could do such things.

Are you well?

I'm sorry, but you have got some issues lol.

The comments I made about what your knowledge, is from the things I've seen you post lately. Has nothing to do with me thinking or even implying that I thought that you said you could do this. Don't know where you got that idea.

I believe flaw in HUMAN thinking. Not that flaws are everywhere and I doubt it made anyone feel uneasy

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

I began with "I believe" because one could argue that in the grand scheme of things that acts aren't negative.

Yes, that's true.

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

I believe that they are, as do many others. Not everyone agrees with that perspective, however, and my goal isn't to change their minds. My goal with posting in this thread wasn't to change minds, it was simply to share my reasons for doing what I do

Here's the thing. I've been asking for your perspective this entire time, and you've been refusing to give it. Now, in this post, you've explained yourself to an extent: you hold an ideal of how nature ought to be, epitomized by the existence of old-growth forests, and the fact the actions taken by human beings are contrary to this ideal is why they are negative.

See, that wasn't so hard, was it? That's valid. I disagree with rei that the planet itself is sentient, but that doesn't make her viewpoint invalid. I happen to agree with you that old-growth forests are quite nice. "This is the way I like things, and I don't like you kids messing up my yard," is a legitimately selfish reason for your perspective.

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

The more that humans move away from living in tune with nature, the more than the planet and other creatures must change in order to maintain the balance.

...

I simply want to live my life as part of the natural order, rather than being selfish and trying to force my will upon nature and other living beings.

But "moving away from living in tune with nature" is part of the natural order, as your own words point out.

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

You are well within your rights to hold this opinion.

SRG, that line was an opinion about your opinion, not about Nature. All I was saying was that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

Oh, and who is Carson?

Rachel Carson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You seem to be more a John Muir person than, say, a Teddy Roosevelt or a Henry David Thoreau or a Rachel Carson.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

I can agree with part of what you are saying here. You could argue that everything humans do are done for selfish reasons. Some people may view helping an old lady cross the as street as an act of kindness, while other could view as is selfishness, since the person must receive some good feeling for doing the act. A wealthy person donating all of their wealth to the poor could be seen as selfless, while others could view it as selfish, since the person must get some satisfaction out of helping others. If I sacrificed my life to save the life of a loved one you might view it as a selfish act, since I wanted the other person to live.

On other pieces we are not in agreement, however. You seem to think that people like me want to interfere with nature by saving all animals, etc. That, at least in my case, simply isn't true. You are right, animals do naturally become extinct. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, that is part of the natural cycle. When animals become endangered or extinct, however, because of the acts of humans, then that is different. When humans endanger a species by destroying habitat, killing the food supply, or introducing non-native predators, I support stepping in and trying to help. When humans can't enjoy a National Park because of the heavy air pollution, I see the need to change the behavior that caused the pollution. When old-growth forests are being cut down so humans can have bigger houses and nice furniture, I feel the need to do my part to reduce the problem.

If you consider those reasons to be selfish, then that is ok. I don't feel that we understand each other, but since I'm not trying to convert you to my line of thinking I'm ok with that.

Humans living in cleaner air and having more enjoyment is not considered selfish?

Who are you to say that the things we are doing is not natural?

See, the thing is, I don't care if you want to save animals or interfere with nature. I'm not here to convince anyone otherwise. I just want people to realize and or admit that it is out of self interest, and that we are saving the planet for ourselves and not some grand illusion that we are saving it from ourselves.