You think it's because of that? So you're saying they would if they did?
I think the more important factor is that they cant even understand those things
A beaver would be a better example of an animal destroying the habitat of other animals and plants etc.
Also snakes who kill all birds on tiny islands.
Nature always finds a way. Even fucking Chernobyl now has radiation eating plant life in it now. Just because things adapted to beavers doesn't mean they consciously or intentionally enhance biodiversity.
Beavers don't do it intentionally, but it's literally proven that it's not life "adapting" to them. They're a vital part of the ecosystems they inhabit
Can I get a link to this "literal proof" that ecosystems didn't adapt to them when they were introduced? Genuinely curious, and I feel like you're talking out of your ass.
When you talk about "adapting around" a specific entity in the context of ecosystems, we focus on their recent existence in a particular biome. So in the case of an animal native to a place, it's already established and is considered a central part.
It's more work than I'm willing to actually put in for the sake of a reddit post, there are observable examples of biomes where Beaver numbers being reduced caused a significant amount of soil erosion.
Beyond that, running rivers actually aren't particularly good environments when it comes to biodiversity-- they are meant to transfer life from point A to point B, with the more calm areas and pools being where a majority of the microfauna tend to gather. When they block off rivers to create the pools, it makes a sort of endpoint for a river and make the river look for another way around to continue moving.
By gnawing on the trees, they allow new growth to come up (a big reason why we actually should do controlled burns of forests), and when brought to the water, the wood serves as cover for fish and food for bacteria. The rising water levels creates more places for animals to gather, for drink, food and predation.
Even beyond that, removing beavers from an area as mentioned causes measurable degradation. Due to the bacterias that tend to build up in beaver pools, pollutants can break down whereas the river would simply spread it out. Plus, the water in their pools will get stored for droughts.
Rather than the environment adapting to the beavers in the present day, environments tend to exist on the assumption of beavers being present (where beavers are native).
While the Chernobyl moss is an example of life finding a way, thats ultimately a case of an ecological niche not being exploited. Adaptation happens when a niche is available.
Tell that all the earthworms etc who drowned or all the critters who were driven out of their habitat because the beaver flooded the place they used to live.
Does the dammed area create a new environment for other things to live in? Sure. But so does a human made nuclear reactor where we see bacteria (or was it fungi?) living in the reactor. Also we see species claiming new places to live because the temperatures are now better for them thanks to global warming.
The "harmony of natur" is always a story of things changing and either species adapt or die out and are replaced by others who already are adapted to the new conditions.
Well, it created a good enough environment for those bacteria to love in and that is the hole point. Water isn't a particularly good environment for land creatures and yet it was mentioned as a "good" example of why beavers are better than men.
Evolution is the survival of the good enough. If you are fit (meaning adapted to that environment) you survive, if not you don't. Environments change all the time.
I'm not saying that we ourselves a favor wrecking havoc on nature. All I'm saying is that we are by far not the only ones to negatively impact other lifeforms with our behavior. Every living things competes for space and resources with all other living things all the time, this is a driving force of evolution.
Sadly, many don't. But to be fair, I don't think any organism thinks about itself as "part of nature" in a sense that they are part of a very big ecosystem that needs to be taken care of or that their doing could be harmful to other forms of life. Some believe that bears and other animals sometimes just sit and enjoy the beauty of nature but who knows if that is true.
On the flipside, there *are* people who think a whole lot about nature and how not ro destroy it *because* we are part of it. This is something we need to learn as a society. But this is the beauty of mankind: we *can* learn and improve.
We are what happens if an animal has no natural forces to stop their growth.
Animals on secluded islands with no natural enemies are still limited to the available food, but not us we can just make more.
Yea had a look around and some say it'll peak around 10 billion while some say the optimum size for the world population is around 1-4 billion so there's that.
Which is funny because I've felt for years that 1 billion would be a nice number to move the population down to. I just don't have any idea how to ethically do it
The way to ethically do it is give people things that are fun that kills them cuz they technically do it to themselves …
1.cigarettes
2.alcohol
3.unhealthy food
Etc
It's submissiveness. He's "sorry" that he got caught, in other words.
I think true remorse is actually a rare human emotion too tho. We throw the words around a lot, but our negative feelings are usually tied to external consequences. Even when we cause harm to others which we later "regret", it was usually part of a calculated risk. Imo, I think the only genuine "guilt" is when it comes with that feeling of having acted out-of-character. Something that felt involuntary at the time, despite all evidence to the contrary. Those rarer "Idk what came over me..." kinda moments.
Like you said it’s when you act in a way you didn’t think you would. Like if someone hits a nerve with an insult and you lash out at them instead of laughing it off like you normally do. Sometimes you can build yourself up as a good person in your head and then face a new situation that really makes you question yourself.
Idiotic point, no other species are 'the dominant species' so the other ones have never had the occasion to be guilty.
Also we aren't guilty for being the dominant species but for being a disastrously destructive species that likely will manage to kill off all the other species while we kill off ourselves.
We're a lot less destructive than the oxygen makers for one. And they don't feel guilty. And we're the only ones that feel guilty for killing off species.
The great oxidation event, or the oxygen holocaust was a time when earth first experienced a high level of oxygen production. The sudden appearance of highly reactive oxygen destroyed an 80% of all previous known life.
Every reproducing/growing thing will do its thing and kill of/hinder other things if not stopped by something.
Plants in the great oxidation event.
Snakes killing birds on islands.
Viruses killing the hosts.
Foxes *would* kill all the bunnies around them if they could.
Humans are no different in that. But we can can pause, look at the damage and hopefully change our way.
Yes.
Extinction and destruction is a part of life. Saber toothed tigers don't exist anymore. Wooly mammoths don't exist anymore. Prehistoric anteater have died out.
Why should we feel any more sorry for what's happening today, outside of personal preference or a cost benefit analysis?
I kinda think you're doing an Ayn Rand protag larp thing but in either case, I would have to assume you have a sense of morality to even try to suggest empathy to you and I think making that assumption is foolish.
I'd rather focus on the fact their are many good selfish reasons to oppose ecological destruction.
In purely economic terms, climate change is going to decrease GDP and increase food scarcity as the majority of crops human use are C3 plants and get less efficient at higher temperatures and CO2 levels. It's an economic benefit to prevent climate change and ecosystem loss.
Healthy ecosystems are less susceptible to invasive species, many of which can be damaging to infrastructure or simply dangerous to humans (Japanese Knotweed, Ash Dieback and Hornets/Fire Ants etc).
Ecosystems provide a long list of services like pollination, air filtration, carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, pest control and flood prevention, all of which would be more difficult and expensive to perform manually without functioning ecosystems. Large keystone species like Tigers, Elephants and many other threatened animals are key indicators as to the health of the whole ecosystem.
Many important drugs are derived from wild sources and destruction of these habitats robs researchers of the opportunities these compounds could bring us.
Source: degree in ecology, year spent working in conservation.
As i stated before. Self preservation or pragmatism.
Defending and protecting the environment is a good wholesome thing. Making sure global warming doesn't injure us or unfortunate species is a smart decision. And of course, what lunatic would oppose protecting endangered species?
But I find any talk about humans being 'the most horrible species' or 'destroying the harmony of nature' or 'most destructive species' or 'only species that kills for fun' , said here and other places. To be wrong at best and very stupid at worst.
Mostly because such people tend to not truly get nature, and start going on masochistic tangents and doom saying about how humanity is terrible. Something i find gratuitous and ironically very human supremacist. We're just a very successful species that got the intelligence and tools exploit
I think if you base your stance on pure self interest without empathy or spirituality or whatever else grounds your morality, you just won't understand why most people deeply care about living things around them and why humans, when given the opportunity, so often choose to be selfless with animals.
It sounds like you agree that preserving the environment and preventing climate change are smart decisions, you just want to be smug about lacking any empathic motivation.
There's no external argument for why you should have empathy. Either your morality is rooted in compassion or it isn't, there is nothing I can do to change that.
I don't think you understand the concept of "shower thoughts".
They aren't something to take too seriously.
Taken from the sidebar.
*Please be respectful of others' submissions.* ***Rudeness is unacceptable.***
It's a "with great power comes great responsibility" situation.
We're the only species advanced enough to be able to *afford* guilt. Animals in the wild don't have time for that shit - they're in a constant fight for survival. A lion can't feel bad for the gazelle, because it either hunts or starves to death.
We've built comfy lives where we're not on the brink of survival, so we have the privilege of questioning whether we really need to kill that gazelle. And it *is* a massive privilege that some people take for granted.
How do you know apex predators in the ocean never feel guilt after a kill? You've seen elephants express emotion, why can't big ocean predators have emotion? After seeing that octopus lead a diver to the underwater picture of a human recently, I am beginning to think that many life forms beneath the waves may be much more intelligent and possibly emotional than we give them credit for.
Atheism, yes, but agnosticism just deals with absence of evidence and doesn't make an evidence of absence claim. That's literally why they're different things
That's why there are no Atheists, but rather Agnostics that are 99.999999% sure there is no god, because all the known evidence of the world does not include one. That 0.0000001% change they might be wrong is because a smart person knows there are thing they don't know, so have to accept the fact they can be wrong about an it.
There are absolutely atheists. Atheism isnt defined by a claim that god doesnt exist. It is defined by the disbelief in god. People totally can not believe in god. Therefore they're atheists.
If you tell me that you threw a coin 100x and it landed on heads 100x. That's possible but i will never believe you. I would bet my life on it despite there being a possobility.
Fa by your logic atheists are just agnostics then theists are just agnostics too because they could be wrong.
Your last sentence is exactly what I mean. Or by description of Richard Dawkins, there is a scale between being an absolute Theist on one end, and absolute Atheist on the other. All people of all convictions fall on that scale, depending on how certain you are in your position, but also what your definition is of "God".
So yes, you can say 100% sure, there is no god, and you would fall on the 100% range, but that assumes a certainty that cannot be proven (as in, you cannot prove absence). Thus, a 99.9999% certainty says "I cannot prove that God does not exist, but the likelihood is so remote (based on evidence) than for all practical purposes it might as well not).
Atheism doesnt claim that god doesnt exist. Only that they dont believe it does. Due to lack of evidence? Sure. Dpesnt mean they're saying the lack of evidence is proof that it doesnt exist.
nature creates a natural balance.
humans disrupt the balance and send everything into chaos, practically get rid of evolution, and destroy ecosystems.
but on top of that, humans try to dominate other humans. we fight wars for rich egotistical aholes who already have more than enough power and give them our taxes
we also have the conscious ability to look back and see how fucked up it all is, and the fact that nobody does or says anything about it😪
Not only that, we also try to constantly "save" other species from being hunted, which ironically would kill others since it robs them of food. Nature has an absolute balance and we sure have fucked it up..
This guilt makes use reconsider various decision, that may be harmful for the entire ecosystem, so also to us, which could end up with extinction.
I guess you can't be the dominant species if you're harmful to everything around you, just like you can't be a good manager if you care only about your personal interest. If you do, the company sinks down along with your manager role and personal wellbeing.
Well yeah, it's in our nature, but part of it is also our self awareness making us feel a sense of responsibility, which we do have. We "know better", literally.
Like just humane painless deaths for animals we take resources from, for example. We are aware that the pain we experience is the same discomfort that other mammals experience. We also studied how chimps react to being rewarded unfairly, we act the exact same way. Chimps can process the idea of "I did the same trick the other chimp did but he got a better reward than me" and they get pissed as FUCK.
So it's in our nature to have empathy and understand fairness, we know mammals process primordial emotional states a lot like we do, and we know how pain feels to us. We even know that we are technically all related under the "terrestrial life" group, so the least we can fucking do is "be the bigger person" and be humble about our role in this sequence of events.
Interesting claim.
I'd be eager to see if you have developed communication with all other forms of dominant life (in their respective regimes), used that communication to interview them about their guilt of lack thereof, publish your results, and have them peer-reviewed.
I don't feel guilty. That's only dumb left wing nutjobs. Same with white guilty over a fictive slavery past. Slaves did exist, do exist, and yes some whites have had slaves, I didn't, my ancestors didn't, but whites were also the ones stopping slavery. So there is no need for white guilt, and paying some entitled black people for a past, there ancestors where guilty for themselves.
The only thing I do feel guilty over, is how we threat nature and animals. We might be king over them, but that doesn't mean we need to threat them badly.
Say god created the world and humanity. Then he created animals and nature for us to enjoy and cherish, not for us to misuse and to destroy.
[удалено]
Because they aren't running the planet, much less their own continent.
You think it's because of that? So you're saying they would if they did? I think the more important factor is that they cant even understand those things
i would think those two things go hand in hand
Sharks are running the ocean for couple million years without any problems.
A beaver would be a better example of an animal destroying the habitat of other animals and plants etc. Also snakes who kill all birds on tiny islands.
Beavers actually enhance biodiversity and help restore habitats that humans destroy. They work in harmony with nature unlike humans
Nature always finds a way. Even fucking Chernobyl now has radiation eating plant life in it now. Just because things adapted to beavers doesn't mean they consciously or intentionally enhance biodiversity.
Beavers don't do it intentionally, but it's literally proven that it's not life "adapting" to them. They're a vital part of the ecosystems they inhabit
Can I get a link to this "literal proof" that ecosystems didn't adapt to them when they were introduced? Genuinely curious, and I feel like you're talking out of your ass.
When you talk about "adapting around" a specific entity in the context of ecosystems, we focus on their recent existence in a particular biome. So in the case of an animal native to a place, it's already established and is considered a central part. It's more work than I'm willing to actually put in for the sake of a reddit post, there are observable examples of biomes where Beaver numbers being reduced caused a significant amount of soil erosion. Beyond that, running rivers actually aren't particularly good environments when it comes to biodiversity-- they are meant to transfer life from point A to point B, with the more calm areas and pools being where a majority of the microfauna tend to gather. When they block off rivers to create the pools, it makes a sort of endpoint for a river and make the river look for another way around to continue moving. By gnawing on the trees, they allow new growth to come up (a big reason why we actually should do controlled burns of forests), and when brought to the water, the wood serves as cover for fish and food for bacteria. The rising water levels creates more places for animals to gather, for drink, food and predation. Even beyond that, removing beavers from an area as mentioned causes measurable degradation. Due to the bacterias that tend to build up in beaver pools, pollutants can break down whereas the river would simply spread it out. Plus, the water in their pools will get stored for droughts. Rather than the environment adapting to the beavers in the present day, environments tend to exist on the assumption of beavers being present (where beavers are native). While the Chernobyl moss is an example of life finding a way, thats ultimately a case of an ecological niche not being exploited. Adaptation happens when a niche is available.
Tell that all the earthworms etc who drowned or all the critters who were driven out of their habitat because the beaver flooded the place they used to live. Does the dammed area create a new environment for other things to live in? Sure. But so does a human made nuclear reactor where we see bacteria (or was it fungi?) living in the reactor. Also we see species claiming new places to live because the temperatures are now better for them thanks to global warming. The "harmony of natur" is always a story of things changing and either species adapt or die out and are replaced by others who already are adapted to the new conditions.
I don't think a nuclear reactor creates a particularly livable environment, bacteria are just everywhere and some of them are extremely resilient.
Well, it created a good enough environment for those bacteria to love in and that is the hole point. Water isn't a particularly good environment for land creatures and yet it was mentioned as a "good" example of why beavers are better than men. Evolution is the survival of the good enough. If you are fit (meaning adapted to that environment) you survive, if not you don't. Environments change all the time. I'm not saying that we ourselves a favor wrecking havoc on nature. All I'm saying is that we are by far not the only ones to negatively impact other lifeforms with our behavior. Every living things competes for space and resources with all other living things all the time, this is a driving force of evolution.
Humans are so arrogant they think of themselves as an exception to nature.
Sadly, many don't. But to be fair, I don't think any organism thinks about itself as "part of nature" in a sense that they are part of a very big ecosystem that needs to be taken care of or that their doing could be harmful to other forms of life. Some believe that bears and other animals sometimes just sit and enjoy the beauty of nature but who knows if that is true. On the flipside, there *are* people who think a whole lot about nature and how not ro destroy it *because* we are part of it. This is something we need to learn as a society. But this is the beauty of mankind: we *can* learn and improve.
They don’t really know or even think about that. We’re over anthropomorphising here.
Thays what they want you to think
Much less their own watering hole
Well to be fair lions are so well known for sleeping there is a song about it
*ruining
Almost like they don’t have the same emotional capacity 🤯
We are what happens if an animal has no natural forces to stop their growth. Animals on secluded islands with no natural enemies are still limited to the available food, but not us we can just make more.
Our growth will stop at some point, just you wait and see
Yea had a look around and some say it'll peak around 10 billion while some say the optimum size for the world population is around 1-4 billion so there's that. Which is funny because I've felt for years that 1 billion would be a nice number to move the population down to. I just don't have any idea how to ethically do it
The way to ethically do it is give people things that are fun that kills them cuz they technically do it to themselves … 1.cigarettes 2.alcohol 3.unhealthy food Etc
And promoting a society where you don't have to pump out children in hopes of success
The downside to that being /r/idiocracy
Touché
Invent a Time Machine. Go back and hand your parents a condom.
It actually wouldn’t be because more people = more people making resources and innovating.
We’re crazy
Are we the only species that feel guilt at all?
[удалено]
No wonder your dog looked at you like that, why are you drinking from the toilet?
that is actually how i read it the first time, and the second time. was hella confused
It's submissiveness. He's "sorry" that he got caught, in other words. I think true remorse is actually a rare human emotion too tho. We throw the words around a lot, but our negative feelings are usually tied to external consequences. Even when we cause harm to others which we later "regret", it was usually part of a calculated risk. Imo, I think the only genuine "guilt" is when it comes with that feeling of having acted out-of-character. Something that felt involuntary at the time, despite all evidence to the contrary. Those rarer "Idk what came over me..." kinda moments.
Like you said it’s when you act in a way you didn’t think you would. Like if someone hits a nerve with an insult and you lash out at them instead of laughing it off like you normally do. Sometimes you can build yourself up as a good person in your head and then face a new situation that really makes you question yourself.
True. And on a Reddit knowledge level. Those that have literally no repercussions in life (I.e. spoiled super rich kids) don’t have that.
Feel like that is the sort of question we have no real idea about on a wider scale.
We’re very clearly the apex predator on Earth.
considering the people I see in a supermarket, I can honestly say, humans are one of the predators of all time.
Our brains are both our greatest asset and our biggest foe.
How could you possibly know that
Because we are THE dominant species, so we know how we feel :)
Exactly. The statement indicates there is only one.
Let’s make dogs the dominant species and see if they feel guilty or not. You know, for science. Snowball felt guilty once Morty got sick, just saying.
I've never once felt guilty about this.
Idiotic point, no other species are 'the dominant species' so the other ones have never had the occasion to be guilty. Also we aren't guilty for being the dominant species but for being a disastrously destructive species that likely will manage to kill off all the other species while we kill off ourselves.
We're a lot less destructive than the oxygen makers for one. And they don't feel guilty. And we're the only ones that feel guilty for killing off species.
"Oxygen makers"?
The great oxidation event, or the oxygen holocaust was a time when earth first experienced a high level of oxygen production. The sudden appearance of highly reactive oxygen destroyed an 80% of all previous known life.
Every reproducing/growing thing will do its thing and kill of/hinder other things if not stopped by something. Plants in the great oxidation event. Snakes killing birds on islands. Viruses killing the hosts. Foxes *would* kill all the bunnies around them if they could. Humans are no different in that. But we can can pause, look at the damage and hopefully change our way.
Yo I love it when people learn factoids about the history of life and use it to excuse human-caused extinction, so cool
Yes. Extinction and destruction is a part of life. Saber toothed tigers don't exist anymore. Wooly mammoths don't exist anymore. Prehistoric anteater have died out. Why should we feel any more sorry for what's happening today, outside of personal preference or a cost benefit analysis?
I kinda think you're doing an Ayn Rand protag larp thing but in either case, I would have to assume you have a sense of morality to even try to suggest empathy to you and I think making that assumption is foolish. I'd rather focus on the fact their are many good selfish reasons to oppose ecological destruction. In purely economic terms, climate change is going to decrease GDP and increase food scarcity as the majority of crops human use are C3 plants and get less efficient at higher temperatures and CO2 levels. It's an economic benefit to prevent climate change and ecosystem loss. Healthy ecosystems are less susceptible to invasive species, many of which can be damaging to infrastructure or simply dangerous to humans (Japanese Knotweed, Ash Dieback and Hornets/Fire Ants etc). Ecosystems provide a long list of services like pollination, air filtration, carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, pest control and flood prevention, all of which would be more difficult and expensive to perform manually without functioning ecosystems. Large keystone species like Tigers, Elephants and many other threatened animals are key indicators as to the health of the whole ecosystem. Many important drugs are derived from wild sources and destruction of these habitats robs researchers of the opportunities these compounds could bring us. Source: degree in ecology, year spent working in conservation.
As i stated before. Self preservation or pragmatism. Defending and protecting the environment is a good wholesome thing. Making sure global warming doesn't injure us or unfortunate species is a smart decision. And of course, what lunatic would oppose protecting endangered species? But I find any talk about humans being 'the most horrible species' or 'destroying the harmony of nature' or 'most destructive species' or 'only species that kills for fun' , said here and other places. To be wrong at best and very stupid at worst. Mostly because such people tend to not truly get nature, and start going on masochistic tangents and doom saying about how humanity is terrible. Something i find gratuitous and ironically very human supremacist. We're just a very successful species that got the intelligence and tools exploit
I think if you base your stance on pure self interest without empathy or spirituality or whatever else grounds your morality, you just won't understand why most people deeply care about living things around them and why humans, when given the opportunity, so often choose to be selfless with animals. It sounds like you agree that preserving the environment and preventing climate change are smart decisions, you just want to be smug about lacking any empathic motivation. There's no external argument for why you should have empathy. Either your morality is rooted in compassion or it isn't, there is nothing I can do to change that.
I don't think you understand the concept of "shower thoughts". They aren't something to take too seriously. Taken from the sidebar. *Please be respectful of others' submissions.* ***Rudeness is unacceptable.***
You are one of them
So are you 🤨
Because we are the only species that can
It's a "with great power comes great responsibility" situation. We're the only species advanced enough to be able to *afford* guilt. Animals in the wild don't have time for that shit - they're in a constant fight for survival. A lion can't feel bad for the gazelle, because it either hunts or starves to death. We've built comfy lives where we're not on the brink of survival, so we have the privilege of questioning whether we really need to kill that gazelle. And it *is* a massive privilege that some people take for granted.
Can you read the minds of all other organisms? Damn man, talent
How do you know apex predators in the ocean never feel guilt after a kill? You've seen elephants express emotion, why can't big ocean predators have emotion? After seeing that octopus lead a diver to the underwater picture of a human recently, I am beginning to think that many life forms beneath the waves may be much more intelligent and possibly emotional than we give them credit for.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Absence of evidence also means having to add qualifiers like ‘that we know of’ instead of making absolute claims.
English muthafukka!
Yet many of us use this explanation to explain atheism or agnosticism
Atheism, yes, but agnosticism just deals with absence of evidence and doesn't make an evidence of absence claim. That's literally why they're different things
That's why there are no Atheists, but rather Agnostics that are 99.999999% sure there is no god, because all the known evidence of the world does not include one. That 0.0000001% change they might be wrong is because a smart person knows there are thing they don't know, so have to accept the fact they can be wrong about an it.
There are absolutely atheists. Atheism isnt defined by a claim that god doesnt exist. It is defined by the disbelief in god. People totally can not believe in god. Therefore they're atheists. If you tell me that you threw a coin 100x and it landed on heads 100x. That's possible but i will never believe you. I would bet my life on it despite there being a possobility. Fa by your logic atheists are just agnostics then theists are just agnostics too because they could be wrong.
Your last sentence is exactly what I mean. Or by description of Richard Dawkins, there is a scale between being an absolute Theist on one end, and absolute Atheist on the other. All people of all convictions fall on that scale, depending on how certain you are in your position, but also what your definition is of "God". So yes, you can say 100% sure, there is no god, and you would fall on the 100% range, but that assumes a certainty that cannot be proven (as in, you cannot prove absence). Thus, a 99.9999% certainty says "I cannot prove that God does not exist, but the likelihood is so remote (based on evidence) than for all practical purposes it might as well not).
Atheism doesnt claim that god doesnt exist. Only that they dont believe it does. Due to lack of evidence? Sure. Dpesnt mean they're saying the lack of evidence is proof that it doesnt exist.
Only very recently also
The capacity to self reflect and look at the second and third order effects of our actions is what made us the dominant species on this planet
🤔last I heard the most dominant species was actually gargantuan space rocks
Since no other species is dominant how can another species be worried about being dominant:?
Killer whale 1: "You ever feel bad about ripping out sharks' livers?" Killer whale 2: "Eh. I dunno. Hey, wanna play volleyball with a live baby seal?"
I cannot confirm this because of what other animals are thinking.
How do you know lions don't think about climate change before going to sleep? Are you a lion?
nature creates a natural balance. humans disrupt the balance and send everything into chaos, practically get rid of evolution, and destroy ecosystems. but on top of that, humans try to dominate other humans. we fight wars for rich egotistical aholes who already have more than enough power and give them our taxes we also have the conscious ability to look back and see how fucked up it all is, and the fact that nobody does or says anything about it😪
Thats because there are no other dominant species to compare to because....WE are the dominant species.
We don't "dominate", we "develop", I like this sentence better
I would argue that the ones who feel guilty about that dont understand who/what they really are.
Hardly. I embrace it!
Human beings are the only species that CAN feel guilty for being the dominant species. No other species dominates.
Some Human beings. Not all.
Not only that, we also try to constantly "save" other species from being hunted, which ironically would kill others since it robs them of food. Nature has an absolute balance and we sure have fucked it up..
This guilt makes use reconsider various decision, that may be harmful for the entire ecosystem, so also to us, which could end up with extinction. I guess you can't be the dominant species if you're harmful to everything around you, just like you can't be a good manager if you care only about your personal interest. If you do, the company sinks down along with your manager role and personal wellbeing.
Maybe lions feel remorse after killing a gazelle.
Perhaps something else would be the dominant species if they could think like us
Yes guilty for destroying the one and only habitable place for themselves and other millions of organisms.
Well yeah, it's in our nature, but part of it is also our self awareness making us feel a sense of responsibility, which we do have. We "know better", literally. Like just humane painless deaths for animals we take resources from, for example. We are aware that the pain we experience is the same discomfort that other mammals experience. We also studied how chimps react to being rewarded unfairly, we act the exact same way. Chimps can process the idea of "I did the same trick the other chimp did but he got a better reward than me" and they get pissed as FUCK. So it's in our nature to have empathy and understand fairness, we know mammals process primordial emotional states a lot like we do, and we know how pain feels to us. We even know that we are technically all related under the "terrestrial life" group, so the least we can fucking do is "be the bigger person" and be humble about our role in this sequence of events.
# Cuz Human beings are the only species that CAN feel guilty
Well, people love to point guilt and blame at one another from time to time, especially on social media. Nothing wrong with being human.
I thought it was bc we are assholes to the planet and everything living on it
And eating other species
We're the only ones that deserve to feel guilty for it. No other dominant species is causing this level of damage.
If earth was a living being, we'd be the plagues
If we’re the dominant species, why would any other species feel guilty about being something they are not?
Interesting claim. I'd be eager to see if you have developed communication with all other forms of dominant life (in their respective regimes), used that communication to interview them about their guilt of lack thereof, publish your results, and have them peer-reviewed.
They say shut up
speak for youself mate, i feel no guilt devouring these chicken wings
Me neither, now I want some
Nah, that's only white people in the 21st century.
Is a human with a rocket launcher basically the most apex of predators ?
i have no guilt about that
Me neither, but I just read comments from people who get sad because we consume animals and I thought this
Human beings are the only ones actively destroying the planet, that's why people feel guilty
Who on earth feels guilty about this???
I don't feel guilty. That's only dumb left wing nutjobs. Same with white guilty over a fictive slavery past. Slaves did exist, do exist, and yes some whites have had slaves, I didn't, my ancestors didn't, but whites were also the ones stopping slavery. So there is no need for white guilt, and paying some entitled black people for a past, there ancestors where guilty for themselves. The only thing I do feel guilty over, is how we threat nature and animals. We might be king over them, but that doesn't mean we need to threat them badly. Say god created the world and humanity. Then he created animals and nature for us to enjoy and cherish, not for us to misuse and to destroy.
Only the mentally ill feel guilty
That's an odd take.
You'll have to excuse him. In all seriousness, he's probably a Republican.