[Altaru]

Originally Posted by Henbaka

Now this wasn't aimed at me, but I'll comment on this (bs) first. One could say you are "superior" to another human by nature's standards if you can kill said human. This means that in the event of do-or-die, where it was either you or him/her, it would be you.

To begin with, it's not "do-or-die" situations that we humans are killing off species for. A "do-or-die" situation would be killing the animal for food because you have to, and if you don't you will die, or the human is being attacked and has to fight back. I have no problem with that, because it's nature, but humans don't generally eat or get in fights with Amur Leopards, now do they? The only reason the amur leopard is dying is because it suits our DESIRES, not our needs. We don't need another 6.684 billion people to be born, but since none of us can resist the urge have our "fun," there will be eventually.

Originally Posted by Henbaka

But that's not what we are talking about here, so it's irrellevant. We were talking about different species, not superiority amongst a certain species. I don't think you got either, that when we talked about superiority (atleast when I did), we meant superior as in this species survives, and that one doesn't. The ultimate outcome. This is not the "superiority" one means when they feel they are more intelligent, more beautiful, more successful than someone else. I don't feel humans are "more successful" than species like this leopard. We have just evolved very differently.

Please excuse the Matrix reference, but it fits here. Humans are like a virus that takes over an available body. We move in, infect, procreate, destroy, and move on. Eventually, we run out of places to go because we've killed our host, and we die ourselves, or we transfer to another host body and do the same thing. Until we run out of available hosts, that is.

Temporary superiority, long-term inferiority, and, despite the fact that noone wants to see things that way, it's the inevitable truth.

Originally Posted by Henbaka

I hate us too for bringing so many species to extinction. But this is just ridiculous. Would you start with yourself?

Porbably end with myself, seeing as how the majority of the human race isn't going to eliminate themselves personally.

Originally Posted by Henbaka

Not really. Yes, we fuck shit up. Yes I too hate that we are so many, and that it's really going downhill. But we do survive. I'm sorry but, in nature the strongest survives. Currently, that is us, and that's why animals die out and not us. By strenght I don't mean such stuff as physical strenght or agility, but also the skill and intelligence to build structures, weapons and tools that enhance our de facto strenght. This is how it is.

See above comment about TEMPORARY superiority.

Originally Posted by Henbaka

However, as we also have the intelligence to think about the negative effects and consequences of our actions, I really really think we gotta learn how to do that better. By that I mean that we should by now be intelligent enough to think of ways to live that does not involve making the earth uninhabitable for us or other animals, or drive other species to extinction for no reason.

Unfourtnately, so many of us don't, and that's why the human race is an inferior species. For being the intellectually superior species, we sure are rather ignorant and stupid.

Originally Posted by Henbaka

Again ridiculous. A person with the mindset of saving a human before an animal would do so, and before AH made himself known to be evil, they would have saved him. Where to make a distinction? Easy, every human (well most) has standards by which they judge people to be good/evil/assholes/stupid/intelligent/whatever. This person would simply decide if AH(or anyone else) was worth saving by their standards.

To begin with, where do you get off being able to make the decision of which human is worth more than another? You're not god, and you're not a lord or king. You're simply another human, therefor you have no divine rights by any standards, despite your belief that you do for some reason.

Also, by your own "survival of the strongest" standards, you should leave both to die. Be it a starving child, or a corrupt dictator, or an Amur Leopard, you should leave them to die because if they're dying in the first place, then they CLEARLY aren't the strongest, now are they? After all, you're not dying, therefore, you are strongest. If "survival of the strongest" is natures plan, then saving any of them is messing with that plan.

Not to mention, why bother saving the starving child, if they can't save themselves? If you save them now, they'll grow up believing that they can rely on people to save them if they reach a certain point. By saving them now, you're killing them later anyway...

Again, temporary superiority in play.

Unfortunately, because humans have the whole emotional aspect effecting their thoughts, we place more value on one human life than an entire species of animals. Why? I'll never know. There are apparently 6.684 billion other humans (and counting) if that one should die.

Even if 8 people die out of evey thousand, there's another 20 being born to take their place (according to the CIA 2008 estimates), so letting that one starving child die isn't going to make a world-wide difference, 'cause he'll likely be replaced within the second. However, letting an entire species die could, and likely will, have an enourmous impact.

And it would ALL be the fault of human beings. Not nature, not god. Humans. Would you want to carry the weight of that on your shoulders? Of course not. That's why the majority of the human race, yourself included obviously, just shrugs the facts off by using the "superior race" card.

Great... And I'M the heartless one.


[quote=noodle]A couple things... You really shouldn't talk about you being some sort of killing machine online, it makes you sound ridiculous... kinda like how a 12 year old threatens people on online games. [/qoute]

It's making a point, don't patronize me.

Originally Posted by noodle

Secondly; If I thought that ONLY killing ability made someone superior I would have either stayed in my home country and lived in violence, or joined the army at some point in my life...

And yet it's what you said. Think before you speak/type.

Originally Posted by noodle

Lastly, you should know that killing them all was more about our brain capacity i.e. intellegence etc. Since, if we (one or two of us) were put in the wild with nothing, no weapons etc, and no hunting experience, and we came up against some dangerous animals, i'm pretty sure we'd die... We are not able to kill without our tools. Therefore, we are superior, because we would in fact be the "hunted" in the wild, and now we have become the hunters due to our ingenuity... As a species, we have "evolved" enough to be superior. We learn and adapt (in many ways, including weather conditions) faster than any other creature... So, in the wild, that is ideal.

Being able to survive in the wild is one thing, but destroying the wild so we don't have to is a totally different idea. Most humans take our own evolution for granted, and wouldn't last seconds out in the wild even WITH tools should they have to.

We're not superior. Not anymore. Our ancestors, the cave men that discovered fire, the first hunter that made a bow and arrow. THEY were superior. Anymore we're just afriad of what would happen if we WEREN'T superior, so instead of looking at the truth and continuing our advancement, we maintain our condescending air towards all the other creatures of the world and slowly rot.

Temporary superiority once more in effect.

If everyone was like the eco-friendly scientist, looking for ways to advance our society and right the wrongs we've commited without making even more wrongs, then we would still be superior.

Unfortunately, that utopian dream has yet to become a reality, and instead this world is full of ignorant fools who live life for their own satisfaction, no matter what must be destroyed to achieve that.

THAT is why we are an inferior species in the long-term.

Originally Posted by noodle

So really, you can't say if you can kill me or not because you have weapons... You don't know how smart I am... Kinda like BUSH vs Bin Laden... Bush has access to all the weapons in the world, but I'm pretty sure Bin Laden would be superior and be able to kill him far more easily

Then why hasn't he? Because Bin Laden's honestly nothing more than a coward, but I don't want to get started on the whole terrorism debate. That's something for another topic.

(Note: I'm not saying Bush is the sharpest knife in the drawer either, though.)

I didn't say weapons were the only reason, I also noted that I have a talent for watching people, figuring out patterns, and making plans. If weapons were the only factor that make me superior, then there are plenty of people who beat me out.


Looking at things from a nature standpoint, for every ONE human you save, you're introducing another natural predator into the earth. A natural predator that has no predator of its own. Therefor, it is likely to survive. As the predator (human) population goes up, the prey (crops, food animals, etc.) population goes down. Slowly, but it does whether you believe it or not.

Eventually, the amount of prey available reaches a dead point. It can no longer sustain the number of predators using it. The human population has to find SOME way of going down, or risk going extinct itself. People start dying of starvation.

Because you saved that one person, no matter how small an effect he/she had, they had an effect in reaching that point. In the end, saving that person ended up dooming the race.

Facts.