Sitenews Minimize
  • 30/12/18
    Fun fact - AKPCEP has a Google Page Speed score of 100/100
  • 26/12/18
    You wonder how any of this worked in the first place.
  • 13/03/09
    Still here! Please visit the forums and join in the discussions. If you have any questions or comments please contact Alexander.
Link Button Minimize
link to https://www.akpcep.com

Use this to link

Valid XHTML 1.0
Valid CSS

Selfish? And?

Posted 3 March 2002, 12.03 am by Villager

Human rights, animal rights, insect rights, tree rights, atmosphere rights. What are perceived as morals dictate that we respect everything, each other, the world around us. That includes standing staunch upon such issues as deforestation, fox-hunting and pollution. Why? Because it makes us feel good to think we've done the Christian thing and treated -everything- as we would wish to be treated ourselves? Because we are pleasant people and naturally hold people and the environment in a position of respect and care? Because we believe that we have no right to be of detriment to the earth and its creations?

Whichever or whatever else it is, it is misguided. By all means, respect your neighbour (but don't try to love him..), a functioning society depends upon such. Respect those around you, create a nice atmosphere and good, useful relations. Respect the people at the other end of the country, you don't want to create a social divide. But do not feel moral compulsion to respect inanimate material and earthly beasts because you think you 'should'. You should not.

The single, lone reason we should be careful as to how much shit we pump into the atmosphere, how many trees we cut down, what animals we render extinct is the effect it will have on us. It is human nature and indeed the nature of nigh all other creations to act out of primarily selfish motive. Self-preservation, self-betterment, improving your immediate environment and quality of life. Natural instincts, absolutely nothing to be ashamed of or guilty about. Why, then, ought we go to great lengths to see that our interests do little damage to the world around us?

Granted, I have no desire to see my landscape and horizon marred by pollution and industrial development. But I care not a jot about the damage that will result in hundreds of years from now from the activity the modern world undertakes. For my benefit and those like me. Like you. We should take care to avoid ruining things for ourselves, and for our children, but it makes no sense to inhibit ourselves for the benefit of things which fall below us in the food chain. Rape the rainforest. Stop when humans are threatened by it. Pollute the atmosphere, just try to do it discreetly, out of sight and not harmful to us. Hunt foxes, it provides appreciated employment, a jolly good afternoon and maintenance of the countryside which you and I can enjoy. Life owes us nothing, we owe it nothing more in return.

Necromanzer
on 3 March 2002, 8.03 am
Sorry for bumping you after 2min. man, you posted while I was writing.

I think we were both writing around the same concept, but from two totally different viewpoints. Weird. Good writing but I'm still going to have to punch you.


GLADIATOR
on 3 March 2002, 9.18 am
If I understand your argument,I disagree totally.

No one is asking anyone to "love thy neighbour", but being selfish in ones outlook to people and the future, will ultimately effect yourself

I believe.
"No man is an island,entire of himself.
any mans death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind"

MY biggest disapointment, is that I 100% agree to that, but unfortunately do not have the time or the personality to follow it .

Feeble excuse you say...and TRUE it is.


DemonAnton
on 3 March 2002, 9.53 am
I think I agree with Vill. This is my life. I should do things with it that make me feel good and happy not just because the morals of society want me to. Oh no they're cutting down trees. Does it really affect me in any way? Not that I can think of so why should I care? What has the south american albino dwarf tree frog ever done for me?


GLADIATOR
on 3 March 2002, 10.15 am
No problem.Its called democracy.I note you say "think you agree" so there is still hope for you yet.
By the way,the albino dwarf tree frog genes, have been found to help, in some cures of cancer.
Of course that may be not essential to you right now,BUT it may be in your lifetime (or death time if they become extinct)


DemonAnton
on 3 March 2002, 12.41 pm
That is of course something that needs to be considered. But then it just comes down to which do we need more mahogany chairs or a cure for cancer. Its not a case of saving the frog because its a frog, its a case of saving the frog because it can help us. Just another example of our own selfish need to live


GLADIATOR
on 3 March 2002, 2.05 pm
DA quoted
mahogany chairs or a cure for cancer.?
I believe its the cure for cancer.


RunOCP
on 3 March 2002, 7.18 pm
DA: "Its not a case of saving the frog because its a frog, its a case of saving the frog because it can help us. Just another example of our own selfish need to live"

I would hardly call A need to live a selfish quest. That's like saying breathing is a selfish act. However, I do believe that some points (like coming up with a cure for cancer) could be considered a selfish act...if you're thinking along the lines of nature did not intend sort of way. But then again due to evolution humans have the natural ability to come up with a cure (say from said frogs) and naturaly is destroying nature to find it...

Moment of thought: Nature (trees grass dirt) will evolve into a stripmall.


DemonAnton
on 3 March 2002, 7.27 pm
What I am trying to say is decisions won't and probably shoudn't be made just because it might hurt a frog or a tree. We are the superior species. We will exploit to ensure survival we should exploit to ensure survival. Animals are nice, I like animals but if I could ensure my survival by killing every frog in the world I would. No questions asked.

Personally I wouldn't do it just to enhance my quality of life. I don't care whether I have mahogany or pine chairs but if someone cuts down trees to make mahogany chairs I'll sit in them


RunOCP
on 3 March 2002, 7.41 pm
So no more would cut the trees yourself, but then again you wouldn't stop those who were either. Why not just sit on the ground?


Jack
on 3 March 2002, 8.27 pm
I agree with Anton, and Villager, on this one. Sure, a cure for cancer would be nice, but it's irrelevant to me right now. I'd prefer the mahogany chair. Yes, it's a selfish point of view, but I don't believe in unselfishness. True, if I were confronted directly with the question of whether to develop a cure for cancer or to sit comfortably, it might present an unpleasant moral dilemma. But it's not. It's a question of whether I want to give money to a total stranger who promises he'll use it to help a tree, or whether I want to give the money to a furniture salesman who will give me pleasure right now. And being the hedonist I am, that just ain't no choice at all...

Peace,
Jack


GLADIATOR
on 3 March 2002, 10.07 pm
Jack
lets switch the argument from "cancer" to saving your "arm".

What then becomes the deciding factor?.Selfishness,is unfortunately the short term thinking and actions of governments and politicians.
We free mortals , should consider OUR future,AND the future of others.

Forget the fucking chair.You live where YOu live,to be in the FREE world,surrounded my nature.

DemonAnton (quoted)
We are the superior species

You kid yourselves.The frog has evolved and survived for millions of years.The frog has NEVER caused a nuclear explosion,and finally,the frog CURES cancer, while us mere mortals caused it

Who is superior...yes its us, but JUST because of a goddam mahogany chair...Wow

Shalom



Villager
on 3 March 2002, 10.59 pm
We should not be any stretch of the imagination neglect the earth. Such a thing would be outright counterproductive. But the lives of animals should be of a distinctly lower priority than our own interests.


Necromanzer
on 3 March 2002, 11.14 pm
Ie: If I was driving down the street and there was a deer in front of me, would I swerve away if it meant hitting a person? Obviously not.

However, I think there are fundamental repercussions, in both macrocosmic and microcosmic systems, to every human action, especially those that involve obliterating large forests that house half the world's species of birds, for example.


DemonAnton
on 3 March 2002, 11.27 pm
We are still the superior species. We, in under a year, could wipe the planet of nearly all animal life that is not human. To me that says we are superior.

I am not justifying the willy nilly killing of animals but if the gains for the human race outweigh the losses we might as well do it.

There is too much emphasis placed on the rights of animals. A frog may have the cure for cancer but you can bet your life if the frog has to die for us to be cured animal rights groups will be up in arms and probably end up costing the taxpayers millions of £/$ to actually be able to cure cancer.

I dislike animal suffering as much as the next non-animal rights activist but I don't want it to hold back science. I feel the same way about scientific use of foeti but that's a different argument


GLADIATOR
on 3 March 2002, 11.51 pm
DemonAnton said
We are still the superior species. We, in under a year, could wipe the planet of nearly all animal life that is not human. To me that says we are superior.

Jesus.If thas the BEST definition of superior,I think, i would surrender.Firstly we may be superior in intellect,but its INFERIOR thinking to destroy OUR world.
Secondly,we could do it in less than a year.One nuclear war could wipe us out in days.

Thirdly,with ALL mans ingenuity,ALL our worst disaters come from nature.
Floods/Hurricaines/tornadoes and of course ALL PLAGUES were made by nature.Man ONLY stole them.
We never developed Anthrax or Ebola ect NATURE did.





DemonAnton
on 4 March 2002, 12.10 am
This isn't a case of destroying OUR world, its a case of whether we as a species should what is beneficial for us with little regard to other froms of life. Our world can still exist without cats, dogs, frogs and rabbits.

I'm not talking about man vs nature, this is more man vs things nature created. Nature could wipe us out as easily as we could kill the dolphins.


To comment on this article, please Log In or Register.



Submissions Minimize

0 Articles awaiting authorisation

Users Online Minimize

Members: 6 Guests: 116
Google

Art Collection Minimize
Click for larger image

In 2018 I started painting again. This was one of a series of acrylic sketches I did to relearn techniques and revisit my skills from art college.


Chat Minimize

Props to Green Mamba for bringing the weirdness

Hmph

80s candy bars were pretty good

only because i traded it for a candy bar in the 80's.

lol we all know you don't have a soul ghoti

my soul for some carbs...

But of course!

Support

If you wish to help AKPCEP grow, please use PayPal.
RSS Newsfeed: https://www.akpcep.com/akpcep.rss
Articles posted are copyright the respective authors and may not express the views of akpcep.com. All other content ©Alexander King 2001-2019. ver 4.0
This page was built in 0.0104 seconds