Are we evil?

[Grinner]

Isn't that, basically, the spirit of debates? to support your pov? If i concede a point, due to your reasoning, it means you "won".

Context is important.

The most important element of formal debate is the presence of a moderator to actively guide the discussion through its stages. Otherwise, a discussion will loop through a cycle of increasing anger and contention until someone gives up in disgust. Nothing productive results.

When someone attempts to argue as though these things are present in an informal setting, the setting does not normally become more formal. Instead, tempers flare, pride is wounded, and a forum moderator or administrator has to clean up the mess.

[Zrak]

I don't think a formal debate as the same thing as asking for a measure of critical rigor in even an informal discussion. A formal debate has moderators because it proceeds according to very exacting rules in terms of things like argument structure and time allotment, while there are plenty of discourses which demand critical rigor that are not subject to the same strictures as "debate club" debates.

I also happen to believe, and in the vast majority of my experience it has been the case, that most of my interlocutors, both here and elsewhere, have been capable of having such a debate without it sinking into the cyclical mire of personal attacks and hurt feelings you describe. I don't subscribe to the idea that it's impossible to have a productive, critical debate in an informal internet setting without it deteriorating to the point of requiring moderator intervention, which isn't to say that such a discussion is always possible, or always what happens, but I don't think that makes it any less something to strive for, especially when the alternative does not strike me as markedly less likely to descend into such a pejorative, diminished state. In either kind of discussion, tempers and pride can make a mess of things, while only one type is suitable for learning and growing by critically engaging with your own views and the views of others on a rigorous level.

[Grinner]

I don't think a formal debate as the same thing as asking for a measure of critical rigor in even an informal discussion. A formal debate has moderators because it proceeds according to very exacting rules in terms of things like argument structure and time allotment, while there are plenty of discourses which demand critical rigor that are not subject to the same strictures as "debate club" debates.

I also happen to believe, and in the vast majority of my experience it has been the case, that most of my interlocutors, both here and elsewhere, have been capable of having such a debate without it sinking into the cyclical mire of personal attacks and hurt feelings you describe. I don't subscribe to the idea that it's impossible to have a productive, critical debate in an informal internet setting without it deteriorating to the point of requiring moderator intervention, which isn't to say that such a discussion is always possible, or always what happens, but I don't think that makes it any less something to strive for, especially when the alternative does not strike me as markedly less likely to descend into such a pejorative, diminished state. In either kind of discussion, tempers and pride can make a mess of things, while only one type is suitable for learning and growing by critically engaging with your own views and the views of others on a rigorous level.

I disagree. When we call another's argument unrigorous, they are implicitly ignoring that argument. Consequently, we are implicitly ignoring what the other person is saying. To some, this is quite offensive. Compounding that, when we get into the game of trying to corner others logically, others can quite easily feel as though they're being personally attacked. These two things in turn shunt off meaningful discourse, entrenches each side in their position (regardless of its viability), and draws the battle lines.

I'm not going to tell you what to do, but I remain unconvinced that demanding such rigor of others in an informal setting is really all that productive.

Edit: At the very least, if a person is going to sue for rigor, they should do so respectfully. For some people, there is nothing more valuable than their pride.

[Meepo_]

If you're talking about evil in D&D terms then... yes, actually. Evil equates to selfishness, and humans are selfish. It's in our nature. Of course, everything has to be a little selfish in order to survive. If you want to compare any species to any other species, unless the two are symbiotic then neither really cares for the other, and one species would cause harm to the other for the former's benefits. But you don't see the wolf cry about eating the rabbit, or the rabbit crying about eating the grass, or the grass crying about sucking up nutrients and causing the deaths of millions of microorganisms. It's just nature. Which is why druids are considered neutral: They assume that survival of the fittest is purely natural and shouldn't be morally evaluated. So don't feel bad that we aren't nice to other species: they'd do the same to us if the roles were reversed. Just be glad you're human.

[Murska]

If you're talking about evil in D&D terms then... yes, actually. Evil equates to selfishness, and humans are selfish. It's in our nature. Of course, everything has to be a little selfish in order to survive. If you want to compare any species to any other species, unless the two are symbiotic then neither really cares for the other, and one species would cause harm to the other for the former's benefits. But you don't see the wolf cry about eating the rabbit, or the rabbit crying about eating the grass, or the grass crying about sucking up nutrients and causing the deaths of millions of microorganisms. It's just nature. Which is why druids are considered neutral: They assume that survival of the fittest is purely natural and shouldn't be morally evaluated. So don't feel bad that we aren't nice to other species: they'd do the same to us if the roles were reversed. Just be glad you're human.

Instead, feel awed that at least we're trying to also be nice to other species, at least some of the time and to some extent.

But species aren't any fundamental unit either. There's no specific dividing line that makes individuals care about their species yet not other species. By evolution, one might think that individuals care about their own genetic inclusiveness, but evolution doesn't actually work that way - the drives that have formed over generations into individuals haven't been designed by anyone, and while they generally work to maximize genetic inclusiveness that does not mean the individual itself cares about its genes. The individual cares about various things like fatty foods, potential mates, survival of its community and so on not because caring about those things have, in the past, helped its ancestors pass on their genes to it, but because that individual assigns value to such things, be it due to pleasure taken from them, some system of ethics that it has formulated or whatever.

[GolemsVoice]

If you're talking about evil in D&D terms then... yes, actually. Evil equates to selfishness, and humans are selfish. It's in our nature. Of course, everything has to be a little selfish in order to survive. If you want to compare any species to any other species, unless the two are symbiotic then neither really cares for the other, and one species would cause harm to the other for the former's benefits. But you don't see the wolf cry about eating the rabbit, or the rabbit crying about eating the grass, or the grass crying about sucking up nutrients and causing the deaths of millions of microorganisms. It's just nature. Which is why druids are considered neutral: They assume that survival of the fittest is purely natural and shouldn't be morally evaluated. So don't feel bad that we aren't nice to other species: they'd do the same to us if the roles were reversed. Just be glad you're human.

Wouldn't we be "neutral" then? If being selfish is just being part of the natural cycle, and humans are selfish, we'd be neutral. Or rather, Neutral.

[Coidzor]

We do mostly do neutral things.

[Zrak]

I disagree. When we call another's argument unrigorous, they are implicitly ignoring that argument. Consequently, we are implicitly ignoring what the other person is saying. To some, this is quite offensive. Compounding that, when we get into the game of trying to corner others logically, others can quite easily feel as though they're being personally attacked. These two things in turn shunt off meaningful discourse, entrenches each side in their position (regardless of its viability), and draws the battle lines.

I'm not going to tell you what to do, but I remain unconvinced that demanding such rigor of others in an informal setting is really all that productive.

Edit: At the very least, if a person is going to sue for rigor, they should do so respectfully. For some people, there is nothing more valuable than their pride.

I can't see how impugning the rigor of an argument or its supporting evidence even remotely implies the argument is being ignored. If anything, it implies precisely the opposite; had one not paid attention to the argument, how would one know it lacks rigor. Moreover, offering a specific critique of how the argument lacks rigor not only implies having paid attention to the argument, but actively demonstrates this attention and careful consideration.

While I regret it when I inadvertently cause offense, I cannot be held responsible if others cannot separate considered, supported criticism of points they make and the way they make them from petsonal attacks. In any case, the world would be a much worse place if we let the potential of unintentionally causing offense frighten us into letting misinformation proliferate, ignorance triumph, or "conventional wisdom" bully its Othered for daring to be different.

[Grinner]

While I regret it when I inadvertently cause offense, I cannot be held responsible if others cannot separate considered, supported criticism of points they make and the way they make them from petsonal attacks. In any case, the world would be a much worse place if we let the potential of unintentionally causing offense frighten us into letting misinformation proliferate, ignorance triumph, or "conventional wisdom" bully its Othered for daring to be different.

If you really regret offending others, then perhaps you would consider giving BananaPhone an apology?

[Cespenar]

From a nobody's point of view, Zrak was arguing pretty civilly here, heads above the forum's average level. I just felt the need to say this because he seems like being picked on pretty unfairly.

The fact that he's refuting a rather large fallacy without resorting to any passive-aggressive patronizing is a bonus too, but never mind.

Nobody out.

[Grinner]

Fundamentally, my contention is that angry people don't listen to anyone's logic but their own. Ergo, logos is worthless without some measure of pathos.

[GreatWyrmGold]

So some background, I was watching this new fall anime Parasyte -the maxim- where these parasites come to earth, bond with existing lifeforms (usually humans), take over their bodies and then proceed to eat people. When the main character asks one of these parasites "You guys are monsters, why are you doing this?" the parasite responds with "We're not monsters, we're eating humans for food." At this point there have been about 80 of these strange murders caused by these things. The parasite then asks "Aren't humans really the monsters? How many millions of things do you kill each year and eat?" Its this statement that prompted this post.
Picture a world where these ravenous creatures existed that enslaved and consumed the other, less intelligent creatures of that world. So great was their hunger that entire species went extinct in an attempt to satiate them. They forced the ones that didn't die out to mate in order to produce more food. They ate creatures of every gender and age, young, old, the strong, the weak and even the unborn.
Now realize that thats humans. Is there any horror story that can compare to what humans do on a daily basis? Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a vegan lifestyle, meat tastes too good. Its just that this parasite thing kind of had a point, we justify doing what we do to animals because we're at the top of the food chain. If we found out there was something else above us, can we really complain if they do the same to us?

A few notes.

1. I can't fault beings for consuming nonsapient organisms to survive. If they add unneeded suffering to the mix, or if they feed on sapient beings, I'll probably have issues, but cattle are fine.
2. I can't call a group evil for the unexpected consequences of actions no one truly controlled. It is good to avoid doing that, and bad to intentionally avoid doing that, but it's not a sign of evil.
3. Very few species have gone extinct for food. Most have gone extinct because humans didn't realize that cutting down trees, bringing dogs to strange new lands, not keeping rats off their ships, etc, would have the effects they did.
4. I find it hard to believe that those parasites don't consume a number of humans comparable to (or, more likely, greater than) the number of animals a similar population of normal humans would in the same time. Also, mind control isn't nothing either, even if it's things they consider evil. At best, they're being hypocritical in a clumsy attempt to add moral depth to the show.

[BananaPhone]

You said that the overwhelming majority of animals cannot recognize themselves as individuals, based on the fact that they cannot recognize themselves in mirrors. I disagreed, and supported my contention by explaining why I didn't find the evidence you cited in support of your position (mirror tests) remotely convincing or conclusive. So my point is that failing the mirror test does not prove that an animal doesn't recognize itself as an individual. I have no "beef," I merely disagree with you.

And I merely said they're a totally inconclusive and possibly misleading measure on which we should not rely. If you aren't willing or able to defend mirror tests, but still wish to make the same argument, why not suggest an alternate measure? Or merely say that you believe what you believe without saying there's any evidence in support of it; when you bring up evidence, you make a factual claim, and I feel that such claims are and should be subject to scrutiny and criticism.

I partially agreed with you but that wasn't good enough, you wanted total submission.

...which I promptly gave to you. But that still wasn't enough for you.

I'm sorry that you feel I am brow-beating you by criticizing the methods of the studies you cited as evidence in support of your position. I think rigorous criticism is a part of productive philosophical conversation. It's how we learn and grow.

Evidence in support of my position? Rigorous criticism? Full-on citing studies?

I'm sorry...did I take a wrong turn and end up at ResearchGate or something? I thought this forum was called "friendly banter" not "have every one of your opinions backed up by hard scientific evidence that you can quote and debate at full for when Zrak jumps you demanding you explain yourself" forum.

Do you know what "friendly banter" means? You see this reply of mine to you? It has a very casual, talking-with-someone-at-the-train-station vibe - that informal, friendly way in which two people can disagree on something, but understand that their own positions aren't perfect before departing amicably? I'm not here to have a formal scientific debate (on an area in which I possess almost no expertise, for that matter).

Maybe try not coming at someone next time like a bull in a china shop and you'll get more of an amicable discussion.

I think you mean Fort Knoxious, because everything I say is solid gold. It's okay, lots of people make typos when they try to say nice things about how great I am.

That's nice. Have fun.

[Zrak]

I think it's a little unfair to accost me for restating my point after you said you weren't sure what my point was. I was merely trying to clarify a position you had just said you didn't understand.

As I said, I apologize if you felt my criticism of the evidence you presented as part of a fact-based claim in support of your opinion was brow-beating. What I meant when I said that I felt such criticism was an integral part of any philosophical conversation is that I feel such criticism is entirely normal in casual conversation; when it became apparent that your casual conversations are very different than mine, I endeavored to explain the perspective from which I am approaching the discussion (i.e. criticism is normal, healthy, and not unfriendly) and why I raised the objections as I did (i.e. I feel that fact-based claims, even in support of wholly subjective opinions, are subject to fact-based scrutiny), so that you could better understand my position. I am sorry for any slight you have inferred from this; I assure you it was not intended.

From a nobody's point of view, Zrak was arguing pretty civilly here, heads above the forum's average level. I just felt the need to say this because he seems like being picked on pretty unfairly.

The fact that he's refuting a rather large fallacy without resorting to any passive-aggressive patronizing is a bonus too, but never mind.

Nobody out.

Thanks, man.

P.S. I'm still mad about the Flail of Ages +5, though. No haste? C'mon.

[Talya]

"Evil" is what we make it. We invented the concept.

Nature is neither good nor evil. Life is a mere complex set of chemical reactions that has evolved to maintain its own existence and spread itself throughout every possible ecosystem. In its evolution, it has stopped to consume itself at every opportunity, and will continue to do so.

One of those evolutions is us. Somewhere along the way, we invented this social concept of "right and wrong," although we've never clearly and definitively explained the concept in an all-encompassing way. While you may find individual acts that are so repugnant to human nature that we all agree they are evil, you will never find a definition of good and evil that a majority of humans will agree upon. Morality is not only relevative, it is subjective, and exists only in a complete way inside each one of us, and even then it is different for every person who has ever lived. If your definition of evil is one that marks humanity as evil, then to you, yes, we are evil.

We may be a product of our evolution, but compare us to nature around us! Any other species will, given an opportunity, consume until there is nothing left, and when prey is exhausted, predator dies out as well. Contrary to the words of Agent Smith in the Matrix -- other species do NOT "instinctively find equilibrium" - it is imposed upon them by the harsh realities of the struggle for survival. Humans, however, have overcome that struggle in a way that means nature rarely threatens our survival as a species anymore. And while we continue to spread and consume, we are the only species in the history of the planet that has willfully limited its consumption. As a species, we are the only ones that understand the concepts of value in biodiversity, conservation, and living in harmony with the land that has sustained us.

Now, one can make a valid argument that we're not very good at these things, and I'd agree. It's a work in progress. We're treading on new ground for life - no other life has ever had to consider these things. At least not on this world. Maybe we'll figure it out. I hope so.

[Zrak]

We may be a product of our evolution, but compare us to nature around us! Any other species will, given an opportunity, consume until there is nothing left

I'm pretty sure you can't come close to backing this up. I mean, c'mon, any other species?

And while we continue to spread and consume, we are the only species in the history of the planet that has willfully limited its consumption.

My cat didn't finish the food in his bowl this morning, nor did he devour the entirety of the cat grass in the window. He doesn't eat every squirrel or snake he sees in the yard; in fact, he hasn't ever eaten any of them. I did not force, or even tell, him to do anything of these things. Am I therefore correct in asserting that my cat is a human?

As a species, we are the only ones that understand the concepts of value in biodiversity, conservation, and living in harmony with the land that has sustained us.

This is kind of a silly point. Of course no other species understands those concepts, they're human-invented, language-dependent abstracts.

[Talya]

I'm pretty sure you can't come close to backing this up. I mean, c'mon, any other species?


My cat didn't finish the food in his bowl this morning, nor did he devour the entirety of the cat grass in the window. He doesn't eat every squirrel or snake he sees in the yard; in fact, he hasn't ever eaten any of them. I did not force, or even tell, him to do anything of these things. Am I therefore correct in asserting that my cat is a human?

You're making a bit of a strawman argument. I didn't say individual members of a species will eat until either all food is exhausted or they explode. Their species, itself, however, has governor that curtails overconsumption. If cats overpopulate, for example, they will consume until all available resources are gone.

Here in Canada, the Ministry of Natural resources keeps an eye on the populations of certain types of wildlife, because if they over-proliferate in spring and summer, they will suffer a mass die-off during the winter when their food is scarce. When there's, for example, too many deer in the wild, they will issue more hunting permits to try to lower the wild population for that species own good.

This is kind of a silly point. Of course no other species understands those concepts, they're human-invented, language-dependent abstracts.

Biodiversity and conservation are not human-invented, language dependant abstracts. They are real things. Likewise, value judgements are things most fauna have to make on a regular basis. You'd be correct if you said no other species understands these things, but that makes my point for me. Humans have come to understand these things, and what they mean for ourselves and the world around us, so we can act on them.

"Living in harmony with the land" is a bit abstract, but it also describes an action - intentionally living in a way so as to disturb your environment as little as possible... and only we have ever tried such a thing. Other creatures just live the only ways they know how.

[Zrak]

You're making a bit of a strawman argument. I didn't say individual members of a species will eat until either all food is exhausted or they explode. Their species, itself, however, has governor that curtails overconsumption. If cats overpopulate, for example, they will consume until all available resources are gone.

Well, you said no other species willfully limited its consumption. I would argue choosing to stop eating constitutes willfully limiting consumption. So we know that at least one species willingly limits its consumption in at least some circumstances. Now, the question is how many other species limit their consumption and in what other circumstances that consumption is limited.
Let's shift our gaze a little and look out the window, into my back yard. What are those squirrels doing? Why, they're not eating all the food that's presently available to them, but instead burying some to save for later. Squirrels aren't cats, and they're not just curtailing consumption to prevent themselves from exploding. I imagine you see where this is going: a number of species willingly curtail their consumption for a number of reasons.

This is to say nothing of the idea that humans won't consume until all available resources are gone in conditions of overpopulation (a claim contradicted by numerous occasions in which, in a given environment, humans have done exactly that) or the basic untenability of making basically any claim (barring those which define the species) about a given species as though it were a single, holistic unit.

Here in Canada, the Ministry of Natural resources keeps an eye on the populations of certain types of wildlife, because if they over-proliferate in spring and summer, they will suffer a mass die-off during the winter when their food is scarce. When there's, for example, too many deer in the wild, they will issue more hunting permits to try to lower the wild population for that species own good.

Only certain types of wildlife? That seems horrendously irresponsible, given the premise that literally all other species are relentless, heedless consumption machines. One wonders why they don't need to curtail the population of every single nonhuman species, animal or otherwise, to prevent such catastrophes from befalling them. One might begin to suspect this impulse towards overconsumption is, perhaps, somewhat less universal than you have made it out to be.

Biodiversity and conservation are not human-invented, language dependant abstracts. They are real things.

Yes and no. The traits and actions to which they refer are real, concrete things; the terms you describe are broad, language-dependent abstract constructs. Biodiversity and conservation are "real" to the same extent "good" and "evil" are; the phenomena to which they refer (i.e. murder, in the case of "evil") certainly exist, but idea which groups those phenomena into an abstract, conceptual association is entirely constructed. Biodiversity, being comparatively concrete, is somewhat less language-dependent, but "conservation" and especially "living in harmony" are absolutely constructed, culturally mutable ideas; even within a single language, the notions of what each of those concepts entails isn't remotely consistent or exact.

Likewise, value judgements are things most fauna have to make on a regular basis. You'd be correct if you said no other species understands these things, but that makes my point for me. Humans have come to understand these things, and what they mean for ourselves and the world around us, so we can act on them.

I don't know if I would be correct in saying that. I think the idea of "understanding" is a hazy idea we tend use as though it were much more concrete than it really is. Basically nobody really understands anything, if we want to be as strict as possible about it, but there are a great many things I think it would be incorrect to assert animals don't understand, if we're going to use a more open-ended definition. While one can draw a line anywhere along the continuum to delineate what does and does not "count" as understanding, I don't think it's very productive to define a term so that one's view is correct and call it a day. Rather, I think we ought to talk about the degree to and way in which a given person or animal understands the concept, action, or value judgment at hand.

"Living in harmony with the land" is a bit abstract, but it also describes an action - intentionally living in a way so as to disturb your environment as little as possible... and only we have ever tried such a thing. Other creatures just live the only ways they know how.

It describes an abstract and totally mutable set of actions and decisions which vary wildly from one individual to the next even within the bounds of a single language. What constitutes a disturbance? What establishes one disturbance as greater or lesser than another? What constitutes an "environment," and how is "my environment" bounded and delineated?

Also, do you contend all humans have tried this, or merely some individuals within our species? Earlier, you appeared to discount the behavior of "individual members of a species" as fundamentally unrepresentative of the behavior of the "species itself" as a whole. Accepting for the sake of argument that the latter is a thing, at all, how would you address this apparent contradiction?

[gooddragon1]

Now realize that thats humans. Is there any horror story that can compare to what humans do on a daily basis? Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a vegan lifestyle, meat tastes too good. Its just that this parasite thing kind of had a point, we justify doing what we do to animals because we're at the top of the food chain. If we found out there was something else above us, can we really complain if they do the same to us?

Animals don't have the ability to complain about it in the first place. People realize when it's happening and animals don't. I think we'd have a lot harder of a time with it if the animals started asking us what happened to that other one of them on a particular day. We're also humane about it. We don't generally kill one animal in front of the rest to traumatize them.

[warty goblin]

Animals don't have the ability to complain about it in the first place. People realize when it's happening and animals don't. I think we'd have a lot harder of a time with it if the animals started asking us what happened to that other one of them on a particular day. We're also humane about it. We don't generally kill one animal in front of the rest to traumatize them.

Ever tried to handle an animal that thinks it is about to die? I guarantee you they can complain about it. Also struggle, bellow, and try to escape or fight back, with extreme vigor. Animals may be less adept at figuring out when something is trying to kill them then people, but they aren't cute little protein sacks wandering around, all innocent and unsuspecting.

[Murska]

Zrak: The point seems to be that if we give any animal species a large amount of food, space and all other necessities, and remove dangers, predators and such, they will reproduce exponentially until the resources are no longer sufficient, at which point their population will undergo a massive collapse. Whereas if we give humans a large amount of food, space and other necessities, which is essentially what modern society has (to a limited extent, and only in some places) achieved, humanity has empirically actually began to plan ahead, figure out that the eventual collapse would not be something we want to have happen, and so we've began to limit ourselves gradually now to avoid the environment imposing a harsher fallout on us later. This would be because humans are smarter than other animals, and more capable of extrapolating into the future and understanding the eventual results of our current actions.

[Zrak]

Ever tried to handle an animal that thinks it is about to die? I guarantee you they can complain about it. Also struggle, bellow, and try to escape or fight back, with extreme vigor. Animals may be less adept at figuring out when something is trying to kill them then people, but they aren't cute little protein sacks wandering around, all innocent and unsuspecting.

Yeah, this.

Zrak: The point seems to be that if we give any animal species a large amount of food, space and all other necessities, and remove dangers, predators and such, they will reproduce exponentially until the resources are no longer sufficient, at which point their population will undergo a massive collapse. Whereas if we give humans a large amount of food, space and other necessities, which is essentially what modern society has (to a limited extent, and only in some places) achieved, humanity has empirically actually began to plan ahead, figure out that the eventual collapse would not be something we want to have happen, and so we've began to limit ourselves gradually now to avoid the environment imposing a harsher fallout on us later. This would be because humans are smarter than other animals, and more capable of extrapolating into the future and understanding the eventual results of our current actions.

This really only holds up to even cursory scrutiny if your points of comparison are absolutely all over the place; not just an entire species but the collection of all nonhuman species are compared to the examples of specific human individual behavior patterns. In other words, not all humans, probably not even most and maybe not even really all that many humans, plan ahead and limit their consumption. If you instead compare those other animals to the collection of all humans, the argument doesn't hold up. If you instead compare a collection specific, individual humans to certain collections of specific, individual animals, the argument also won't really hold up, at least without recourse to that fallaciously nebulous argument of "understanding" I disputed earlier. Either a single animal demonstrably choosing not to over-predate (or whatever) invalidates the argument, or the argument cannot be propped up by some individual humans choosing to limit consumption.

[Talya]

Yeah, this.



This really only holds up to even cursory scrutiny if your points of comparison are absolutely all over the place; not just an entire species but the collection of all nonhuman species are compared to the examples of specific human individual behavior patterns. In other words, not all humans, probably not even most and maybe not even really all that many humans, plan ahead and limit their consumption. If you instead compare those other animals to the collection of all humans, the argument doesn't hold up. If you instead compare a collection specific, individual humans to certain collections of specific, individual animals, the argument also won't really hold up, at least without recourse to that fallaciously nebulous argument of "understanding" I disputed earlier. Either a single animal demonstrably choosing not to over-predate (or whatever) invalidates the argument, or the argument cannot be propped up by some individual humans choosing to limit consumption.

Exactly zero percent of other creatures have any concept of or ability to engage in sustainable life practices. Given an opportunity, all other species WILL overpopulate and exhaust their environmental supplies in short order. The only thing that holds them in check is the rest of nature herself killing them off.

Nearly 100% of adult humans have the capability to understand and engage in sustainable life practices, and the majority of members of our species are at least somewhat concerned with doing so. We don't always agree on what those practices are -- it's a work in progress.

[Zrak]

Exactly zero percent of other creatures have any concept of or ability to engage in sustainable life practices. Given an opportunity, all other species WILL overpopulate and exhaust their environmental supplies in short order. The only thing that holds them in check is the rest of nature herself killing them off.

Nearly 100% of adult humans have the capability to understand and engage in sustainable life practices, and the majority of members of our species are at least somewhat concerned with doing so. We don't always agree on what those practices are -- it's a work in progress.

What are "sustainable life practices," exactly? I've given a few examples now of animals willingly limiting their consumption or intentionally managing limited resources to prepare for the future, but apparently they don't count, so I'd appreciate a more concrete definition of the terms you're using. Can you say specifically what concrete, observable behaviors you're claiming aren't demonstrated by any members of any other species, but are demonstrated by essentially all adult humans?

[Talya]

What are "sustainable life practices," exactly? I've given a few examples now of animals willingly limiting their consumption or intentionally managing limited resources to prepare for the future, but apparently they don't count, so I'd appreciate a more concrete definition of the terms you're using. Can you say specifically what concrete, observable behaviors you're claiming aren't demonstrated by any members of any other species, but are demonstrated by essentially all adult humans?

Uh, i can't find any of your so-called examples. Please enlghten us. All I see mentioned is (wild) cats and squirrels, who definitely do NOT willingly limit their consumption to prevent the depletion of their food sources in the environment. If you got rid of the natural forces that prevent overpopulation of them, they'd cause a mass die off of their species.

[Zrak]

First you said no other creatures willingly limited their consumption. I used the example of a cat to point out that pretty much all creatures willingly limit their consumption. Then you clarified that you didn't mean merely deciding to stop eating before one explodes, so I gave an example of a creature which willingly limits its present consumption not just to avoid explosion, but to prepare for the future. As I said, I understand that this also doesn't meet your definition of "sustainable life practices"; what I do not understand is what that definition is. Hence why I asked you to explain your use of the term, preferably with specific, observable behaviors that you feel constitute "sustainable life practices."

I mean, do red squirrels' (Sciurus vulgaris) alterations in diet and home range size based upon seed availability count, especially in light of the fact that they keep track of seed availability and make temporarily heavier use of non-adjacent food rich areas? If not, why not? Can you explain what, exactly, about that behavior is inadequately sustainable, or if that behavior isn't the problem, which other observed behaviors aren't "sustainable life practices"?

[Talya]

First you said no other creatures willingly limited their consumption. I used the example of a cat to point out that pretty much all creatures willingly limit their consumption. Then you clarified that you didn't mean merely deciding to stop eating before one explodes, so I gave an example of a creature which willingly limits its present consumption not just to avoid explosion, but to prepare for the future. As I said, I understand that this also doesn't meet your definition of "sustainable life practices"; what I do not understand is what that definition is. Hence why I asked you to explain your use of the term, preferably with specific, observable behaviors that you feel constitute "sustainable life practices."

I mean, do red squirrels' (Sciurus vulgaris) alterations in diet and home range size based upon seed availability count, especially in light of the fact that they keep track of seed availability and make temporarily heavier use of non-adjacent food rich areas? If not, why not? Can you explain what, exactly, about that behavior is inadequately sustainable, or if that behavior isn't the problem, which other observed behaviors aren't "sustainable life practices"?

I said nearly all humans have the capability of understanding the concept of sustainability. Surely you are among them.

All other animal life will, without outside factors limiting their growth, reproduce and spread until there is not enough of whatever their source of energy is to sustain their population, at which point they will experience a catastrophic collapse. Most animals (read: all fauna that isn't human) have no understanding of this concept - they cannot plan for it. As intelligent as dolphins or elephants or bonobos are, without some limitations preventing it, they will not intentionally leave some of their food source alive to ensure more grows for next year. That's sustainability - not increasing your resource requirements to the point where nature can no longer keep up to your demand.

Humans got around this limitation initially through farming (which requires a basic understanding of sustainability from the start). As our technologies increased, and our ability to overcome the challenges nature through at our survival improved, it resulted in exponential growth of our species, from a few tens of thousands, to a few million,, up to seven billion today. However, humans have reacted in a way unique among other animal species. As our mortality dropped, our lifespans expanded, and our prosperity grows ... our birthrate dropped. In the developed world, birthrates are dropping below the replacement rate. It's only in cultures where survival was still challenging that birthrates remained high. In addition, we see issues with some of our resource use. Fossil Fuels are a dense, rich energy source that has allowed us to feed far more people in comfort and luxury than we would have without them - but they have their own drawbacks, the most serious of which is not climate change, but supply. Even our greediest oil companies have predicted and are planning for the "peak oil" production issues. Humans understand, in ways that even the most intelligent non-human life on earth does not, that our survival is intrinsically tied in to our ability to live in a way that is sustainable. Sustainability is not a philosophical idea. It's logic, math, and ... perhaps most importantly... economics. It's about consumption not outstripping our means of replacement. As stated earlier, this is a work in progress. We're still figuring it out. But we ARE figuring it out. We're spending an inordinate amount of resources figuring it out. And while "past performance are no guarantee of future results" - i believe we will get it right.

Eventually.

[Zrak]

I said nearly all humans have the capability of understanding the concept of sustainability. Surely you are among them.

I am. In fact, I understand several concepts of sustainability. What I do not understand is to which of those conceptions, if any, you are referring. Hence my request for you to provide a concrete definition for your use of the term, preferably one that's based in observable behaviors rather than further abstractions or conjectures about fundamentally unknowable aspects of animal cognition. Also, what exactly is your argument from that definition, in terms of scale, scope, and universality; are you saying that other species engage in no "sustainable life practices" or merely that not all of their life practices are sustainable?

All other animal life will, without outside factors limiting their growth, reproduce and spread until there is not enough of whatever their source of energy is to sustain their population, at which point they will experience a catastrophic collapse. Most animals (read: all fauna that isn't human) have no understanding of this concept - they cannot plan for it. As intelligent as dolphins or elephants or bonobos are, without some limitations preventing it, they will not intentionally leave some of their food source alive to ensure more grows for next year. That's sustainability - not increasing your resource requirements to the point where nature can no longer keep up to your demand.

So, to be sure I'm understanding you correctly, is "intentionally leav[ing] some of their food source alive to ensure more grows next year" an example of a sustainable life practice, or is that your definition of sustainable life practices as a behavioral category? In either case, would you accept that a species which leaves some of its food supply intact for the following year, absent evidence of an external cause forcing them to do so, is engaging in a sustainable life practice? If not, why not?

However, humans have reacted in a way unique among other animal species. As our mortality dropped, our lifespans expanded, and our prosperity grows ... our birthrate dropped.

This is not unique. Like, at all.

Sustainability is not a philosophical idea. It's logic, math, and ... perhaps most importantly... economics. It's about consumption not outstripping our means of replacement.

So it's the confluence of several philosophical ideas? None of which, apparently, comes from ecology?
Also, if sustainability is about consumption not outstripping the means of replacement, aren't all life practices in which consumption does not outstrip the means of replacement sustainable? If not, why not?

[Talya]

I am. In fact, I understand several concepts of sustainability. What I do not understand is to which of those conceptions, if any, you are referring. Hence my request for you to provide a concrete definition for your use of the term, preferably one that's based in observable behaviors rather than further abstractions or conjectures about fundamentally unknowable aspects of animal cognition.

We're not talking about something incredibly difficult, here. The very first dictionary definition will suffice:

Sustainable: 1. able to be maintained at a certain rate or level.

A sustainable practice does not deplete its own resources below the level required to continue the practice.

Also, what exactly is your argument from that definition, in terms of scale, scope, and universality; are you saying that other species engage in no "sustainable life practices" or merely that not all of their life practices are sustainable?

Every species engages primarily in sustainable life practices, or they'd have gone extinct long ago. The difference is, for no species other than humans has this ever been a conscious choice. Other species have their sustainable practices imposed upon them by the harsh reality of nature. Life does not exist in some idyllic scenario of peaceful equillibrium. Life is a frantic competitive struggle for survival, desperate to reproduce and pass on one's genes before the struggle is inevitably lost. It's a violent, short experience that involves grabbing every possible advantage one can at the expense of every other bit of life around you whenever possible. That's the reality of nature. There's never been any garden of eden in a natural ecosystem. And any life that exists today has adapted to behave accordingly.

So, to be sure I'm understanding you correctly, is "intentionally leav[ing] some of their food source alive to ensure more grows next year" an example of a sustainable life practice, or is that your definition of sustainable life practices as a behavioral category? In either case, would you accept that a species which leaves some of its food supply intact for the following year, absent evidence of an external cause forcing them to do so, is engaging in a sustainable life practice? If not, why not?

No. Because there is always evidence of an external cause -- the species has not been able to proliferate to the point that they begin seriously depleting their food supply, due to survival challenges. Other times their food source of choice presents a serious challenge to them with regard to catching it.

Take something as simple as the wolf... if you placed a pack of wolves in a very large cage with slow moving and easy to kill prey herds, the pack would grow and grow and the herd would dwindle until there was none left. The wolf would not choose to limit its reproduction to ensure that its food needs did not outstrip the replacement rate of the herd.

Humans are the only exception to this among animal species in nature - whether herbivore, carnivore or omnivore, in an ideal situation with low mortality, and plentiful resources, and no external factors limiting their consumption of those resources, all other animal species will proliferate to the point that their resources are no longer plentiful and suffer a population collapse.

Why doesn't it happen more often? That scenario very rarely exists in nature. Humans are currently the only species for whom it's true.

So it's the confluence of several philosophical ideas? None of which, apparently, comes from ecology?
Also, if sustainability is about consumption not outstripping the means of replacement, aren't all life practices in which consumption does not outstrip the means of replacement sustainable? If not, why not?

None of those concepts are philosphical. Logic and math are not some fancy human inventions. The are universal truth that is still true even if not a single life form exists to utilize it. Likewise, economics are very important even to non-biological processes that use resources, like the life cycle of stars. Economics is the generation, flow, and consumption of resources. This is not abstract or philosophical.

[Frozen_Feet]

Colonial insects such as ants and bees engage in agriculture, terraforming and supply storage. Mammals like beavers actively engineer their living environment to suit them. None of the following are unique to humans: tool use, empathy, learning, planning, self-regulation, language, architechture, emotions.

You can make an argument, a strong argument backed by a lot of evidence, that humans as a species exceed other animals in all of these respects. But you cannot argue humans have monopoly on them, because modern biology and etiology have proven such claims false.

Also, if you make a claim that 100% of humans have ability to understand sustainable living, you are making a fool of yourself. By definition, half of humans are of below average intelligence, and a person's ability to succesfully lead any sort of lifestyle drops dramatically the further to the left they are on the bell curve. Likely at least a fifth of the population basically piggy-backs on others, their net worth to society being negative. It is unlikely that sustainability of human populations stems directly from invidual ability; rather, it's likely it"s a by-product of colonial/social intelligence as it is with insects.

Also also, animals are not bacteria. They do not reproduce exponentially untill all possible space and resources are exhausted. Rather, population die-offs happen at a much earlier point due to social problems caused by lack of social space. This was proven for mice and rats in a famous experiment, look up "Universe 25" and "behavioral sink". Urbanization has analogous effects on humans, and similar phenomena have been observed in other mammals.

Finally, anyone who thinks either modern meat-production or modern agriculture are humane is rather clueless. I believe I've said this before even in this thread, but it bears repeating: if you want to be sure the food on your plate was produced ethically, eat nothing you didn't grow or kill by yourself.