vegan, animal abuse, porn.

[ksst]

I don't believe animals have rights. With rights come rules of law and responsibility to obey them. We don't want to get into prosecuting polar bears or tigers for eating people, or deer for destroying crops, so we should not give them the rights that people have. Welfare is a different issue for domestic or captive animals. We are responsible for them, therefore we should treat them well until they are to be slaughtered or die of natural causes, depending on the use of the animal. As far as wild animals, I believe it is in our own interest and an absolutely critical value to preserve habitats and species as much as possible. It's not the rights of the animals, though, it's our responsibility toward the planet and even our own welfare and survival.

[thir]

I don't believe animals have rights. With rights come rules of law and responsibility to obey them. We don't want to get into prosecuting polar bears or tigers for eating people, or deer for destroying crops, so we should not give them the rights that people have.

You mean only creatures that can live according to our rules can have any rights? Or, in other words, that only our species can ever have any rights? Not that we all do.

Welfare is a different issue for domestic or captive animals. We are responsible for them, therefore we should treat them well until they are to be slaughtered or die of natural causes, depending on the use of the animal.

I think so too, and personally I include proper slaughtering as well as proper hunting in this.

As far as wild animals, I believe it is in our own interest and an absolutely critical value to preserve habitats and species as much as possible. It's not the rights of the animals, though, it's our responsibility toward the planet and even our own welfare and survival.

I am trying to get my head around being responsible for the planet, but not giving it any rights - that is, respect. I think we are at the core of the whole thing right here.

[Thorne]

I am trying to get my head around being responsible for the planet, but not giving it any rights - that is, respect. I think we are at the core of the whole thing right here.

How are WE responsible for the planet? Our sole responsibility is to ourselves, our species. Part of that responsibility is maintaining OUR habitat. Destroying the ecosystem isn't going to destroy the planet. It will only make it impossible for us to live on it. The planet, and life, will go on. Whether we continue to go on with it is up to us.

[thir]

How are WE responsible for the planet? Our sole responsibility is to ourselves, our species. Part of that responsibility is maintaining OUR habitat. Destroying the ecosystem isn't going to destroy the planet. It will only make it impossible for us to live on it. The planet, and life, will go on. Whether we continue to go on with it is up to us.

We are so many people who use the planet so hard that the whole thing is in fact our habitat. And we are responsible for our actions, being the sentient species. No, life wil not just neccesarily go on.

[Thorne]

We are so many people who use the planet so hard that the whole thing is in fact our habitat. And we are responsible for our actions, being the sentient species.

Nope. There are vast sections of the planet which are not habitable by humans, not without major technological help, mainly from those living in habitable areas. If we destroy the ecosystems of those habitable areas, there will be no place left for us to go, at least not where we can maintain our civilization.

No, life wil not just neccesarily go on.

One thing modern science has shown us is that life is extraordinarily tenacious. No matter what mankind can do, there will be some form of life which will not only survive but will thrive in the new ecology. Humanity may not be here to see it, but the possibility that we could completely sterilize the planet is so remote as to be next to impossible. Even if we managed to destroy the planet, breaking it up into fragments whirling around the sun as another asteroid belt, there will likely be microscopic life surviving on some of those fragments. Humanity's problem is to make certain that we don't destroy ourselves. The planet, and life, can take care of themselves.

[lucy]

NEven if we managed to destroy the planet, breaking it up into fragments whirling around the sun as another asteroid belt...

Pretty hard to do, according to this website.

[Thorne]

Pretty hard to do, according to this website.

LOL! Some interestingly destructive ideas, there. Number 10 seems like the best way to go about it.

Strangely enough, though, I've seen this method proposed as a way to SAVE the Earth, from being eaten by the Sun as it expands into a red giant in another 5 billion years or so. Simply maneuver a sufficiently large asteroid into the proper orbit so that, once each year it will tug the Earth slightly further from the Sun.

[leo9]

I don't believe animals have rights. With rights come rules of law and responsibility to obey them. We don't want to get into prosecuting polar bears or tigers for eating people, or deer for destroying crops, so we should not give them the rights that people have.

If we could sue deer for destroying our crops, they could with equal justice bring countersuit for our destroying their habitat. (And I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers who would take their case on contingency.) In any case, you're talking about reponsibility to obey laws made and enforced by humans, and it's universally recognised as unjust to impose laws on people who don't have any say in making or judging them. If there were laws that applied to all living creatures - and it is a defensible concept - then it is widely argued that humans are the great lawbreakers, the gangsters of ecology. So let's not go there.

In any case, it's not the case that rights automatically imply responsibilities: children have rights laid down by law, so do mental hospital patients and convicts. None of those are held to the same standards of responsibility as free adult humans, but we respect their rights (well, most people do, see the ongoing thread on prisoners' right to vote) and defend their rights on their behalf. There's nothing conceptually difficult about doing the same for the rights of non-humans, if once we agreed that they have them.