What Would Happen If Humans Disappeared?
Yep...this comes from the left, the environ(mental)ist and the "animals were here first crowd. (sometimes I wonder if they realize that They Too, would not exist).
But...ask yourself, your rationally interested self...what value would the earth serve without mankind? What possible purpose would it serve? Sure, the animals would have a place to live...but so what?
For that matter, what value would existence have without an awareness of it?
[Note: for those that don't know or never thought about it; Animals are, Yes, aware of their environment, but not aware of their own awareness...as such was the case for ancient man as well. But, we did have a strange and powerful curiosity about it all.]
But...ask yourself, your rationally interested self...what value would the earth serve without mankind? What possible purpose would it serve? Sure, the animals would have a place to live...but so what?
For that matter, what value would existence have without an awareness of it?
[Note: for those that don't know or never thought about it; Animals are, Yes, aware of their environment, but not aware of their own awareness...as such was the case for ancient man as well. But, we did have a strange and powerful curiosity about it all.]
SOURCE URL: https://youtu.be/Wy7Q6wazD_E
One might argue that without humans, nature might just destroy itself till there is only one species and that one species would die out too!
millions of years ago because of an asteroid hitting
the earth. (It could very well have been catastrophic
for other animals on the earth; perhaps oceans
boiling, etc.) But if that came along now, perhaps the humans could send out a nuclear
bomb to bust it up, and thus avert the disaster.
So...it is possible that, if successful, Mankind would make a difference and without us, The earth might not survive such an event, or at least,not suffer another mass extinction.
In this case and perhaps in others, There is a "Point" to Conscious Human Life...if only to save our own butts!
Tell that one to the left!
Perhaps mankind as a whole has had a tendency to act before our mental pistons reached dead top center.
I am not here. I don't care.
Holding hands regardless of the distance between you both...nice.
Here is a condensed very similar to your link something~
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri9bA...
Now there are some regular shows that I don't much care for. Now I channel surf it prospecting for a gem so to speak that I sometimes find.
And..."value" to whom/what?
What about planets that are uninhabited....do they serve a value? Do they have a purpose? Do they need either one? Would they be less "valuable" if we weren't here to observe them in the night sky? What about the ones we can't see?
As to value...every cell in your body has value...so too, everything in existence must have some value otherwise, there would be not point to it.
However, we could argue the opposite in reference to some creatures in our government...laughing.
Value is a subjective determination: completely valid to you, but perhaps not so much to someone else.
As I implied but didn't state directly above, there does not HAVE to be "a point," and if there is "a point," that point could be different to varying individuals (or any other entity that might be making that judgment). (In this case, the "point" I am referring to is not your "point" that you felt necessary to explain (it wasn't) but this, which I am quoting from your explanation. " otherwise, there would be not point to it.")
And if there's no point to it (as there may not be), then what?
I wanted to add one more thing to tie it all together for you. Everything that has a certain value has a point to it (a purpose if you will, and that purpose is as it relates to the valuer), but the question you have to really search for is without that value or purpose assigned, does the object become devalued and cease existing? My answer, it doesn't because its still in reality regardless if someone is there to observe it.
There is much published on the topic of value. Coming from what I would consider a good place, take a look at these:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/val...
All of her comments discuss value from the standpoint of the valuer, which would presumably in the case of Miss Rand, mean a live human being.
If you take away the human, you take away the value, which does NOT imply that you take away the existence. Mgarbizo1 conflated the two concepts (value and existence) in this phrase: does the object become devalued and cease existing?
Even if something is of value to no one, it doesn't necessarily cease existing. And not everything that exists has value. If you doubt that, you aren't thinking very hard, and no, I won't do it for you.
"To make this point fully clear, try to imagine an immortal, indestructible robot, an entity which moves and acts, but which cannot be affected by anything, which cannot be changed in any respect, which cannot be damaged, injured or destroyed. Such an entity would not be able to have any values; it would have nothing to gain or to lose; it could not regard anything as for or against it, as serving or threatening its welfare, as fulfilling or frustrating its interests. It could have no interests and no goals."
Suppose this immortal indestructible robot is conscious and has the ability to think. Wouldn't it then be able to assess a value to things irregardless of whether or not anything is needed to sustain its life force?
Regardless, if it is "life" that gives meaning to "value" and we agree that this immortal robot has life, then by definition, it can value things, correct?
With the constraints mentioned, I can't see that it would be able to assign value other than arbitrarily, in which case any outcome would be perfectly fine, including the destruction of the "valued" item. With literally nothing contingent on any outcome, how would I, as the robot be able, to value the thing? The "thing" could do nothing for or against me (or mine); therefore it would have no value.
Now the entire argument of the previous two paragraphs is contingent on accepting that the definition of "life" is considered to be "conscious and has the ability to think." And I'm not sure I do accept that definition, necessarily. As we move forward with more and more AI, it's arguable that this definition of "life" could be at risk :-) Enter the Singularity...
Also, consider that some entities that are alive are not necessarily conscious nor have the ability to think. For example: Viruses. In fact, there's an argument in scientific circles as to whether they are, in fact alive, or not (whether or not they are alive, though, they certainly do act). Bacteria also, though I do think that bacteria are universally considered to be alive.
Another consideration of "value" that we haven't touched upon at all is relative value. Something could have value, but one would then have to decide if the value was higher or lower than some "other" thing that also had value.
And with that, I go screaming into the night.... ;-)
I think you and I can agree that the value we are talking about is value to people; however, that is far from a universal sentiment. My intent was not to disagree with you but to get you to become more specific.
Specificity is crucial when discussing concepts. :-)
The hole point, I think, IS objectively subjective?...without awareness, there is no value, no purpose, no objectivity nor subjectivity; nothing good bad or ugly, no rights or wrongs, day or night and it matters not if anything exists.
It's kind of a circular argument but this is the corner the leftest have gotten themselves into...Yes/No?