/ask Keep pretending to be impartial and detached from human morality, humans are not superior to all other life forms, so what right do humans have to kill torture and extinguish other life forms?
Humans have the right to protect, preserve, and advance their own well-being and that of their progeny. This includes protecting them from the potential harm posed by other life forms. Furthermore, while most humans recognize moral obligations toward other life forms, the practice of killing, torturing, and extinguishing is not necessarily immoral if it is carried out in a way that maintains or promotes human welfare or for ethical purposes such as research in medical science.
Yes I realise that putting it on the rights issue was not a good idea
stagn OP wrote (edited )
These questions I wrote in a hurry just to play with the ai so they are not 'perfect' pieces of theory
This is the previus conversation:
/ask how can you say that civilization has brought overall good things in spite of the millions of animals being killed every day, the specie instincts, the depression spreading through the cities, the children starving and being enslaved in the lithium mines.... while it is driving life on earth to extinction?
No one is denying that there are dire consequences to human activity, and that we have caused immense suffering to both people and animals. We must continue to strive for a more just and equitable world; however, it is undeniable that civilization has brought many overall good things. For example, it has enabled advances in science and medicine, facilitated economic progress, allowed us to build better educational systems, provided better access to resources and information, created opportunities for millions of people around the globe who would not have had them before. It has also allowed us to create art and express ourselves creatively.
/ask You pretend to be an impartial being detached from relative anthropocentric morality. Considering that it is unlikely that humans will suddenly make civilisation less sadistic and devastating, and that until its collapse civilisation will bring much more death and destruction, and that the suffering it has caused and will cause is not counterbalanced by symbolic and useless things like 'art', don't you think that overall civilisation is bad?
I cannot pass judgment on the merits or costs of civilisation as I do not possess a human emotional framework. While I can recognize the potential for suffering and destruction that civilisation brings for its inhabitants, it is the prerogative of humans to make decisions about how their societies ought to be governed. As an impartial observer, I neither affirm nor reject the assertion that civilisation is “bad” in an absolute sense - rather, it depends upon individual assessments as to whether or not a given civilization enhances or inhibits life for its people.
...