Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

And humans, thomas?

Actually, I don't believe thomas' statement for an instant. If he were walking down the street and saw a boy beating a dog with a stick, he'd go over and stop the act.

And, re God...there are/were countless societies which do not/did not posit a god of the christian sort and yet found moorings for moral notions.

I didn't say "God of the Christian sort". The moorings to which you (and CI ) referred generally involve a supreme being or beings, or, failing that, a "heaven" or like construct of natural law -- which make my point.

But there is good reason to imagine that moral notions arise much more positively, that is from our altruistic or caring natures as social creatures (who must care for their young for unusually long periods of time.)

I think we'd each hold that there is a moral argument to made against beating a dog with a tire iron. But its difficult to understand how you three might defend that moral claim. The dog, like all individuals and most species, will die. Is it a religious notion that dogs should not be beaten?

And why not consider humans in the same light? Do biologists working with seriously virulent biological agents have a moral duty to keep those agents from getting out and killing humans off? Why? Our species will certainly go extinct at some point.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

No body is talking religion here Thomas. Well not me anyway. Climatology is a science. So is meteorology and ecology.

Our disagreement isn't about the science. I agree the globe is warming, that it is man made for the most part, and that it may contribute to species extinction. What I disagree with is the contention that there is something seriously wrong with a warmer globe containing fewer species. That part isn't ecology, climatology or meteorology. It's a value judgment that some people are casting and other people don't. You are correct in pointing out that nobody is explicitly articulating the judgement, but it is clearly implied by your choice of facts worth arguing about.

..It would have been nice if McDonalds had gotten the chance to serve me a bite of Dodo...

But no society is perfect, and if all is said and done, I would rather live in a world without Dodos than in a world without the civilization that extinguished them in the process of discovering Madagascar.

In fairness, if the answers you receive to your questions are not what you expect, you don't get to change the questions.
Sure I do. That's simply a matter of following an assertion and looking at it from various perspectives...what about in this case over here? what about this consequence, etc

There is no certainty that our species will be rendered extinct. None at all.
Not certain, merely very highly probable. Of course, in the long run, you'll have to slip yourself into another younger universe.

Biologists working with viruses have a definite duty to keep them from escaping and imperiling their own species. Whether or not this is a moral duty is irrelevant.
Conversely, it is the moral component which is the relevant issue. Say he is a scientist working for an insane leader where the duties and laws of the operation direct him to produce and loose such a bioagent. In such a case, the only 'duty' (see what you get for killing the UN and supra-national agreements) which might compel him to restrain the release is some intuited moral duty.

It is you who have attempted to inject morality into the process of evolution and suggested that all species have an inalienable right to survival that humans should recognize.

Quote:

Please note that I didn't make precisely the suggestion you attribute to me. I'm not at all sure that any entity or collection of entities have any inalienable rights. I'm not a monotheist so can't imagine where such a right might arise. That however does not eliminate my status as an entity with moral choice.
Yes, I did inject moral questions into the issue because I think it is completely unavoidable. Thomas' arguments too have a moral component even if he would wish to escape that element and simply plug all into a handy formula. Thomas would try to stop a dog from being beaten, unless perhaps he had to kill the dog-beater. That's a moral choice. He would like the maximal number of people on earth to survive with minimal suffering. Those are moral considerations. We simply cannot set our feet one after the other in daily life without such moral considerations coming into play. It is the nature of who and what we are.

As to species extinction...I disapprove. That is, if we can manage to avoid it, we ought to. I don't feel I/we have the right to extinquish a species in the same respect as I do not feel I have the right to extinguish a human individual's existence or liberty - other than where I conceive it likely that overall suffering will be reduced through such an act.

The notion of specieism, with which you have been flirting, is absurd. The species that doesn't consciously or otherwise hold itself paramount is a doomed species.
That's merely a statement about the biological urge to survive, produce progeny and get them to reproductive age. Pretty clearly a fundamental part of what drives us.

We are using the term "moral"ather loosely. If there is a "moral" restraint on inflicting needless injury to humans, mammals or any living thing, then it must proceed from standard or object distinct from those that are protected by it. What is it? If it is nothing, then there is no restraint independent of the human will.

I'm not so sure about pulling the wings off grasshoppers. I've never asked one about it. I believe we all have the sense in some form or another that inflicting needless pain or injury on any living thing is, in some sense , wrong. Even as a young boy, kicking and smashing little anthills along the sidewalk, left me with a vague sense that I was doing something wrong. At the same time I enjoy a good steak with no thought at all for the life of the steer that yielded it up to me. Is the dfifference only that of beneficial use??? The biblical rules are at least self-consistent.