Earth Faces Sixth 'Great Extinction'

"several billion years"...

So, how old is Earth NOW? What is it, like, 4 and a half billion years, or something like that?

When did LIFE on Earth start? What, something like 3 and a half billion years ago? So, life on Earth has existed for "a few billion years", and life on Earth has a few billion years left. So yeah...for all PRACTICAL purposes, life is gonna keep on going on after we're gone. Sure, the Earth only has a habitable lifespan of "a few billion years", but that's practically an eternity compared to the miniscule time that we've existed.

"The question you are asking, MrGeezer, is if justice for the sake of justice applies to living beings besides humans. Please talk about this some more. I would like to hear what you have to say about it."

No, the question I'm asking is "absent any consideration of how environmentalism affects humanity, what exactly is the incentive to save the sharks or the whales or the bears?" You can't get much more straightforward than that, I'm asking why are you doing it?

Anyway, I still don't see anyone answering MY question. It's easy to take the stance of "all life is precious, the natural state of things must be preserved" when our enemies are bears and we have access to shotguns. I'm just wondering if we'd take the same stance if nature was utterly kicking our freaking asses. It's easy to take a "save the bears" stance because bears generally don't bother anyone and we're more than capable of kicking their asses if they ever become a big enough problem. But like, last I heard, malaria is a fucking beast. Granted, it might not be wise to eradicate mosquitoes since they're near the bottom of the food chain and transfer a lot of biomass into the food chain. But if we somehow found a way to eradicate malaria without wiping out the mosquitoes that carry it, you don't think we should do that shit? If we found an environmentally sound way to make the guinea worm go extinct, you don't think we'd do that?

When it comes down to "us or them", I side with "us". You can talk all day long about the bears and the lions and the dolphins, but none of those amount to "us or them" scenarios so there's real need to wipe them off the face of the planet.

You're still looking at this in terms of what's in the best interests of HUMANITY. And, nothing wrong with that. Let's just be aware that finding a backup planet to live on once we make this planet uninhabitable for us doesn't do jack shit for the deer and the bears and the whales that are stuck on Earth without the means to build interplanetary spaceships.

It's still about saving OUR asses, not about saving the planet.

As I understand this message, you are saying that as long as we exist, priority should be given to humanity despite any cost to nature. This may not be what you mean, but that is how it reads.

No, the question I'm asking is "absent any consideration of how environmentalism affects humanity, what exactly is the incentive to save the sharks or the whales or the bears?" You can't get much more straightforward than that, I'm asking why are you doing it?

Okay. I do it because it is representative of justice.

Now, I wonder if you will answer my question.

"The question you are asking, MrGeezer, is if justice for the sake of justice applies to living beings besides humans. Please talk about this some more. I would like to hear what you have to say about it."

Answer: for the purposes of this discussion, I don't need justice to apply at all. It isn't that killing people or killing animals or dumping toxic waste into the oceans is unjust, it's that there's a purely practical incentive to prohibit such practices.

"Okay. I do it because it is representative of justice."

What is just about it?

"As I understand this message, you are saying that as long as we exist, priority should be given to humanity despite any cost to nature. This may not be what you mean, but that is how it reads."

That's definitely not what I'm saying, seeing as how the "cost to nature" actually affects humanity.

for the purposes of this discussion, I don't need justice to apply at all. It isn't that killing people or killing animals or dumping toxic waste into the oceans is unjust, it's that there's a purely practical incentive to prohibit such practices.

Sure, practical appeal is one way to achieve goals, but I disagree that justice need not apply to any situation. In fact, I feel that justification is at the core of every action. Whether or not certain actions represent true reality is more than a matter of perspective. It is a form that can be sought for like a circle or the essence of beauty.

What is just about it?

Treating life with dignity makes it just. To explain, by maintaining the lives in nature besides humanity, one gives a chance for them to develop their minds. One day, they may question what justice is. To seek truth is just; dignifying life might give it the opportunity to seek that answer.

That's definitely not what I'm saying, seeing as how the "cost to nature" actually affects humanity.

My mistake.

So we may as well speed up the process? That's your line of thinking?

The thing is, I see what's "justice" as a human construct that varies according to context (in this case, evolutionary context). "Just" behavior for the human is not "just" behavior for the praying mantis. So yeah, we can say that it's "justice" to save the whales or clean up the oceans or love thy neighbor or just generally stop being an asshole to people. And yeah, by all means, keep doing those things. What I'm saying is that those things are only "justice" as it pertains to human interests. Look at it beyond the egotistical concept of what serves our self-interests, and there's only nature. Nothing else. Once humanity is extinct, all of the pollution in the air and the seas isn't just or unjust, it simply IS.

Now, granted, that's just my personal belief and you're entitled to disagree. However, I think my point of view is a little bit more pragmatic and workable than the alternative. Otherwise, I'd have to admit that it would be a great injustice to wipe out malaria, even if we could do so without disrupting the ecosystem.

In most normal situations, what's "just" aligns pretty well with what's practical for our own self-interests, but that's simply the natural result of evolution. If our concepts of justice didn't mostly serve our own self-interests, then we would have died out a long time ago. Look at what we consider to be just and then ask WHY we consider those things to be just when a different species would (if they had the mental capacity to actually think about it) think that those values are ridiculous or insane. It's just because it works for us. I feel that it's incredibly wrong and narrow-minded to look at human values as values that are intrinsic for all of nature. What we consider to be justice comes from what works for us. Once that stops working for us, then we should do something else (or do it differently). Justice and human self-interest are intrinsically linked.

I don't think he ever said that.

I mean, look at it this way. I might be able to accept that my life is inconsequential and meaningless beyond me, but I still get a little bit of enjoyment out of actually being alive. That fact that I'll one day be dead and no one will care doesn't negate the fact that life brings me enjoyment RIGHT NOW. Why speed up the process of becoming dead when I still actually sort of like being alive?

I disagree with your view because morality is often contrary to what people are interested in. J.L. Mackie criticizes the idea of the Forms, or normative models, by saying they would have to be “[strange] entities” unlike anything else in the world. Mackie writes:

“In Plato's theory the Forms, and in particular the Form of the Good, are eternal, extra-mental, realities. They are a very central structural element in the fabric of the world. But it is held also that just knowing them or ‘seeing’ them will not merely tell men what to do but will ensure that they do it, overruling any contrary inclinations. The philosopher-kings in the Republic can, Plato thinks, be trusted with unchecked power because their education will have given them knowledge of the Forms. Being acquainted with the Forms of the Good and Justice and Beauty and the rest they will, by this knowledge alone, without any further motivation, be impelled to pursue and promote these ideals” (Link).

Plato's theory of the Forms in the Republic is that which states when man does an action with the knowledge that it is just, they do so without any further motivation. Mackie illustrates that in order for this to be true, the motivation would have to be overridingly so. Within maintaining what objective values would be required to exist as, Mackie expresses agreement with a view named existence internalism. As stated in existence internalism, a required relationship which has objective being in reality is between possessing a known beyond doubt normative status and motivation.

For example, particular conditions of a sequence of events could not be good unless it, or to the smallest extent a comprehension of it, were able to achieve motivation.

That said, it is not required to be overriding motivation. Given the possibility that a man apprehends a thing and unsuccessfully does not move then it is not good or ceteris paribus. Mackie, in describing Plato's view, claims objective values supply overriding motivation, so that view represents a especially great form of existence internalism. The character of which Mackie's Platonic visualization is the internalist unusually gives support to contemporary viewpoints claiming in a like fashion existence internalism, whereas it holds that the the ability or power to experience or understand motivation factually is dependent on a desire existing at an earlier time.

I disagree with the idea of conative states being intrinsically linked with moral belief. My belief that my actions for the well-being of the environment will result in positive change is not the same as the "direction of fit" (belief direction of fit) premise of desiring more intelligent beings in the world, so any possible offspring I make or, once human lifespans are increased, I may debate with them (desire direction of fit). The argument that self-interest and morality are intrinsically linked is not something I agree with.

came into this thread expecting a discussion, found sectarian philosophical bologna....never change, GS

@wis3boi: I made this thread for a purpose and it was derailed from the start. I am still expecting discussion about what I asked.

Also, it is not "bologna." >.>

I have no idea what you just said. So, end of discussion. You "win", I guess. Granted, you didn't change my mind or anything. You just threw out a bunch of words and expressions that I can't understand without studying Plato and Mackie (which I'm not gonna do because, like I said, "incentives"). So, **** having an actual discussion, I guess. At least you got me to stop talking to you, which I guess still counts as a "win" on the internet.

On that note, we could use more solar technologies, invest in terraforming R&D, and take those innovations to Mars as well as the moon then spread out to decrease consumption of the earth's resources.

why should we intentionally speed up the process ?

...either some of you people are downright stupid, act as stupid or you are really not able to grasp what i mean or youre plain simple unwilling to understand my point

there are several fatal possibilites for our planet and every life on it coming to an final end one day, besides theories about meteors so big they send us into another orbital path and turning everything upside down, there is one thing happening for sure......our sun.

one day our sun is gone for sure and that was it then, but before that happens there is the possibility of it swelling to the point of roasting us all alive....nice thought ay ?

so even if there wouldnt have been any humans on this planet, it will die as soon sun collapses

people and their visions....

what is it with people being so positive about our technical advancement being so damn big we could ever do any of those things in the next hundred years ?

its the same for all those older scifi-movies where they thought humanity would be so technical advanced in 1999 or in 2001 or even 2010........we have almost 2015 now and we are nowhere near those visions people had 30-60 years ago except for friggin cellphones...and our damn cars are still not hovering through the air!

you people expect humanity to advance to the point of moving our asses to other planets so soon when the western, so technical advanced countries, still have hard times fighting wars against some brainless towel-heads riding on friggin camels

To be fair, cellphones (and modern computers in general) really ARE fucking cool.

Having said that, I wouldn't mind us moving to Mars, or developing interstellar travel so that we can study extra-solar planets. But I think there are at least two things to consider here...

1) That's probably not gonna happen. People haven't been around for a really long time, but people have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. It's not as if we waited until 1969 to travel to the moon because we didn't get smart until the 1960's. It's LARGELY because regardless of how smart we were for the previous hundreds of thousands of years, we didn't have the infrastructure in place to allow that shit. Yes, people are smart. I know it's common on the internet to complain about how stupid everyone is, but **** that. People are still pretty smart. The point here is that smarts don't necessarily count for a whole hell of a lot. If you want to go to Mars, then you need a shitload of funding and a bunch or materials from various countries, as well as the manpower to put all that shit together in a way that actually works. That's not just dependent on intelligence, that's dependent on an insane number of details that have to go right in order to allow our intelligence to be put to use in order to achieve that goal. Conditions have to align just the right way, and I highly suspect that our window of opportunity is closing. I'm not saying that I think we're gonna go extinct any time soon. I'm just saying that, when looking at the entirety of human existence, having spaceships and supercomputers is not the norm. Humans have ALWAYS been smart as shit (probably just as smart as we are now), and yet it still took us hundreds of thousands of years to get to the point where we had th ability to make spaceships and computers. We only saw such rapid advancement in such a short period of time because we happen to be living in the period of time in which conditions come together in the right way to make that possible. Break this fragile system in the right way and we'll survive. But no more spaceships and computers. Instead, we go right back to pre-industrial technology and spend the next few million years living more or less like the rest of the animals on the planet. This is a fragile system that can be easily broken. And if we want to be living on other planets or stars, we need to get on that shit fast because we might not have much more time to do so.

2) If people actually think we're destroying this planet, I don't see why they're so eager to colonize new ones. Doesn't that just likely mean that we're gonna **** those planets up too? If the "problem" here is that we're "destroying the planet", exactly how is it a solution to simply give us more planets to work with?

"by your Definition humanity intends to be extinct one day"

please get off this

@comp_atkins said:

@sabretooth2066 said:

@comp_atkins said:

@sabretooth2066 said:

@comp_atkins said:

@sabretooth2066 said:

@comp_atkins said:

that being said, it is a shame that something that took the planet eons to evolve can be wiped out in a generation.

thats not a shame and thats nothing special, its all nature.

dinosaurs had to evolve as well and how fast were they wiped out ? yeah...and they didnt even pollute this planet

if human stupidity ends up wiping us out, that would be a shame as it is preventable. if the earth is struck by a comet tomorrow and all life exterminated, that is nature

can't you see the difference?

there is no difference,

unless humanity IS NOT a part of this planet´s nature

now do you wanna say humanity is not a part of nature while the meteor crashing is a part of it ?

so if we wipe out ourself and this planet, then it was still nature in the first place because nature let us evolve to the point where we are able to destroy it

so at the end it doesnt matters if humanity destroys this planet or a friggin meteor, its still all nature

a species driving itself to extinction is by definition an "unnatural" act in that it goes against life's natural disposition to protect and replicate itself.

by your Definition humanity intends to be extinct one day...and thats complete utter bullshit

it would only be an "unnatural" act if a species drives itself to extinction by Intention, meaning the species wants to be extinct one day, now tell me one lifeform or species which as the Intention to be extinct one day ? if mankind would be up to that then all we would have to do would be pushing a few Buttons and seconds later the whole world is gone

we humans drive towards extinction because of all our selfishness and greed, at the same time trying to find a way to dodge extinction by inventing all kinds of fancy stuff, so in one way we drive towards extinction by our own faults and at the same time we use your technical advancements trying to dodge our own extinction

"by your Definition humanity intends to be extinct one day"

please get off this

you dont have to be butthurt, i know some people have hard times with the english language, me for example, my motherlangue is german so i am still surprised most people understand my bad english, a shame you dont, but still no reason to search for and grab all kinds of funny pictures because you have no other clue how to argue

haha thats right, jumping from one planet to the other and polluting and destroying it, so at the end were really just like a virus spreading over the universe destroying planets

but its true, in order to keep up with our technical advancements not to mention to advance even further, there probably is no other way around than polluting a planet and robbing all of its resources

..and resources* are another thing from which i am sure we will never make to build spaceships and colonize other planets, before we are at that technical stage i am sure our resources are already empty so there isnt anything left to build anything...especially fuel

..solar energy ? some always mention this, if solar energy would be so damn easy and great then we already would have whole cities running on nothing else but solar energy, but to be honest i dont know enough shit about solar energy...i am just aware that its not an easy way to get energy

*people probably arent even aware how many resources there are which are in need to produce certain things, so some people worry if there is no oil that they dont know how to travel from point A to B without their friggin cars, but there is a far more bigger problem than cars...like machines who need oil in order to run and produce certain other things which are again in need to produce another few important things and on and on, so without oil there actually starts a chain reaction causing humanity to fall back to a state where we must forget about many many things...and the least problem will be cars with an empty tank, without oil its not even given that everyone gets to their food in the right time so starving people will not only be a third world country problem anymore, i guess most people are not aware how important oil really is, most people seem to think about cars in the first place

I see you edited your comment.

It is not my fault you have have yet to study philosophy. Please do not insinuate I am doing something wrong by elevating the discussion.

When reading this thread, it leads me to imagine the guys in government who make all the big calls having the same discussion. Greed will always get in the way, so it seems there is little hope of slowing down the environmental destruction. Not that I will be giving up, as I adore nature, I also have two children who I would dearly like to see the same things I have seen. We all need to do a bit more, those of us who care & those who don't, because even if you think you are just here for a 'fun time', the way its heating up it might not be fun for much longer.

its always funny to read guys claiming they do something for nature and against the process of destroying it when all they do is obviously sitting in front of their pcs, typing posts in a video game forum.

i expect those earth-savers to spend most of their time somewhere else...far far away from any video game forum and far far away from any keyboard because making posts in a forum still doesnt save any whales

Stop playing cute, you know exactly what you just did, and that was to deliberately STOP discussion so that you get a win. No one in this thread was making arguments that relied on the other side to stop and go read a book just to know what was being said.

Like I said, you "win" because I can't disagree with your argument since I don't know what you're saying. Take it or leave it, just don't act like we're not supposed to know exactly what you did. I'm an art major, but when I discuss art with you guys I actually explain my arguments as if the rest of you aren't art majors. Why? Because I actually want to continue discussing the topic.

@MrGeezer: I do not do that. If you read the link I posted in my previous comment, you can see where the information is from. It is an encyclopedia. I wrote similarly to that while focusing on points I felt most relevant to my argument. You asked a question that could be answered philosophically and I did so. It was not that I was attempting to end the discussion. I shall inform you that I have not read Mackie's work in its entirety, but by reading that encyclopedia of philosophy which I linked to I apprehend it to a certain degree. I study philosophy, so maybe that is why I understood it more than you, for now, but if this situation were reversed, I would have read that link and at least attempted to comprehend the information provided. I do that with all discussions I am part of, so I can meet a standard of excellence.

I say that since you decided to no longer seek an understanding of my argument you ended the conversation. If you had asked for me to explain further, I might have had done so, but you refrained from doing that at all.

Alright then, I'll ask that now. Summarize and explain your point without making me have to stop and read a several thousand word essay just to know what you're talking about. Because I would like to continue this discussion, but not if following it requires me to read books on Plato and Mackie or spend my time reading articles. Articles and books and essays are nice as supporting evidence, but you're the one having the discussion here. Nothing wrong with you not dumbing your post down so that the people less educated than you can understand it, but if you want to discuss this with me then you're gonna have to dumb it down because I'm not going out of my way to read that stuff just to follow the discussion (again, there's no strong incentive for me to do so other than getting the chance to "win" the debate, and I simply don't care about that shit)..

Again, take that however you want. But I'm asking you NOW to explain those concepts to me like I'm a child, rather than just direct me to links that explain it. Do it or don't do it, your call.

You don't have to stroke a Whales arse to save the planet, you have to consider how you use the earths resources, how you recycle, how you live your life. So, yeah I do have some spare time to post on the internet, before the rainbow warrior needs painting again.

FAO Sabre

@sabretooth2066 said:

@comp_atkins said:

@sabretooth2066 said:

@comp_atkins said:

@sabretooth2066 said:

@comp_atkins said:

@sabretooth2066 said:

@comp_atkins said:

that being said, it is a shame that something that took the planet eons to evolve can be wiped out in a generation.

thats not a shame and thats nothing special, its all nature.

dinosaurs had to evolve as well and how fast were they wiped out ? yeah...and they didnt even pollute this planet

if human stupidity ends up wiping us out, that would be a shame as it is preventable. if the earth is struck by a comet tomorrow and all life exterminated, that is nature

can't you see the difference?

there is no difference,

unless humanity IS NOT a part of this planet´s nature

now do you wanna say humanity is not a part of nature while the meteor crashing is a part of it ?

so if we wipe out ourself and this planet, then it was still nature in the first place because nature let us evolve to the point where we are able to destroy it

so at the end it doesnt matters if humanity destroys this planet or a friggin meteor, its still all nature

a species driving itself to extinction is by definition an "unnatural" act in that it goes against life's natural disposition to protect and replicate itself.

by your Definition humanity intends to be extinct one day...and thats complete utter bullshit

it would only be an "unnatural" act if a species drives itself to extinction by Intention, meaning the species wants to be extinct one day, now tell me one lifeform or species which as the Intention to be extinct one day ? if mankind would be up to that then all we would have to do would be pushing a few Buttons and seconds later the whole world is gone

we humans drive towards extinction because of all our selfishness and greed, at the same time trying to find a way to dodge extinction by inventing all kinds of fancy stuff, so in one way we drive towards extinction by our own faults and at the same time we use your technical advancements trying to dodge our own extinction

"by your Definition humanity intends to be extinct one day"

please get off this

you dont have to be butthurt, i know some people have hard times with the english language, me for example, my motherlangue is german so i am still surprised most people understand my bad english, a shame you dont, but still no reason to search for and grab all kinds of funny pictures because you have no other clue how to argue

wait, we are arguing now??

I realize i'm chiming in way late to the discussion here. (This thread blew up a lot more than anticipated.) Things have probably gone way off topic since what i'm quoting but this comment really stuck out for me and i felt it needs to be addressed despite it being page 1.

I really dislike this kind of statement because it carries the strong implication of humans being awful as a species. I see these comments quite a bit and it bothers me. As if there is anything else to compare ourselves with... Lets just be honest about something, if some other strand of apes or reptiles or insects or whatever evolved into the dominant species rather than us, things would be no different. They would be doing the exact same things we are doing. Every other organism is just as ruthless and selfish as we are. They do what they absolutely must in order to survive and nothing else. They kill and take whatever they need without a single care for the cost. The only real difference between us and everything else is nature is in position to put them "in check" where it isn't in our case. (comparatively speaking anyway)

The rest of this discussion seemed to go the route of these extinct species being too important for our own benefit to just let them die off. I suppose if the major point is that no one is in position to properly asses the positive contributions each species has to the planet until its too late and we suffer greatly in the process, then that is a very good incentive to prevent their extinction. If that is indeed the case. At least until we can accurately pinpoint what it is they contribute and replace it. Once that occurs, i don't care what goes extinct.

Okay.

Your view is:

I say whether or not they are intrinsically linked is at the very least arguable. Justice which in its pure form is truth for all does not belong to self-interest, desire or lust for the self. Truth is separate from lust or want. When a whistleblower leaks information about a corrupt government, for example, knowing that he will certainly die for his actions, that goes against his evolutionary psychology to seek survival rather than death. One can argue that is a case of the fight or flight response acting with intent to fight and that is evolutionary psychology as well. If one believes that, they must also accept that the idea that such an act shows that person is not autonomous because their satisfaction relies on the success of others after he dies.

Without talking about the afterlife, that would mean his response to fight is predicated by the assumption that others will succeed beyond his desire for self. In other words, natural evolution is faulty because it relies on failures for others to succeed. However, searching for truth for all is not. Whether it be the exception or the standard, justice is seeking whatever is factually true about a situation.

Keep in mind that truth for all does not mean equal benefits for all. For instance, a court correctly finding a man guilty of a crime does not benefit the defending attorney's record.

Tl;dr: Human beings lie to themselves sometimes in order to avoid the truth. Justice is representing the truth. Since all human self-interest is not always honest, justice does not belong to all kinds of desire.

At the end they say it could take anywhere between less than a century to a thousand years.

What kind of fucking estimate is that? I estimate I'm going to take a shit at some point between now and next thursday, but I can't tell you when or why or if.

Why even say that?

"Justice which in its pure form is truth for all"

Is justice truth for all? Why is justice truth for all?

"When a whistleblower leaks information about a corrupt government, for example, knowing that he will certainly die for his actions, that goes against his evolutionary psychology to seek survival rather than death."

True, but "evolutionary psychology to seek survival rather than death" is only one of many incentives that motivates people. I mean, if that were the only incentive, then I wouldn't be a heavy smoker/drinker. But I am a heavy smoker/drinker because I'm motivated by a different self-serving incentive: drinking and smoking feels good, man.

"If one believes that, they must also accept that the idea that such an act shows that person is not autonomous because their satisfaction relies on the success of others after he dies."

Sure, their satisfaction relies on the success of others after he dies. But you just stated that that gives him satisfaction, which gives him a self-serving incentive to do it. It's like, suppose you buy free range meat. WHY do you buy free range meat? You can say all you want that it's because animals deserve to be free range, but the point is that supporting something that you believe in makes you feel good. If it didn't, you wouldn't do it. I love my family, so I'll help my family because that's the "right" way to live and I get personal satisfaction from living "right". However, if helping my family made me feel like I was morally in the wrong, then I'd potentially stop doing it. This is EXACTLY like the whistleblower who blows the whistle even at the threat of death. Sure, he's ignoring one incentive to not blow the whistle (that being the incentive of not being murdered) but he's doing so for a different incentive (gaining the SATISFACTION of knowing that he is living right). Take away ALL personal incentives, and you've got a different outcome. If blowing the whistle was likely to get him murdered, and was likely to make him feel like a shitty person, and wasn't even potentially offering up a completely different incentive like the possibility of getting rich selling his story for a book/movie deal, then he probably wouldn't do it.

"Justice is representing the truth."

Again, why? I mean, if the cuckoo bird adequately represented the truth, then its entire species would be extinct. Lots of animals lie like hell, be it a nonvenomous snake mimicking a venomous snake, or a caterpillar looking like a piece of bird poop in order to send the false message of "you can't eat me, I'm just bird shit." Even IF "justice is representing the truth", aren't we still talking solely about the context of how it specifically relates to one single species (that is, humans)? Otherwise, I'd have to conclude that any non-human animal that utilizes mimickry is antithetical to "justice".

And at that point, wouldn't it be perfectly valid to wipe that species out since its existence is inherently unjust?

@MrGeezer:

Is justice truth for all? Why is justice truth for all

You can apprehend how justice benefits all by looking at cities at large. In a just city, things work toward the advancement of the whole city and, in effect, the individual receives greater rights within the limits of respecting the benefits of the city. Among those is the right to life. Extending the city to the wildlife, I can hypothesize that protecting nature can lead to better quality of life and more efficient resource management. An area with less air pollution, for example, because a city ruled that carbon pollution is bad for everyone is protecting individuals from having lower IQs than without it. Animals have intelligence and breathe the same air that we do. It can be surmised that they benefit from anti-pollution laws similar to humans.

Among others, another thing worth considering is the food industry. Human beings farm animals. It benefits humanity to do so because we have a stable source of sustenance. If we do not, more people would starve than those that do, already. However, there are negative effect these farms incur on their surrounding environment: "Huge open-air waste lagoons, often as big as several football fields, are prone to leaks and spills. In 1995 an eight-acre hog-waste lagoon in North Carolina burst, spilling 25 million gallons of manure into the New River. The spill killed about 10 million fish and closed 364,000 acres of coastal wetlands to shellfishing." The utilitarian would argue that it is a situation in which the concept of best consequences could be relied on, thematically, yet it is not impartial because there are most certainly more efficient ways to eat than a diet high in meat which would deal with that issue and others like it.

The just thing to do would not be to ignore our natural diet of protein from meat, but rather a more balanced diet with less negative impact on the environment leading to different situations in that all life has a chance to grow in a balanced way. Instead, food companies harvest animals for monetary profit which is an appetitive pursuit (a part of any functioning city, realistically speaking) but is out of control in this context as well as when agriculture for humans causes mass extinction thereby destroying many potential scientific pursuits among many others. Scientific study is the pursuit of understanding the truth and destroying the potential for doing so in the form of causing extinction or planning to is therefore in conflict with justice.

True, but "evolutionary psychology to seek survival rather than death" is only one of many incentives that motivates people. I mean, if that were the only incentive, then I wouldn't be a heavy smoker/drinker. But I am a heavy smoker/drinker because I'm motivated by a different self-serving incentive: drinking and smoking feels good, man.

What do you mean by that (in relation to what I said about the whistleblower)?

Sure, their satisfaction relies on the success of others after he dies. But you just stated that that gives him satisfaction, which gives him a self-serving incentive to do it. It's like, suppose you buy free range meat. WHY do you buy free range meat? You can say all you want that it's because animals deserve to be free range, but the point is that supporting something that you believe in makes you feel good. If it didn't, you wouldn't do it. I love my family, so I'll help my family because that's the "right" way to live and I get personal satisfaction from living "right". However, if helping my family made me feel like I was morally in the wrong, then I'd potentially stop doing it. This is EXACTLY like the whistleblower who blows the whistle even at the threat of death. Sure, he's ignoring one incentive to not blow the whistle (that being the incentive of not being murdered) but he's doing so for a different incentive (gaining the SATISFACTION of knowing that he is living right). Take away ALL personal incentives, and you've got a different outcome. If blowing the whistle was likely to get him murdered, and was likely to make him feel like a shitty person, and wasn't even potentially offering up a completely different incentive like the possibility of getting rich selling his story for a book/movie deal, then he probably wouldn't do it.

One can be satisfied because of their needs having been fulfilled without their wants being fulfilled and vice-versa. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a lawyer hired by wealthy Muslims in South Africa, but he sought to alter perceptions thus the caste system of Indians. He was under threat of assassination (which eventually occurred) and he fasted fourteen times. The longest was twenty-one days. I have fasted before and I can tell you it does not feel good. Ghandi had the opportunity to live a stable life in South Africa, but he instead chose the more difficult path which went beyond his desires.

Again, why? I mean, if the cuckoo bird adequately represented the truth, then its entire species would be extinct. Lots of animals lie like hell, be it a nonvenomous snake mimicking a venomous snake, or a caterpillar looking like a piece of bird poop in order to send the false message of "you can't eat me, I'm just bird shit." Even IF "justice is representing the truth", aren't we still talking solely about the context of how it specifically relates to one single species (that is, humans)? Otherwise, I'd have to conclude that any non-human animal that utilizes mimickry is antithetical to "justice".

And at that point, wouldn't it be perfectly valid to wipe that species out since its existence is inherently unjust?

I feel that you are making a mistake by claiming justice is representative of action. In the Republic (which I recommend you read in your free time), Plato claims that justice is an existing Form distinct in reality and when a living being acts justly, it is actually an emulation of that essence to certain degrees. Therefore, anyone acting justly is not truly just in that what they lack in the essence of justice is instead a human soul which lusts for justice and other things, but through our apprehending of this and other Forms we can represent true justice as best as possible. Of course, I am not demanding you agree with this logic, but I believe it is a worthwhile argument.

"less negative impact on the environment"

How do you even measure that?

Unnecessary death and destruction is one metric. Another is that which decreases the quality of all the life in a given area whether it be necessary or not.

I am referring to the former, though there are those who honestly believe what is transpiring is necessary.

We should probably stop causing them in that case.

Survival of the fittest, baby. Human power! Screw those dolphins.

That sounds about as metric as the imperial system.

Less abstraction, more numbers, please.

Blue-eyed blondes are going to extinct due too mix marriage and practice not having many children or non at all. The middle east are winning

In that case, you must also think current a number of American laws outlawing certain actions are too abstract because they are similar in reasoning and explanation. I might enjoy learning about which specific ones you also take issue with.

I also think a number of American laws are made by imbeciles and voted for by similar imbeciles, such as anti-GMO or racism/sexism-related ones. Laws are made by men, not by rational men.

I'm taking specific issue in understanding what the hell does "negative impact on the environment" mean when speaking of food production processes, and why would more vegetables somehow help in this regard.

You quoted a figure of manure spilling out and contaminating the environment. As far as I know, to fertilize the ground and help a great deal in growing plants, manure is used. So a relevant increase in vegetable consumption wouldn't help with this problem, it would make it even worse...? And what about herbicides and pesticides? Suppose food retailers see an increase in vegetable consumption similar to that gluten-free/organic crowd of hypochondriacs nutjobs, starts asking more from producers, and the producers in turn ask more from the farmers, which need more pesticides (organic farming requires more pesticides than GMO farming - a LOT more). Seeing a sudden increase in purchases, pesticide factories who had plants designed to satisfy their former demand at full capacity don't want to be cut out of the new share and decide to increase the production. I'd wager in this scenario cutting down on safety measures is an inevitable consequence of short-term decisions. A spill happens...

Now I don't know about you, but I believe the fact that pesticides are intended to kill pests doesn't make them healthy to humans or any other animal. If those chemicals spilled in the river those "10 million dead fishes" would turn into the entire riverbank including fishes, insects, reptiles, and their predators, plus small plants, into a quite dead land for months, if not years.

And that's just an unwanted consequence. An increase in farmlands would mean that a similar, albeit more moderate, scenario would happen in the land that was previously used for foraging cattle. You wouldn't want beetles or worms in your salad, would you?

I think you're somewhat right. It's the cycle of life: Species who can't survive will either evolve, adapt, or die out. However, as human population grows and expands, we do have an effect on species (i.e. deforestation, pollution, etc).