What a strange thread

It is initiated yet asks no questions, makes precious little comment about any human contribution and seems to placidly suggest culling humans would be the best thing.

So to follow up on that theme-

I suggest we kill off all the pessimists or at least sterilise them to stop them from breeding.

Think what a wonderful place the world would be if we had a population made up wholly of optimists.

No doomsayers

No global warming side-shows

No nanny state, because optimists have no tears which need a nanny to wipe away.

Ah it already sounds pretty wonderful to me...

Dear David F.,

Thanks for this thread.

I guess to some observers, the disappearance
of other species as a result of human activity
is a matter of no particular consequence.
To others, it represents the height of human
hubris, in that we're making ourselves the
ultimate arbiters of which species may survive
and which may be obliterated.

But there are practical reasons why human society
should protect other life forms.

Tropical forests are a stabilizing factor in the
global climate, they absorb vast amounts of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Many plants are
medically valuable: most anticancer compounds, for
example, come from plants of the rain forest,
and this pharmaceutical cornucopia is still mostly
untappped. Wild species are a "storehouse" for
agricultural scientists who interbreed them with
domestic species in order to create more fruitful
or resistant strains. The rain forest itself is a
vast and irreplaceable "library" from which genetic
engineers of the future may draw their raw material.

Many species among the millions of uncataloged plants
will surely prove to be edible, and could become
major crops in the future. And the trees and flowers,
the beasts of the field, and the fowls of the air,
are an aesthetic treasure, capable of delighting
our senses and giving us some vision of what we are so
carelessly destroying.

Of course there's another argument for protecting other
life forms. It has nothing to do with any social benefits
for ourselves.

The breathtaking diversity of species has evolved in
delicate and precarious balance over many millions of years.
Most of the plants and animals with which we share the
earth have been here a great deal longer than we have.
For a fleeting moment in planetary history, our technology
has given us domain over them.

In awe, respect, and humility, we might just let them be.

There is of course one technology, however, that
threatens not only other species with extinction, but
humanity as well. That is the technology of
nuclear warfare.

Dear Foxy,

I can rely on you!

Dear hasbeen,

Who would you suggest eliminating?

Dear Stern,

A population solely made up of optimists would hasten our extinction. We might survive longer if we recognise reality.

Dear csteele,

Thank you for the poem. I enjoyed it. I could wallow in my guilt. Murder is an act that one commits knowing that it will result in the death of another human being or beings. Having willingly taken part in the conception of several human beings I am guilty.

Perhaps we need to follow the precepts of Zoroastrianism. Sex for reproduction is sinful as it creates more areas where evil can reside unlike purely recreational sex which one can enjoy without guilt.

What evidence do you have that we are improving as a species? One of the strangest beliefs in progress was expressed by Thomas Babington Macaulay:

"The history of England is emphatically the history of progress."

Let's be realistic here.

It is not "pessimism" to point out that, in the cosmic scheme of things, we are just another species that appears, flourishes for a while, then dies out.

The problem here is the classic "what are we doing here" challenge. Which doesn't have an answer, of course, but which we ask anyway.

For a while, nobody had time to think, so simply concentrated on survival. That didn't need much thought, except to devise ways to fend off the sabre-toothed tigers and whatnot.

But as life settled down, we became "civilized", and had more time to think - so, along come the thinkers.

Socrates put it thus: "the truly wise man will know what is right, do what is good, and therefore be happy".

Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, religions started to tell us that it was wrong to be happy; we should feel guilty instead. And that we should leave it to priests to tell us what is good, and what is evil.

Mankind then embarked upon centuries of warfare, whose intent was to determine which religion was "right", and therefore which set of priests you should listen to, in order to do "good".

Meanwhile, mankind became adept at subverting the environment to its will, eating the animals, tilling the soil, inventing machinery powered by hydrocarbons, digging up minerals, killing animals for sport etc etc - all with the objective of being "happy".

Socrates' simple, sequential philosophy was by-passed, as people became increasingly clever, but increasingly less wise. The current ideal, that we maximize monetary wealth - to the point where we idolize people who make lots of it - is almost at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from wisdom.

There is no point in going out of our way to cull the population of its pessimists. Nor optimists, nor rich people, nor the poor, nor those who think differently from us.

Just try to enjoy the brief time we have here, it's a massive, unbelievable privilege.

"The truly wise man will know what is right, do what is good, and therefore be happy"

All humans are dreadful noxious pests who should be eliminated - for a better world.

And I'm not pious or anything.

Dear Pericles,

Humans thought in religious ways while they were fighting off sabre-toothed tigers.

In Skhul and Qafzeh graves at Mount Carmel in in Israel archaeologists have found the remains of people from about 100,000 years ago. This was way before such developments as agriculture and domestication of animals. The remains had been buried with possessions such as stone tools. This indicates a possible belief in an afterlife where such objects would be needed.

The earliest archaeological evidence for warfare also comes from the middle east where some people had discovered how to ferment grain for making booze, and another group wanted booze.

I. F. Stone wrote “The Trial of Socrates” which indicates Socrates favoured the authoritarian society of Sparta over democratic Athens . Since Socrates left no writing behind him we have to piece his thoughts and actions together from what other people wrote of him. Stone consulted four sources – Plato, Xenophon, Aristophanes and Aristotle.

His book casts a very different light on Socrates from the usual one. He points out instances in Plato’s writing where Socrates was for censoring writings such as Achilles condemnation of Agamemnon in the Iliad as it might encourage disrespect for authority. From p. 129:

“Plato, writing ‘The Apology’ years after the trial – was protecting himself as well as Socrates when he made no mention of the “Birds” (Aristophanes’ play which accused Socrates of pro-Spartan sentiments). The foremost example of a “Socratified” malcontent was Plato himself. In the fourth century B. C. He carried on the same intellectual assault against Athenian freedom and democracy that his master had launched in the fifth."

One reason for the reverence of Socrates and Plato in our society is that they were in the core curriculum of the classics taught in Oxford and Cambridge. However, the student there were being taught to rule an empire. For that purpose Plato and Socratics were admirable guides.

For another view read “The Open Society and its Enemies” by Karl Popper. Volume 1 is about Plato with much about Socrates, and volume 2 is about Hegel and Marx.