Kyo

filtherton, it seems like you skim the comments until you find a statement you don't like, pull that one out by itself, and then try to refute it while not taking the rest of the paragraph or context into consideration. The fact that you'd suggest, even sarcastically, that environmentalists should go out and kill as many humans as possible to save the environment indicates that you've missed the point of my argument entirely. If you understood what I was trying to say, most of your counterarguments wouldn't make much sense to you.

Then again, I suppose that's exactly what you're thinking about my views too.

And you'll note that you can't actually refute the analogy drawn between your argument and the mentality of dictators - you simply spew sarcasm back at us - "well, hitler killed lots of evil humans, so you should all be happy." Tell me why your argument isn't like Hitler's? He preferred his master race to everyone else. We prefer humans to everyone else. "It is natural for the superior to take advantage of the inferior?" - this is what I read your argument as.

Regardless, this isn't getting us anywhere - no one is presenting any new arguments, only corollaries to what they have already argued or thinly-veiled insults (*raises hand* guilty). Either that, or regurgitating the same idea phrased differently.

I'm going to sum up what I think, and that'll be it:

- Morality/Ethics are no part of the environmental status quo. What we do to animals is neither 'right' nor 'wrong', it just is. While I would like humanity to be more responsible, it isn't going to happen because humans like their comfortable lifestyles too much.

- Killing a human and killing an animal are not as far apart as most would like to think. We can't prove that a human life is worth more - we just naturally value ourselves more. Therefore, from a moral standpoint, there is no difference between killing animals and killing humans. If you believe killing humans is ethically wrong, you must necessarily believe killing animals is ethically wrong.

- Arguing medical testing or cosmetic testing is beside the point. The current human attitude is that animals are a natural resource, like oil, iron ore, or wood. Once a tree has been cut down, do we really care what happens to it? Does it really matter to the petroleum industry where you burn their oil, as long as you pay for it? Once we've decided to use the animal, does it matter if we're going to butcher it for meat, skin it for a woman's coat, or test lipstick on it? It's just a commodity, after all.

- To wrap up on this particular issue, given our treatment of nature up to the modern era, both medical and cosmetic testing on animals is a logical progression. The common defenses for what we have already done to nature apply to everything else we want to do - we are the masters of the planet, therefore we can do whatever we want. Cosmetic testing, medical testing, recreational torture, etc. We can do it all - for no more reason than that we are in control.

And finally, I suggest the following reading:
- Environmental Ethics - An Introduction ot Environmental Philosophy by Joseph R. Des Jardins
- Environmental Ethics - Divergence and Convergence by Richard G. Botzler and Susan J. Armstrong

The second book is especially useful, as it is a compilation of famous essays from prominent environmentalists on both sides of the issue. They support and counter arguments such as why the Judeo-Christian ethic is bad for nature and essentially responsible for the shape the planet is in, how environmentalism differs in various regions of the world, and whether or not humans should care about nature at all.

We're never going to see eye-to-eye, because of a fundamental difference in opinion of where humans stand in the larger picture. In other words - we're arguing exactly opposite points from the foundation up. The way an aetheist might argue with a Christian - it's easy to see that neither is going to get anywhere.

I wish I could say it has been a good discussion, but I don't like to lie. Ethical discussions have always left a bad taste in my mouth.

__________________
Sure I have a heart; it's floating in a jar in my closet, along with my tonsils, my appendix, and all of the other useless organs I ripped out.