Human Life vs Tree Life (1 Viewer)

[FutureIncoming]

Human life vs. Tree life.

"I think that I shall never see
a poem lovely as a tree." --Joyce Kilmer.

I think that I shall never see
A billboard lovely as a tree.
Indeed, unless the billboards fall
I'll never see a tree at all. --Ogden Nash

http://shrewdnessofapes.blogspot.com/2006/03/i-think-that-i-shall-never-see-poem.html

Those quotes are just for flavor. The link is more serious. Let us consider the proposition that human life is more important than tree life. This wide-spread assumption is used to cut down trees to make houses and fishing boats and endless other things associated with adding quality-of-experience to human life. Some of those things may even be necessary instead of being merely enjoyable. On Easter Island, for example, several centuries ago, much of the diet was seafood, so lots of trees were cut to make fishing boats. For them, then, could trees be called "unimportant", if without trees no boats could be built to obtain enough food?

See the connections? If human life is declared to be more important than trees, and if the obtaining-of-food is considered important because human life is important, and if trees are required to obtain that food, then aren't trees important, after all? OK, let's implement a tree-growing plan, to make sure we have the trees we need, so we can cut them to fulfill the requirement that uses them to obtain food. Human life is still more important, right?

The preceding appears fine and dandy, until we add in the fact that human population tends to grow. If human life is so important, then why not make more of it? But how does that affect the availability of somewhat-important trees? Let's pretend that during the course of one human life, 10 trees must be cut down to make all the various things that that human might need in that life, from lumber to firewood to whittlings. I suspect the actual figure is much higher, but the point I wish to make can be reached almost as easily with the figure of 10 trees as with 100 or 1000, so I will pretend that only ten trees need to be cut down, to fulfill the needs of one human life.

We may now start with a stable population of 1000 humans and 10,000 trees. For the moment we assume that each human death is matched by only one birth, and every cut tree is replaced by a seedling or three. (Time out: There is a lumber company that brags about being a "tree growing" company, because it plants two trees for every one that it cuts. However, the advertisements fail to state that the natural death rate of planted seedlings is about 50% --which means they might be staying even with their rate of tree-cutting, but they certainly are not replanting areas that have been deforested for decades.) It is possible that more than 10,000 trees are actually needed, to give them time to grow before being cut, but here I will simplify things by assuming that when the first tree is cut and replaced by a seedling, a full human lifetime will go by before the replacement tree gets cut for the replacement human life. That's the traditional three-score-years-and-ten, of course, so a 70-year-old tree is what is being discussed here, and at that age it can easily be a decent size, especially if it is of one of the fast-growing varieties. Also, we can spread-out the cutting-down of trees, such that during a 70-year life, the 10 trees are each cut at 7-year intervals. Thus our "forest" of 10,000 trees could be described as having 1000 surviving seedlings, 1000 7-year-old-trees, 1000 14-year-old trees, and so on --except that would also require assuming that the humans conveniently experience 100 deaths and 100 births every 7 years, with none in-between. Well, I did say this was a simplification! (And remember you can always multiply these figures by larger numbers of trees-per-human-life, as you think appropriate.)

OK, now let's add one new human to that formerly-stable population of 1,000. Immediately we must cut down a tree to help support that life. But where will it come from? All the 10,000 trees in the "forest" are reserved for use by the previously-existing 1000 humans! Logically, therefore, when expecting the human population to grow, advanced forestry-planning must occur first! And that planning must occur as much as 70 years prior to the birth of that single extra human, to be sure an appropriate tree is ready to be cut! OR, of course, the community can seek to widen its boundaries, to include a larger "forest" that just might happen to already exist out there, unused before now.

Let's look at that latter possibility: Just how big is that "wider forest"? Then we can immediately divide by 10 to find out how many extra humans can be born, taking advantage of the existence of that forest, before we need to worry about advanced forestry planning.

OK, time passes, and now the human population has expanded to meet the available forest resources, and now there is no escaping advanced planning. So, look at the landscape! We need to reserve landscape to plant new trees, so that they will be available when still-more humans are born to that expanding population. But now a new dilemma arises: Humans require landscape, also! Every time a house is built, landscape becomes reserved exclusively for human use, and cannot be used for growing trees.

The final key fact is that landscape exists in limited supply. There is only so much room for BOTH humans and trees, when it is required that 10 trees be available for every human. Well, how important is human life, anyway? Should more humans be born, in spite the lack of sufficient trees?

Do keep in mind the earlier linking of trees with human survival. If the 10 trees are not available, it can be assumed that 1 human will die. Does this mean that human life really is more important than tree life? On Easter Island the humans found out the hard way, and after cutting down the last tree more than 19,000 humans died. On Island Earth there may be more landscape than Island Easter had, but the fact that it is a limited total quantity remains. Thus the conclusion seems to be inevitable. If some other life form is required for human survival, then that life form is exactly AS important as human life, not less important. I am not saying that trees are essential for human life. But other life-forms are. So think about it, the next time you say it is OK to sacrifice that other life-form so that yet-one-more human can exist. Is there a sustainable supply of that life-form remaining? And is abortion an OK way to ensure human life does not exceed its demands upon that other life form? Espedially when that other life-form is as important as human life, after all!

 

[BodiSatva]

What does this have to do with abortion?

 

[Jay R]

What does this have to do with abortion?

So think about it, the next time you say it is OK to sacrifice that other life-form so that yet-one-more human can exist. Is there a sustainable supply of that life-form remaining? And is abortion an OK way to ensure human life does not exceed its demands upon that other life form? Espedially when that other life-form is as important as human life, after all!

That has something to do with it. Population and resource management for a sustainable balance between human society and the natural processes of the Earth. Not much though, probably should be moved to the Environment Forum.

You want to clarify for us FutureIncoming?

 

[talloulou]

Human life vs. Tree life.

"I think that I shall never see
a poem lovely as a tree." --Joyce Kilmer.

I think that I shall never see
A billboard lovely as a tree.
Indeed, unless the billboards fall
I'll never see a tree at all. --Ogden Nash

http://shrewdnessofapes.blogspot.com/2006/03/i-think-that-i-shall-never-see-poem.html

Those quotes are just for flavor. The link is more serious. Let us consider the proposition that human life is more important than tree life. This wide-spread assumption is used to cut down trees to make houses and fishing boats and endless other things associated with adding quality-of-experience to human life. Some of those things may even be necessary instead of being merely enjoyable. On Easter Island, for example, several centuries ago, much of the diet was seafood, so lots of trees were cut to make fishing boats. For them, then, could trees be called "unimportant", if without trees no boats could be built to obtain enough food?

See the connections? If human life is declared to be more important than trees, and if the obtaining-of-food is considered important because human life is important, and if trees are required to obtain that food, then aren't trees important, after all? OK, let's implement a tree-growing plan, to make sure we have the trees we need, so we can cut them to fulfill the requirement that uses them to obtain food. Human life is still more important, right?

The preceding appears fine and dandy, until we add in the fact that human population tends to grow. If human life is so important, then why not make more of it? But how does that affect the availability of somewhat-important trees? Let's pretend that during the course of one human life, 10 trees must be cut down to make all the various things that that human might need in that life, from lumber to firewood to whittlings. I suspect the actual figure is much higher, but the point I wish to make can be reached almost as easily with the figure of 10 trees as with 100 or 1000, so I will pretend that only ten trees need to be cut down, to fulfill the needs of one human life.

We may now start with a stable population of 1000 humans and 10,000 trees. For the moment we assume that each human death is matched by only one birth, and every cut tree is replaced by a seedling or three. (Time out: There is a lumber company that brags about being a "tree growing" company, because it plants two trees for every one that it cuts. However, the advertisements fail to state that the natural death rate of planted seedlings is about 50% --which means they might be staying even with their rate of tree-cutting, but they certainly are not replanting areas that have been deforested for decades.) It is possible that more than 10,000 trees are actually needed, to give them time to grow before being cut, but here I will simplify things by assuming that when the first tree is cut and replaced by a seedling, a full human lifetime will go by before the replacement tree gets cut for the replacement human life. That's the traditional three-score-years-and-ten, of course, so a 70-year-old tree is what is being discussed here, and at that age it can easily be a decent size, especially if it is of one of the fast-growing varieties. Also, we can spread-out the cutting-down of trees, such that during a 70-year life, the 10 trees are each cut at 7-year intervals. Thus our "forest" of 10,000 trees could be described as having 1000 surviving seedlings, 1000 7-year-old-trees, 1000 14-year-old trees, and so on --except that would also require assuming that the humans conveniently experience 100 deaths and 100 births every 7 years, with none in-between. Well, I did say this was a simplification! (And remember you can always multiply these figures by larger numbers of trees-per-human-life, as you think appropriate.)

OK, now let's add one new human to that formerly-stable population of 1,000. Immediately we must cut down a tree to help support that life. But where will it come from? All the 10,000 trees in the "forest" are reserved for use by the previously-existing 1000 humans! Logically, therefore, when expecting the human population to grow, advanced forestry-planning must occur first! And that planning must occur as much as 70 years prior to the birth of that single extra human, to be sure an appropriate tree is ready to be cut! OR, of course, the community can seek to widen its boundaries, to include a larger "forest" that just might happen to already exist out there, unused before now.

Let's look at that latter possibility: Just how big is that "wider forest"? Then we can immediately divide by 10 to find out how many extra humans can be born, taking advantage of the existence of that forest, before we need to worry about advanced forestry planning.

OK, time passes, and now the human population has expanded to meet the available forest resources, and now there is no escaping advanced planning. So, look at the landscape! We need to reserve landscape to plant new trees, so that they will be available when still-more humans are born to that expanding population. But now a new dilemma arises: Humans require landscape, also! Every time a house is built, landscape becomes reserved exclusively for human use, and cannot be used for growing trees.

The final key fact is that landscape exists in limited supply. There is only so much room for BOTH humans and trees, when it is required that 10 trees be available for every human. Well, how important is human life, anyway? Should more humans be born, in spite the lack of sufficient trees?

Do keep in mind the earlier linking of trees with human survival. If the 10 trees are not available, it can be assumed that 1 human will die. Does this mean that human life really is more important than tree life? On Easter Island the humans found out the hard way, and after cutting down the last tree more than 19,000 humans died. On Island Earth there may be more landscape than Island Easter had, but the fact that it is a limited total quantity remains. Thus the conclusion seems to be inevitable. If some other life form is required for human survival, then that life form is exactly AS important as human life, not less important. I am not saying that trees are essential for human life. But other life-forms are. So think about it, the next time you say it is OK to sacrifice that other life-form so that yet-one-more human can exist. Is there a sustainable supply of that life-form remaining? And is abortion an OK way to ensure human life does not exceed its demands upon that other life form? Espedially when that other life-form is as important as human life, after all!

Heck why stop at advocating abortion? Why not join Dr. Eric R. Pianka (Dr. Doom) and promote use of the ebola virus to wipe out all but 10% of the current population. That we they'll be plenty of trees.

 

[FallingPianos]

one cannot compare one cow life with one human life, sinse it will take more than one cow to support one human life. that would make the human life worth more than the cow life by your logic.

that is, if this ever even becomes an issue. the earths human population is currently growing exponentially.

 

[talloulou]

one cannot compare one cow life with one human life, sinse it will take more than one cow to support one human life.

Unless the human is a vegetarian. :rofl And it takes more land to feed cattle then it does to grow crops. So maybe we should advocate abortion for those whose children would most likely be meat eaters vs vegetarians. Getting rid of the cattle indusry will make lots more room for trees. :rofl How's that sound Future? :rofl

 

[Jay R]

Heck why stop at advocating abortion? Why not join Dr. Eric R. Pianka (Dr. Doom) and promote use of the ebola virus to wipe out all but 10% of the current population. That we they'll be plenty of trees.

Nah, Ebola's a Heamorraghic virus, a blood disease, it spreads through close contact to carriers and their bodily fluids, you'd have to administer it as a shot in person. That Dustin Hoffman movie 'Outbreak' was fictional, as far as I know there's no airborne strain of Ebola.

that is, if this ever even becomes an issue.the earths human population is currently growing exponentially.

It is already an issue surely? Your post effectively says so, whether you intended to or not. I'm not advocating abortion to keep the population down (You use euthanasia for that! ) but there is a real danger that there are too many people, particularly across Asia, for the world's ecosystem to support, especially when you consider how wasteful we are at present in Europe and America and how China and India's ambition is to be just like us. I don't think we make very good role models.

Maybe FutureIncoming is trying to tell us to be more efficient with the resources we all use and to try and replenish them. He could be a bit more succinct with his argument though.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

... but there is a real danger that there are too many people, particularly across Asia, for the world's ecosystem to support...

Nonsense. You can fit the entire human population within the borders of Texas and leave more square feet per person than exists in some major cities, and there's enough arable land in the United States to feed the entire human population, including animal protein.

You mention waste in your post, but I think you're disregarding just how much of that waste is intentional-- to keep the prices of consumer goods high enough that the companies who make them can afford to pay their workers enough to buy them.

Tear down a few palaces and suburbs, build some apartment buildings-- and convince people to live with each other again-- and plant some crops, and our planet can easily support several times its current population without scarcity of food, medicine, or energy. We don't have to deprive ourselves-- all we have to do is learn to share and create a logical economy.

At our current population, there's no reason at all that every single resident of North America cannot enjoy vast material wealth, and it's likely that the same could be said for Europe, Asia, and Africa. The only reason that we do not is that inefficiency and economic inequality are necessary for the labor market to support itself.

 

[Jay R]

Yeah, but everyone want's a lawn and a pool and a two car garage right? What would be the point otherwise?!!

Seriously, I couldn't be bothered to go wiki the figures, and we're in danger of starting a debate on my posts, I was just trying to interpret what FutureIncoming was trying to say, seeing how he declines to grace us with his presence.

You chopped any trees down recently Ratty?

 

[FutureIncoming]

I am not saying that trees are essential for human life. But other life-forms are. So think about it, the next time you say it is OK to sacrifice that other life-form so that yet-one-more human can exist. Is there a sustainable supply of that life-form remaining? And is abortion an OK way to ensure human life does not exceed its demands upon that other life form? Espedially when that other life-form is as important as human life, after all!

What does this have to do with abortion?

You want to clarify for us FutureIncoming?

I tried to answer some of that in the above text. However, I was in something of a rush to get it written before I had to focus on other things, and I didn't get to say quite all I wanted. So see somewhere below.

Heck why stop at advocating abortion? Why not join Dr. Eric R. Pianka (Dr. Doom) and promote use of the ebola virus to wipe out all but 10% of the current population. That we they'll be plenty of trees.

That was un-called for. The original text does not advocate abortion so much as ask if it can be an OK means to help ensure that human numbers do not increase to the point where they cause a Malthusean Catastrophe, such as happened on Easter Island. And I have a nice conundrum for you below, about that....

one cannot compare one cow life with one human life, sinse it will take more than one cow to support one human life. that would make the human life worth more than the cow life by your logic. that is, if this ever even becomes an issue. the earths human population is currently growing exponentially.

It is my understanding that in terms of biomass, any animal needs at least 10 times its own mass to exist in the form of self-renewing food resources, for that animal to survive. An adult cow eats a lot of grass, but also leaves a lot of waste biomass behind (not gaining much weight, overall). The grass that the cow doesn't immediately eat can use that waste as resources for making more grass (with help from other lifeforms such as dung beetles and bacteria). So the above 10-to-1 ratio actually is likely insufficient; there must constantly be 10 times as much mass of grass available for the cow, and probably there will also be several times the cow's mass in the form of waste-being-recycled-but-not-yet-existing-as-grass. If you don't mind, I will assume a factor of 5 for that, making a total of 15 times an animal's mass must exist as "support biomass" for that animal to continue to survive. This would include humans, of course, so for all the humans in the world to continue to survive, 15 times total mass-of-humanity must exist as support-biomass, nonhuman biology, that is.

Now back to what you were actually talking about. Your reasoning is mostly fine, except for "cusp" situations. Re-read the part in Msg #1 about the single extra birth in that stable human population of 1000. Since all the 10,000 trees were already reserved for the 1000 humans, that makes any one of those trees at least, and possibly more valuable that that 1001st human life, because in that scenario no tree can be cut out-of-turn without killing some other human. So, as a thing similar to saving an endangered mother's life, should abortion have been allowed to prevent that 1001st birth, until trees to support an extra newborn had been grown? (That question is rather similar to the full-fleshed conundrum presented below.)

it takes more land to feed cattle then it does to grow crops

True. Let's consider rats, which can exist on either a purely carnivorous diet, or a purely vegetarian diet. If rats eat mice or grain, and mice eat grain, then in the pure-vegetarian scenario it takes 15 times as much grain-level biomass to support one rat, but in the pure-carnivore scenario it takes 15 times as much mouse-level biomass and 15x15 or 225 times as much grain-level biomass, to support that one rat. Humans are also omnivorous, of course, and meat will always be more expensive than grain, thanks to perfectly equivalent facts and logic as that presented above. Whether or not meat-eating should be banned, just so more humans can exist, is another question altogether, and not one I need to address in this Message Thread.

In Msg #8, Korimyr the Rat wrote some mostly irrelevant stuff, because no matter how many humans the Earth can support, it is always possible for humans to breed even more humans, beyond the supportable point, and this Message Thread is about that cusp, no matter what the human population happens to be. And so I can now get to the conundrum mentioned above.

1. It is a fact that humans cannot exist without other and non-human life-forms also existing.
2. Since not one of all those life-forms happens to be able to qualify for person status, humans regard every member of that entire group of life-forms as being freely killable. One rationale for this is that even if all the wheat in the world was killed and eaten, sufficient other life-forms exist that humans can continue to survive (only poorer by the loss of variety, which is one reason why meat-eating will probably continue, talloulou).
3. Let us now assume that humans are willing to sacrifice variety of diet in exchange for increased numbers of humans, due to their self-proclaimed great importance. The science fiction of Larry Niven (see the short stoires about Svetz the time traveler) includes a future Earth in which humans and "dole yeast" are just about the only surviving life forms. A scenario like this would be the inevitable long-term result of the assumption at the start of this paragraph (although Niven got there by extrapolating the enviornmental effects of ever-increasing pollution).
4. We now take that assumption to the extreme, where all the available biomass is tied up in the form of humans and dole yeast (or equivalent "perfect food") and intermediary substances. This is the cusp, much like the 1000 humans and the 10,000 trees of Msg #1.
5. It remains possible for humans to breed even greater numbers of humans, thus passing the cusp of sustainability. It is so possible that it can happen by accident, in spite of education, birth control, etc., as long as no dictatorial decrees/enforcements exist.
6. If human life was claimed to be so important that the cusp of sustainability is reached, then we are now forcibly confronted with a conflict between value-of-existing-human-life vs value-of-developing-human-life. Basically the human death rate will become equal to --or greater than!-- the human pregnancy rate, when the cusp of sustainability is reached/passed. So, which humans should die? Pro-lifers cannot ignore this conundrum, because they are actively promoting the reaching/passing of the cusp of sustainability!
7. The most logical Answer is that excess unborn humans should be killed, so that already-existing humans can continue to survive (and the birth rate will then equal the natural death rate).
8. But is that human life worth living? All of the vast variety of Life on Earth gets eliminated in this scenario, just because human life was originally declared to be more important than, we now see, quality-of-human-life. And does not quality-of-human-life include things like swimming with dolphins, wriggling toes in a grassy lawn, camping in the woods, and many other things that require the existence of non-human life forms?
9. Therefore the conundrum: "Why does the entire human species have to wait to reach the cusp of sustainability, having eliminated all the variety/spice-of-life, before realizing that unborn humans are not the most important thing, after all?"

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

You chopped any trees down recently Ratty?

Axes are for primitives. I clear brush with napalm.

 

[doughgirl]

“Heck why stop at advocating abortion? Why not join Dr. Eric R. Pianka (Dr. Doom) and promote use of the ebola virus to wipe out all but 10% of the current population. That we they'll be plenty of trees.”

HILARIOUS

Heck they put animals before humans why not plants as well……..

Originally Posted by talloulou, in Msg #4
"Heck why stop at advocating abortion? Why not join Dr. Eric R. Pianka (Dr. Doom) and promote use of the ebola virus to wipe out all but 10% of the current population. That we they'll be plenty of trees."


“That was un-called for. The original text does not advocate abortion so much as ask if it can be an OK means to help ensure that human numbers do not increase to the point where they cause a Malthusean Catastrophe, such as happened on Easter Island.”

No it wasn’t.

This is an abortion thread………and starting a disease to rid the planet of excess baggage is just as valid as abortion is. Disease would be a better way…because no one in particular would be targeted.
In abortion children are just targeted. With disease, you could kill two with one stone………..the pregnant woman and the baby she carries. Wouldn’t the pro-choicers love that.

Stupid thread...........

 

[blastula]

Human life vs. Tree life.... And is abortion an OK way to ensure human life does not exceed its demands upon that other life form? Espedially when that other life-form is as important as human life, after all!

Your irrational discourse about the importance of human life vs tree life, and the expansion of human population vs tree cutting and insiduously about abortion, is not only absurd but also a reflection of how abortion culture distorts the resultant inner making of your confused and altered mind. Your attempt at query in the direction of compelling a humanitarian equavalency of tree life to that of human life, i.e. human population, is not really an altruistic concern for tree life, but rather a pawn to devalue human worth in the context of overpopulation in the ultimate justification for abortion.

You said, "Let us consider the proposition that human life is more important than tree life." Now, what is there to consider? Are you suggesting that your life is not more important than tree life? If that's case, are you willing to submit to people who will take your life with impunity over a tree in an incident of simple quarrel with your neighbor? And why stop at the worth of a tree life? Why not for other more valuable material possessions such as jewelery and money? Unfortunately, with this kind of distorted mentality modern teenagers and young street thugs have been known to kill each other simply over a pair of brand named shoes or jackets.

OK, for the sake of argument, let's enter into your world of absurdity and assume that tree life is as important as human life, if not more important. Without rights, importancy is meaningless. Then, I submit to you, you must also grant them the univeral human rights and the constitutional rights of this nation where the trees reside? You have rights to your person, your property, and due process. You also have legal responsibilies from infringing the rights of others. Therefore, unwelcomed touch to your body can be construed legally as assualt, battery, or sexual assualt. Uninvited presence at your private property is considered intrusion or trespassing your private property. If you violated the rights of others' you may be held responsible and put in jail or prison.

Now, if tree life is as important as human life, then we have no reason to deny them the same rights we enjoy as human beings. Therefore, if you stand on the root of the tree without invitation, you're trespassing the property rights of the tree. If you touch a tree without consent, are you to be charged with assault? If you kill a tree, is it consider a capital offence? If I'm allowed to climb a tree with impunity, should I not also be able to climb on top of your body without fear of punishment? If I'm allowed to trim a tree for esthetic purpose, should I not be able to trim your hair at my whims? If I am allowed to break a tree limb as a throw stick for my dog, am I not allowed to do the same and break your limb for my own pleasure? If a tree roots caused major damages to my septic system and my in-ground swimming pool, should I hold the tree liable for the damages? If the tree doesn't pay in comtempt of court, would it have to go to jail? If tree life is no difference than human life, then in your weirdy world, is it right to take a human life merely over the life of a tree?

Of course all these talks are just nonsense. It goes to show that your absurdity can be more absurd bordering towards insanity if we compel our mind towards the direction of irrational thinking. Therefore, let's come back to reality.

Nobody in the sane mind in this world would think that to value and hold human life as important and precious would mean tree life is less important and has to be sacrificed. To make such connection is just so silly that you can attempt to make any connection regarding criminals who don't view human life as important. Should we argue and conclude that murdering people is good because it helps to control overpopulation? After all, human life is no more important than tree life.

People with a sense of sanity know that human life is different than tree life. And that does not mean that if we hold human life precious than tree life, then we are proposing that trees are not important. This is a fallacy of false assumption. Therefore, it led to your illogical conclusion that if we hold human life precious then we would have to cut them down to support a new human life or cut them down indiscriminately. In this regard, if a person says he values his child's life more than his dog, it does not translate to mean that dog is less important and we have to kill a dog to accomodate a newborn baby in the family.

Cont...

 

[blastula]

You asked, "If human life is declared to be more important than trees, and if the obtaining-of-food is considered important because human life is important, and if trees are required to obtain that food, then aren't trees important, after all?"

Of course trees are important. Not just trees, many other living things play an important symbiotic role in our biosphere. Being important does not necessarily translate into one to one and life to life trade-off equivalency. Being important simply means that we recognize the symbiotic role most living things have in this world for each other and for us as human beings. And that we as intelligent human beings must take serious responsibility for the stewardship of the well-being of this planet earth. Therefore, as human beings who are endowed with intelligence, we are the keepers of this earth. And we are responnsible for the fate of humanity and all living and non-living things of this world. Of course, if you want to suggest or argue otherwise, by all means be ready to surrender your life for a tree or other living creatures that others might think would be a better trade off for the better of this world. In that respect I won't be complaining. Because you have the right to remain silly. Anything you say can be used against you. But, of course we know you won't simply surrender your life as dismissively as you would like us to believe. Deep down, you know the difference between human life and other living things as manifested in your daily living behavior. But, in your quest to justify for abortion, you have allowed your sanity to enter into the twilight zone.

You asserted that if we add one new human to the population we must immediately cut down a tree to help support that life. That is an absurd assertion. Most people don't buy new houses or own a wooden boat let alone the notion that newborns will need new houses built. That's just ridiculous and irrational. Most average adults either rent reusable apartments or houses or they buy the affordable existing old houses. If they need wooden building materials, I've known a lot of them who would simply go dumpster divings. They may sit under the shade of the trees that were there long before they were born and watch the tree seedlings growing in which they may have planted. They may eat the fruits thereof, but definitely they would not cut down the trees to eat unless they are born of termites. If they use any papers or paper products, the papers are mostly many times recycled. Most who are not so well off don't use too much papers anyway, surely not if they file 1040EZ. Most poor folks can't even afford to pay for the recycled wooden furnitures in yard sales or from the goodwill stores without being given free. But the unborns or newborns definitely do no such things. So, how would a new human to the population be guilty of a cut down tree?

The only people who cut down a lot of trees are those excessively rich and greedy adults not new human in the population. They cut down trees indescriminately in the business of making huge profits. They cut down trees day in and day out without ever checking the weather to see if there is a new human coming to the block. Only the rich build enormous houses and own big yacht. They usually owned more than one to a person and still want something new every year and more. Only the rich can afford to clear big lands and therefore cut down forests indescriminately for some nice golf courses by the lakes. And only the rich and well to do use a lot of good quality, non-recycled papers for conveyance to their house titles, businesses, recreations, invitations, elegant disposable party napkins, cups and plates, and other legal papers. The rich and greedy ones are the ones consumed the vast amount of natural resources. They almost have the whole pie to themselves. So, if you are worried about over cutting of trees by over expansion of human population, the problem lies not in the newborns or unborns but the greedy old humans already in the population. If you kill the newborns or unborns, trees will still be cut to satisfy the incessant needs of the rich already in the population. If you get rid of the greedy rich and those responsible for cutting down trees you will immediately cease the need for tree cutting. Of course, all these are just absurd and are as absurd as your argument of connecting human life vs tree life and abortion.

Furthermore, the analogy of Easter Island and global expansion of human population depleting the scarce forest resources is more distortion than non-fiction. For one thing, the human to land ratio in Easter Island is highly dense and focused in one focal point in an isolated system, an island. The complete destruction of tree lives in an isolated island for a growing population is perceivable and physically possible. In global situation, the population are scattered over large land masses of separate and different continents and islands. Many are covered with primitive vegetations ranging from temperate to equatorial rainforests. The complete destruction of all vegetations and forests globally at one time is imperceivable and physically impossible without resorting to atomic/hydrogen bombs for a total annihilation. Furthermore, the overpopulation in global system is caused mostly by uneven migration from underdeveloped regions to the technologically industustrialized regions. Therefore, in the US the increased rate of population is not largely due to birth to native people but because of immigration of adult population from all over the world. And also you have migration of people from rural areas to large cities resulting in underpopulation in rural towns and overpopulation in large metropolitan cities. The main problem in US is lack of adequate younger generations to support the social security of the growing population of older citizens. It is therefore not an overpopulation caused by increased birth rate.

Destructions of trees and forests can occurs even if there is zero population growth. In modern times, destructions of anything, not only trees but also lands for minerals, fishery for seafoods, farming for crops, etc are a matter of waste and ecomomic dumping due to greeds. The deforestations in Borneo, Africa, the American continents, and all over the world in which forest lands are left bare and utterly destroyed not because people needed the bare forest land to build houses. No, nobody wants or needs to live there, but they were destroyed and left bare due to a few bad apples of this world who are wasteful due to their greed. Human wants and desire has nothing to do with population. It makes more sense to abort those greedy adults who have a hand in wasteful deforestation then to comtemplate justification for abortion to control overpopulation. Perhaps one can argue a case to kill all greedy rich who have their hands in the deforestations, the invalids and the elderly to save the trees because then we don't have to cut down trees for timber to build steps, handrails, and ramps to meet the needs of handicaps. In the other extreme, if all pregnancies in this world are aborted to save the trees, there won't be any humanity left in no time.

Your sinister question: "And is abortion an OK way to ensure human life does not exceed its demands upon that other life form?" clearly exposes one of the hideous motives of some abortion thinkers like you. My answer to you is a majestic NO! Nobody in this world has the right to kill another human beings to ensure human life does not overpopulate. You may volunteer yourself and all your family members and relatives of all generations to commit suicide to make room for a noble cause to control overpopulation. It would be very unfortunate, but at least it won't set a precedent for murder to justify population control.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Your irrational discourse ...

Your failure to comprehend plain text does not mean that that text was irrational. I was describing a CUSP SCENARIO, in which all available resources (trees in that example) were "committed" to existing humans. I did not put a lot of effort into specifying how trees might be an essential resource, although I did mention that the Easter Islanders used them for fishing boats. The logic, therefore, assuming that use only (and not firewood to prevent death by exposure, among other possibilities), is SIMPLE:
1. An extra-mouth-to-feed means more fish must be caught
2. If all existing boats are working at capacity (which would be true in a cusp scenario, just barely keeping everyone fed), then a new boat must be built to get the food to support that extra mouth-to-feed.
3. Cut down tree to make boat. Suppose Person A already had claim on that tree.
4. Person A's boat reaches end of its working lifespan (sinks in storm, founders on reef, eaten by marine organisms, sinks from being waterlogged, pick something), and must be replaced.
5. Due to cutting tree for extra mouth-to-feed, there is now a shortage of trees, all ARE reserved for the other existing persons. So, Person A now starves, unless cuts somebody else's tree. Murders have been committed for crimes less than Person A doing something that now threaten's Person B's life.
6. Net effect: adding extra mouth in cusp scenario means some existing person will die.
7. Therefore my question, regarding why a human life can be considered more valuable than a tree life when killing the tree ALSO means effectively killing a human. Would you care to answer that now? And then maybe you might answer the question of whether or not abortion can be a valid way to ensure that does not happen.

The rest of what you wrote I am ignoring at this time, due to having more important things to do than read senseless blather that derives from inability to comprehend simple text. Perhaps later, when I have time, I'll check to see if you actually wrote something worthy of an additional reply.

 

[blastula]

Your so-called "plain text" is not only irrational, the thought processes of yours that go into making the "plain text" is also eccentric and weird.

You asked, "why a human life can be considered more valuable than a tree life when killing the tree ALSO means effectively killing a human."

How would holding human life valuable necessarily affects the fate of tree life? And why would cutting tree translates into "effectively killing a human"? There is no direct connection between one's philosophy of human worth and the actions of some greedy people who commit senseless deforestations for personal financial gains.


I could be a buddhist monk or a holy priest who value human life and at the same time value all animal lives and love planting trees in my meditation gardens. I could be a religous man who hold human life precious and live my life as a hermit in a cave without any needs of cutting down trees. So, tell me why would holding human life valuable affects the welfare of tree life?


Conversely, there are those greedy ones who don't value human life but will commit mass murder if you try to stop them profiting from senseless deforestation for personal financial gains. Therefore, you can abort and murder all human lives that get in your way and still at the same time will senseless kill all the trees if the greedy mind is set on cutting down all available trees.


There are other things besides loss of trees that can also mean "effective killing a human". Pollutions in the air or water can cause depletion of ozones, poisons in the air we breathe can cause prolonged death or cancer, or mercury poisioning in the seafoods and drinking water. So, according to your irrational argument, are we to hold the pollutants more important than human life?


You are wilfully confused in your thinking in your overzealous effort to seek justifications, however bizzare, for the cause of abortion. I had already told you with a majestic NO that nobody can commit murder on the grounds of controlling overpopulation. And yet you still want to ask me the same question of whether or not abortion can be a valid way to ensure that does not happen. Are you suggesting that you will impose abortion on pregnant women against their will if there is a serious case of overpopulation in the event that far more live births occur than the number of elective abortions?

Talk about "senseless blather ", have you check yourself in the mirror lately? Take another look at your initial post that started this thread.

 

[FutureIncoming]

How would holding human life valuable necessarily affects the fate of tree life? And why would cutting tree translates into "effectively killing a human"?

Obviously you are STILL failing to comprehend plain text.
In #15 I clearly show how cutting a tree could cause the death of a human. I suggest you re-read it until you DO comprehend it. And then, after you decide you comprehend that cusp scenario, why isn't the tree as valuable as the human whose survival depends on it? That's all I'm asking you to answer.

I had already told you with a majestic NO that nobody can commit murder on the grounds of controlling overpopulation.

And I told you I didn't read your nonsense in Msgs #13 and #14. The quote above might not be nonsense, if the word "murder" was defined, which you didn't do. Are you trying to say that if abortion is used as one way to help prevent overpopulation, it counts as murder? Can you prove that?

Are you suggesting that you will impose abortion on pregnant women against their will if there is a serious case of overpopulation in the event that far more live births occur than the number of elective abortions?

I was asking, not suggesting. Do consider this:
1. A willed pregnancy followed by birth leads to the untimely death of some other person.
2. A willed act that leads to death is a candidate for a charge of murder.
3. In this case the "murder weapon" is the newborn mouth that consumed the resources that caused that person to die of starvation or exposure or whatever-it-was.
4. Why should that murder weapon be allowed to "go off"?

 

[blastula]

Your feeble attempt to show how cutting a tree could cause the death of a human in msg #15 only showed your weakness in intellect if not total lack of common sense.

A newborn or an unborn doesn't eat fish or cut down trees for survival. Primitive people also use Papyrus plant or flexible branches or saplings from shrubs to build boats if no trees are available in the region.
Modern fishing industries use steel ships to fish large amount of seafoods that can feed the whole nation and for export and often are wasteful in their practice let alone worrying about extra-mouth-to-feed. We have more to worry about fish life and other marine lives due to our wasteful and greedy practices of some fishery industry.

Don't try to distract from the argument by playing word games with definition of words. If human life is no more important than tree life, what's to stop you from cutting a few humans to make a bloated float on the water? Would murder mean anything or make any difference to you with a twisted mind? Your whole argument about tree life vs human life is not just applicable only to the unborns. Your argument is not about tree life vs unborn life.

The "human life" in your premise includes human life of all ages that contributes to the problem of overpopulation. According to your twisted logic, if you want to control overpopulation, you can also control it with killing adult human beings in warfares, mass genocides, terrorism tactics of 911 and serial murders of people who consume excessive timber, builders, carpenters, lumbar yard merchants, sawmillers, and loggers. The same result could be achieved in controlling overpopulation to save some trees from adult human destruction. It would be an immediate results versus killings of unborns because it would take quite some time before the unborns grew up to be using any resources from the trees.

Repeatedly you asked, "why isn't the tree as valuable as the human whose survival depends on it?". And how many times do I have to repeat the answer while you insisted that you did not want to read my previous replies and dismissed them summarily as nonsense? There are only 2 possible meanings to your assertion of "tree as valuable as the human". One is to value the trees as trees in their role on this planets just like we respect nature. In this respect, we observe and practice the principle of conservation.

Except for some unconscientious entrpreneurs, most people have great respect for nature and value the beauty and the important role the existence of trees have on this planet. Apparently, this is not the answer you want. Do you want to compel the answer you are seeking, i.e. tree is as valuable as the human with the entitlement of human respect and human rights due to human?

If you want to hold tree as valuable as the human with the human respect and human rights, then you have to concede that trees must also have property rights and other rights entitled to human. So then, killing a tree is no difference than killing a human and killing a human is no difference than killing a tree. I've already shown you the absurdity of this contention and yet you persist to indulge yourself in a silly worm hole.

Even if there is only one human being on this earth, and if this human is a lunatic like Saddam Husein, he can just as easily destroy all the trees on this planet with biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. Perhaps, even musch faster with a blinkling of an eye even if the world is much underpopulated.

By now you should have realized that overpopulation and destructions of environment is rooted in human behavior and the sense of personal responsibility. There are better ways to approach the problems through education, incentives/disincentives, social and urban planning, regulations, and rules of law instead of advocating murder.

If a "murder weapon" is the newborn mouth that consumed the resources, the same can be said of adult human being. Killing a newborn or an adult to conserve some trees of yours is nothing short of murder. Arguing, "Why should that murder weapon be allowed to "go off"?" is pure insanity.

Is that the final solution of yours if the world is still perceived by you as overpopulated despite all the elective abortions being performed freely in this country? Are you advocating forced abortion of all pregnant women if the world is still overpopulated despite free practice of elective abortion?

 

[FutureIncoming]

To blastula: You are obviously still failing to comprehend the meaning of "cusp scenario". This is a scenario is which NO extra critical resources are available. The particular scenario I described was derived from Real Life Thing that happened on Easter Island, several centuries ago, before the Europeans discovered the place. They cut down trees mostly to make fishing boats. There was no papyrus or apparently other materials available there. They bred like mindless animals until there were about 20,000 people on that island. And shortly after the last tree was cut, a Malthusian Catastrophe happened, killing 99% of the population (about 200 living when the Europeans arrived). Exactly like happens to any other animal on Earth, that breeds faster than critical resources can be found to sustain its population. And despite claims by various human idiots, resources are NOT infinite. Some are even notice-ably starting to run out, like the petroleum we use in every large food-producing industry. http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html And as long as either resources diminish or human population rises, a cusp scenario awaits, in which extra human births WILL be linked to untimely human deaths. The link need not be as simple as the one I described to clearly illustrate the problem, but the link will exist all the same.

it would take quite some time before the unborns grew up to be using any resources from the trees.

FALSE. I never specified that newborns needed to cut trees themselves; I only specified that newborns needed resources, and the scenario involved trees. A tree can be cut for a newborn, after all, a simple example being building a fire to keep the newborn from dying of exposure. But then, who else, who might have had claim on that tree, isn't benefitting from it?

Nothing you can blather about will prevent that cusp-scenario problem from arriving, as long as either resources diminish or human population rises. I am asking a legitimate Question, regarding whether resources can be as valuable as the human lives that depend on them.

If human life is no more important than tree life, what's to stop you from cutting a few humans to make a bloated float on the water?

Your feeble attempt to devalue humans to the low magnitude normally specified for resources is just so much blather, when I am asking why those resources shouldn't be valued as highly as humans.

If you want to hold tree as valuable as the human with the human respect and human rights, then you have to concede that trees must also have property rights and other rights entitled to human.

FALSE. Value and rights are two different things, like apples and oranges. So, if something that is highly valued is generally not destroyed out-of-hand, and if trees can be as valued as humans, then the simple consequence is that trees should not be destroyed out-of-hand, especially without planting replacements, and that's all the "rights" that trees need. There is even a human analogy; consider how over the centuries young women have wanted babies of young soldiers going to war, even if they hadn't been married at that point --and Society tended not to look down upon them as much as other unmarried pregnant women.

If a "murder weapon" is the newborn mouth that consumed the resources, the same can be said of adult human being.

FALSE. In a cusp scenario, there are sufficient resources for the adult human who was there first. It is the newborn EXTRA mouth that the available resources cannot accommodate. On what grounds can newborn Human A exist at the expense of adult Human B's life?

Killing a newborn or an adult to conserve some trees of yours is nothing short of murder.

Except that is not what I have been talking about. I have been talking about how the demands of newborn Person A would cause adult Person B to die, and so far I have asked if, to prevent that, an abortion should have been performed --and you have failed to answer that question.

Arguing, "Why should that murder weapon be allowed to "go off"?" is pure insanity.

PROVE IT. I claim it is far more insane for pro-lifers to insist that unwanted pregnancies must be carried to term, thereby promoting a Malthusian Catastrophe, than it is to allow all unwanted pregnancies to be aborted, as that is at least one way to help stave the Catastrophe off.

 

[blastula]

Why are you so evasive? The world we are living in is not a "cusp scenario". We have extra critical and non-critical resources available for domestic consumption and surplus for international trading. We are not an isolated island devoid of forestation and extremely overpopulated. If you want to use a "cusp scenario" to represent the model of the real world, you have to use one that is at least similar to the real thing. I could use the Sahara desert and call it the "cusp scenario", but it won't be a true representation of the real world. In the real world, we have large primitve forests and jungles. We have fiberglass to build boats and steel for buiding ships and yet we still have papyrus, reeds, and shrubs to build primitive boats if we want to. And we don't depend solely on fish for survival.

Although in theory global overpopulation can pose a serious threat to the ecosystem of the world, the real threat posed by a minority of irresponsible and greedy people who lack human conscience for the good of humanity poses is imminently real and not theory. Even if population growth is declining, the insatiable greed of some exploiters of natural resources for personal gains is destructive enough to destroy the whole world if left uncheck by international communities.

Of course, resources are always limited. Population can also fluctuate unevenly from generation to generation, regions to regions through mass migrations, warfares, genocides, mass murders, epidemics, pandemics, floods, tornadoes, fires, tsunamies, and earth quakes, etc. Behavior, when it is out of control will do more harm than a multitude of human being with good behavior. A child out of control will destroy the garden and the whole house. Ten good and well behaved children will not only maintain the garden and the house, but will contribute productively to the prosperity of the garden and the whole house.

You stated that the particular scenario you "described was derived from Real Life Thing that happened on Easter Island, several centuries ago, before the Europeans discovered the place". I could also describe a particular scenario derived from real life thing that happened on a deserted island few years ago in which 2 men were stranded when their sailing boat were destroyed in a storm as reported in "I Shouldn't Be Alive!" TV show.

The island was devoid of any vegetation, no water, and there was no animal life noted, not even bird's nest. So, are you going to blame overpopulation for the cause of this lifeless island? If the 2 men weren't saved in time they most likely would have died of hunger, dehydration, and possibly cannabalism. So, if they died and no more human is left of this island, can you use this as a "cusp scenerio" to blame other human being for holding human life more important than tree life?

Cont.

 

[blastula]

Returning to the discussion of Easter Island, when the first European navigator discovered the place in 1722 the situation was not so bad. It was on the subsequent visit that the island was found to be in a shamble. For one thing, the island was very small (only 63 sq miles) for any sensible growing society to be living in total isolation. We don't expect to have a growing society without catastrophe, living in a one square mile island near North Carolina in isolation without contact with the mainland, do we?


For another, the island didn't really have a timber forest to begin with, except a vegetation comprising of palms native to the island. Another reason for the deforestation was the fact that the polynesian settlers who originally discovered the island had brought with them some domestic animals and crops, and thereby also attracted polynesian rats not native to the island. The rats fed on palm seeds highly rich in palm oil and other nutritions. This resulted in deminished capacity of palm trees to propagate.

The main contribution to the destruction of palm trees in the island was the obsession of the natives to cut down trees for building wooden frames and poles to contain and transport their gigantic stone statutes. In their obsession to carve out large stone quarry for the statutes they also caused serious soil erosion that amplified the already worsen conditions. As the population grew from a few thousand to 15,000, the depletion of vegetation and subsequent loss of crops and livestock resulted in lack of food, and ultimately war and cannabalism. By the time the second European arrived, the population had dwindle to a mere few thousands.


But the real world is not a one isolated land occupied by human from corners to corners and ends to ends with only palm trees as forestation. And the real world is not obssessed in one spirit as a group to build giant stone statutes and cutting down all trees for building wooden frames and poles for transporting their stone idols. No, the real world is made up of different people of different lands, nations, cultures, languages, skills, and numerous natural resources.


Cont.

 

[blastula]

If you want to insist on "cusp scenerio", how about considering the real life example of Singapore island? In about AD 300, about the same time Easter island was discovered by the early polynesian settlers, Singapore was an isolated and for the most part uninhabited island known by the Javanese as "Temasek". The longest distance of the island is only 23 miles long running from east to west. And from the north tip of the island to the southern most part the distance is only less than 15 miles.

The island was occasionally visited or inhibited by neighboring natives of Indonesia, i.e. the Javanese, from the south and the Malays from the north. When a prince from Sumatra visted the island, the first living creature he encountered there was a lion. Hence, he named the island "Singapura". In Sanscript, "Singa" means lion and "pura" means town or city. Thus, the modern name of Singapore.

When the British came to Southeast Asia, Sir Stamford Raffles in 1819 claimed to have founded Singapore. By that time Singapore was an idling fishing villiage with a population of a few hundreds or low thousands. Soon the population began to grow as people immigrated from neighboring countires attracted by booming trading activities due to the establishment of seaport. By 1965 when Singapore became an independent nation, first from the British and then Malaysia, the population had grew from just over a millions to current 2006 census of 4.5 million people.

Today, it is one of the world's most prosperous countries with strong international trading links and with per capita GDP equal to that of the leading nations of Western Europe. The country's sea port is now one of the world's busiest in terms of tonnage handled.

Despite its total lack of any natural resources except the seaport and some fishing in the early part of Singapore's history, it would not be enough to feed the growing population if not for the ingenuity of the people. The country still boasts of its world renowned trees and greeneries throughout the city.

It still have relatively large natural reserve of trees and local vegetations that also contained 3 large reservoirs, one botanical garden, a large orchid garden, and a zoo. There is also a open field covered bird haven with a large man-made waterfalls and several other ethnic gardens located on the western end of the island. Indeed, they have so many gardens, trees, and greeneries all over the city that it is also known as the "Garden City".

Now compare Singapore to Chicago. Chicago is a city of a big continental nation called USA whereas Singapore is a tiny island nation that is hardly visible in the world map. The city of Chicago with an area of 234 sq mile is slightly larger than Singapore (225 sq mile), but Chicago has only 2.9 million people, compared to Singapore which has 4.5 million.

Yet the people of Chicago can move about, relocate, and obtain resources anywhere around the country of USA, but in Singapore the people there are all confined in that tiny little island. So, how could an overpopulated island country subsist without resorting to mayhem, internal warfares, and cannabalism as did the people of Easter Isaland?

Also remember, when Singapore was declared an independent nation in 1965, Malaysia and Indonesia were trying to isolate Singapore from all natural resources and created internal unrests hoping it would collapse. But, it survived nevertheless through the will of the people.


The reason Singapore is so successful is because the people and the leaders were able to foresee the future given their condition and plan ahead accordingly. The city is still considered very overpopulated by any measure given the very limited amount of land they have and with no natural resources. Land property is very expensive and more valuable than gold. Thererfore, very, very few people can own a land and build one or two storey houses with large front and back yards.

As a matter of neccesity, most land is developed into very high rise apartment complex by the housing development run by the government. Most of the units are leased to the people and those that were sold were only good for 99 years as property title holders. The govt always come up with campaigns to educate the public for certain policies. Incentive or disincentives were given to encourage or discourage certian behavior.

The rules of law there is strict to control the behavior. It has to be to protect human life and safety for a popular that large. Therefore, murder is a capital crime like any other civilized society. You can't deface a tree on the streets or remove a plant from the woods let alone chopping down a tree without permit. Throwing a piece of trash or crossing the street improperly will get you a tickets with a fine of S $500 to $700 a few years back. Owning or harboring a gun without permit is a capital offence. Possession of a few grams of illegal drugs in your person is construed as intend to traficking and therefore to destroy innocent human life, and if convicted carries a mandatory death penalty, which comes very swiftly.

Cont.

 

[blastula]

So you see, the irresponsible behavior, the excessive deforestation, the uncontrollable consumption of petroleum, etc all stem from the behavior that you have to control so that people take responsibility for themselves.

From the sense of responsibility people not only respect themselves and others, but also take pride in their environment and have respect for nature. The people in Easter Island didn't do things right and made serious mistake. Their mistake is something for us to learn from but not to emulate to advocate murder as a solution.


Your silly notion that " newborns needed resources, and the scenario involved trees" only argue for a case of infanticide to justify tree conservation. So, tell me, are you advocating infanticide as, according to you, that is at least one way to help stave the Catastrophe off? If newborns needed resources, what happens to children and adults? Don't they also need resources? Don't they also need to have houses if not wooden boats?

Cont.

 

[blastula]

Value and rights are two different things, but they are things that a human has in which one define the other to give meaning to human worth. It is the rights that give meaning to the value of human life. If you asserted that a tree life is as important as human life, than you are saying that a tree life is equivalent to human life. If a tree life is the same as human life, then a tree life should also have the same human value as defined by its human rights.

Value is inherent in every living and non-living thing. The abstract concept of value and the appreciation thereof is only inherent in human beings. By virtue of human self conscious awareness, their intelligence with ability to reason and acquire knowledge, and the capacity for compassion and empathy, human beings inherently know they are different from other creatures but yet know they are a fragile part of this ecosystem.

With wisdom, most human beings value the importance of symbiosis that every organism plays on this planet earth. Therefore, human beings value the importance of trees as trees, cows as cows, and dogs as dogs, and thus don't generally destroyed them "out-of-hand" with or without replacement. . By that, they don't mean to hold trees or cows or dogs as co-equal of human life.

Your so-called analogy of "young women have wanted babies of young soldiers going to war" is totally non-sequitir.

You argued that "if something that is highly valued is generally not destroyed out-of-hand, and if trees can be as valued as humans, then the simple consequence is that trees should not be destroyed out-of-hand, especially without planting replacements, and that's all the 'rights' that trees need"

But, in human you cannot destroy another human life even if you attempt to replace it with another human life through procreating another baby to replace the one murdered. So, how can the value of tree life be the same as human life as your own example has shown? In order for somethings to be the same, what is true for one must be also also true for the other. Otherwise, it's never going to be the same.

Cont.

 

[blastula]

To connect tree life vs human life and abortion is also absurd and insulting to women. Women who elect to abort do so for personal reasons. Some are compelled by circumstances that they deemed could have adverse effects on their lives.

They never think about what a tree life is going to be affected if they gave birth to a newborn. They don't believe that newborns will turn out to be a "murder weapon" that consume resources, or create an ABC scenerio of "Human A exist at the expense of Human B's life". To pretend so is just laughable.

You "claim it is far more insane for pro-lifers to insist that unwanted pregnancies must be carried to term, thereby promoting a Malthusian Catastrophe, than it is to allow all unwanted pregnancies to be aborted, as that is at least one way to help stave the Catastrophe off".

If abortion can be justified as "at least one way to help stave off Malthusian Catastrophe", the same can be said of serial murder, mass murder, terrorism, and genocide. You can argue that it is far more insane for pro-capital punishment people to insist that incarcerating the criminals which allows murder victims to live thereby promoting a Malthusian Catastrophe, than it is to allow all murder victims to die in the hands of criminals, as that is at least one way to help stave the Catastrophe off, since there is no difference between human life and tree life.

While you are trying hard to be evasive and beating about in the bushes regarding your meaning of "tree life is as important as human life", I'll grant you this assertion for the sake of this argument. So, if in your zest to curb overpopulation, would you force women to have abortion if elective abortion cannot out perform the rampant birth rate running wild in the ghettos to young unwed mothers on welfare or lack of birth control measures in places like India?

If "tree life is as important than human life" would you advocate killing newborns and adults human beings if existing population of people still clear cut trees in deforestation for whatever reasons?

If your premise is true, i.e. "tree life is as important as human life", killing one or the other shouldn't make any difference as long as the desired outcome is achieved by you. Would you advocate to decriminalize murder and sanction mass murder, terrorism, and genocide as at least one way to help stave the Catastrophe off ? After all, to you there is no difference in tree life vs human life.

So, please answer my questions will you?