Is All Life Sacred?

[Captain Arrrgh!]

Friends'
Have a look at this, in particular, click your refresh button every 5-10 seconds and look at the new totals. How does everyone feel about this in regards where we're heading? What is your predection for Gaia's and Humans' future? Will it be Malthusian, or "Stage 7"?
Every member who is a parent and saw their child being born understand what an epiphany it is, how soul changing it is. Looking at this total -just under 6.6 billion and rocketing upwards, how does this make you feel regarding the sanctity of human life? Do you see beauty? Do you see a multiplying parasite? Do you remember the delicate veins on the underside of a leaf, illuminated as the sun shines through it? What do these numbers mean to you?
Where are we headed, my brothers and sisters?
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/world.html

[Ummon]

That's a complicated issue. Overall yes, but it's necessary to to exaggerate the thing. As a famous Zen Master stated as well.

[redirflow]

life is unique and the world is so wide.

the census numbers tell me: the "natural wildlife" population is "rocketing downward".

[enoch]

no to the title, cool though on the link

overpopulation is the only enemy - the isms of enoch

[turtle]

I think life is sacred in all its shapes and forms. Just becuase life is in gross abundance doesn't mean it is any less special or spectacular. That just means the specific life in abundance is a life that has disrespected the rest of the life that surrounds it. Disrespect is just another form of greatness, it shows the greatness of variety, a greatness displayed in a detrimental form. Without disrespect there would be no respect, nothing to learn from. So, in my opinion, the overpopulation of a life form is just a part of its learning process, which some get over and some may not. Does that make sense?

I think life is sacred because it is something unique and beautiful in an existence full of inanimateness.

[VoodooTengo]

I think to appropriatly answer this question you have to define sacred?

If the question is, is all life important or significant then the answer is no. 150 years from now most of us wont even have anyone who even remebers our names, least of all anyone who knows what were like. 150 years from then absolutely nobody will know anything about any of us (unless someone here accomplishes something great, but even them people wont know what you were really like). In effect we are as dead as someone who lived in 1000 B.C, we just dont realize it yet. Personally i find that comforting, that there really isnt anything you have to do or expectations you have to live up to, and you dont really have to follow the rules, because it just doesnt matter, its a quite liberating attitude to have.

If the question is on an individual scale is life "beautiful" then yes and no. Life in and of itself is beautiful, but its not out of the ordinary and most forms of life just exist to function, like everything else. The human mind on the other hand is incomprehensibly beautiful, and in some ways more important than everything else in existance combined.

I think the comparison is like Joseph Stalin said when one man dies its a tragedy, but when a million die its a statistic.

[enoch]

I think life is sacred in all its shapes and forms. Just becuase life is in gross abundance doesn't mean it is any less special or spectacular. That just means the specific life in abundance is a life that has disrespected the rest of the life that surrounds it. Disrespect is just another form of greatness, it shows the greatness of variety, a greatness displayed in a detrimental form. Without disrespect there would be no respect, nothing to learn from. So, in my opinion, the overpopulation of a life form is just a part of its learning process, which some get over and some may not. Does that make sense?

I think life is sacred because it is something unique and beautiful in an existence full of inanimateness.

so you think that an animal or a plant's life is as sacred as say, my best friend's life

@hsimoorb - china already went first

[turtle]

so you think that an animal or a plant's life is as sacred as say, my best friend's life

Yes, I think that very much so.

Sure, the human mind is a wonderful and unique thing. But the question was about life, not just human life or thought. Life in and of itself is a beautiful and unique thing; which, in my book, slides it into the category of sacred. No life is any more sacred than another. The only thing that may make one life seem more important than another is conscious perception and an opinion of the previously stated, formed from that perception.

A deer may think of our lives as less sacred or less important. And, to their individual existence, we kind of are. But, the concept of life will always be that of greatness in my eyes.

[GaianDruid85]

All life is sacred. But at the same time, all life has a purpose. Cows exist to maintain the grass growth, by eating the grass and also by fertilizing the fields, as well as to reproduce and feed their predators. A tree exists to provide shelter to animals, transform CO2 into oxygen, and also to reproduce and fertilize the soil when it dies. The fact that the cow has been domesticated is not an abomination, simply another step it its development in the food chain. The fact that we chop down trees to provide wood for houses isn't an abomination either, for its purpose is still the same, only developed to fit the current situation. It is when things are wasted that the sacred status of life (be it tree or cow, human, or virus) is violated.

I am speaking from a pagan perspective... druids find all life sacred, but we do not limit our own existence, and therefore our nature, so that the sanctity of nature and life is undisturbed. If everything sacred needed to be defended from "destruction" there would be no point in defending it.... don't harm that tree, its a living thing....."but I need wood for a fire to keep warm at night, its the middle of winter ya know!" what shoul one do in that situation?

Gaia permits destruction, because without the destruction of her sacred body, nothing can be created. Without creation, there is no growth, and therefore, no life. So yes, all life is sacred, but this does not mean that death is sacreligious or unholy.

[Ummon]

All life is sacred. But at the same time, all life has a purpose. Cows exist to maintain the grass growth, by eating the grass and also by fertilizing the fields, as well as to reproduce and feed their predators. A tree exists to provide shelter to animals, transform CO2 into oxygen, and also to reproduce and fertilize the soil when it dies. The fact that the cow has been domesticated is not an abomination, simply another step it its development in the food chain. The fact that we chop down trees to provide wood for houses isn't an abomination either, for its purpose is still the same, only developed to fit the current situation. It is when things are wasted that the sacred status of life (be it tree or cow, human, or virus) is violated.

I am speaking from a pagan perspective... druids find all life sacred, but we do not limit our own existence, and therefore our nature, so that the sanctity of nature and life is undisturbed. If everything sacred needed to be defended from "destruction" there would be no point in defending it.... don't harm that tree, its a living thing....."but I need wood for a fire to keep warm at night, its the middle of winter ya know!" what shoul one do in that situation?

Gaia permits destruction, because without the destruction of her sacred body, nothing can be created. Without creation, there is no growth, and therefore, no life. So yes, all life is sacred, but this does not mean that death is sacreligious or unholy.

There is no meaning without those who perceive it.

[VoodooTengo]

Everything will in time be destroyed. Not that your beliefs are wrong, but they come from a time when people didnt have the capability to destroy themselves completely, and from a time when people didnt realize how incomprehensibly small and insignificant not only they are, but everything you could ever see or hope to experience. Life is sacred in the context of life, but life is anything but sacred in the context of existance.

[Sétanta]

Yes, all life is sacred. Yes, there is a huge problem with overpopulation. No, we can't launch nuclear missiles or biological agents or starve these third world breeding grounds into nothingness. Earth will take care of herself. We need to lower the birthrate, not increase the death rate.

[hsimoorb]

We need to lower the birthrate, not increase the death rate.

I'm sure many other countries would say "you first".

I read an article not too long ago, where this muslim extremist said that the west would be subdued through a "population explosion". I don't think he was tlaking about suicide bombers. As long as a large population is still an advantage for a country/race/culture there will be no significant push to lower the birth rate, since only big organized countries like China know what they're getting into with high population growth. Instead Africa is going to explode in population, because parents still need to have 5-6 kids to make sure osme of them survive their first few years, the wars, the disieases, and be smart enough to make it past 50.

I'd like it if the birth rate goes down, 'option two' is more likely to happen.

I think to appropriatly answer this question you have to define sacred?

Indeed. As with the rest of your post. "Sacred" isn't a good term to debate with. I think all human life has merit in itself. The worth of each individual's contributions to others have always been nearly insignificant, ever since we stopped hunting deer for a living and started farms. The large population didn't realy change this. If anything, modern machines made each individual more productive than ever before, making him important to more people.

We will, eventualy have to stop making so many new people though. I'm heavily in favor of doing that sooner rather than later. Estimates of the largest possible sustainable human population(with current technology) range from 7-12 billion. Since we're going to have to learn to functio with 0 population growth, it's better to level off sooner rather than later. I'd rather have 7 billion rich people than 12 billion poor starving ones.

[Siblesz]

All life is sacred. All death is sacred. In the end, strictly logically-speaking, both are self-perpetrating processes of the universe. One will go with the other. You can only protect life for so long. Whether one person dies, or a billion, will be insignificant to the universe. To us as individuals, however, it will be very significant.

All I know is that we're heading for a big dip in the coming decades. Whether the dip will be violent or peaceful, we shall see.

Everything will in time be destroyed. Not that your beliefs are wrong, but they come from a time when people didnt have the capability to destroy themselves completely, and from a time when people didnt realize how incomprehensibly small and insignificant not only they are, but everything you could ever see or hope to experience. Life is sacred in the context of life, but life is anything but sacred in the context of existance.

Indeed.

[Captain Arrrgh!]

Fine answers from all. In particular, Druid, your response was unique and refreshing. I agree with Siblesz, we are indeed heading for... something, though the Captain isn't going to lay his cards down yet as to what he thinks it is.
How many of you think we will meet catastrophe through overpopulation? war? famine? How many of you think we'll sort ourselves out in time? If rebirth were to exist, how many of you would like to be reborn 200 years from now? Will it be a techno-utopia then? Or a squallid nightmare? In regards to the sanctity of life, does anyone here believe we need drastic population reduction? Are the points on the Georgia Guide Stones relevent?

[VoodooTengo]

How many of you think we will meet catastrophe through overpopulation?

I expect that we will because catastrophes that are relativly small now will effect a greater amount of people (though i dont think thats what you are asking). I do think that nations will have to introduce population caps to aviod a bad situation like that, but i think that we can avoid it though i guess our leaders could dissappoint.

war?

China and the US going at it would be horrible, and i honestly dont know who would come out on top. I dont think that were going to face a nuclear war, unless some terrorists blow one up in America and then we falsely retaliate.

famine?

Thats a big possiblity, climate change weather due to humans or not is happening and that will have bad effects on agriculture, this in conjunction with the population problem could make for a catastrophe.

How many of you think we'll sort ourselves out in time?

Definitely not, you have to be proactive about things, not just sit back and wait for problems to solve themseleves. These problems may be handeled but there as there have always been will be more.

If rebirth were to exist, how many of you would like to be reborn 200 years from now?

I would hate that, i have an innate fear of living to be extremely old. I think having anachronistic displacemnt would be the worst thing to suffer through. Personally living the 75 or 80 years i expect to will be quite enough for me.

Will it be a techno-utopia then? Or a squallid nightmare?

If the world is still around then i dont think it will be changed much i think it will be overall alright, as it has always been.

In regards to the sanctity of life, does anyone here believe we need drastic population reduction?

No if it gets to bad people will stop having kids, and in America at least the baby boomers will die off and we will plateau population wise i think.

Are the points on the Georgia Guide Stones relevent?

What are the Georgia Guide Stones????

[Garnier]

Anyone who says overpopulation is a problem, should start by killing themself. NOT, but that is the logical thing for them to think.

[Siblesz]

Anyone who says overpopulation is a problem, should start by killing themself. NOT, but that is the logical thing for them to think.

It wouldn't be logical; it'd be an emotional course of action. The 6.3 billion figure of today is massive. One person kills himself, even a million, and it would cause no change. Within a few days, the reduction would be recovered and surpassed. Anyhoo, people have a hard time to understand how meaningless they have become even within the confines of this small world. Even I have a hard time coming to terms with my meaningless existence. Even though I belong to the 0.0001% of society, I am still a small figure and there are probably millions just like me. Which scares me a little bit. My lack of originality, and yours', is something that we must come to terms with, for we are all products of the same environment. The individual is denied with this, as the being is absorbed by the multitudes of the universe. Just imagine that a supernova that is close to our planet explodes NOW. Within a decimal of a second, we'd all be dead without even a memory of it. Gone. Just like that. This demonstrates the unimportance of our species, and the unimportance of our future downfall as a species. As emotional creatures, we are bound to our instincts and we can permit ourselves a fraction of self-respect and fear of oblivion, but as logical minds, we can see the perturbing truth of our existence in the clear. The contradictions in both are shown in this very thread, where some claim that life is sacred. Yes... as sacred as the life of a fly.

[Tom Paine]

Only to a theist - a deist almost certainly wouldn't argue anything akin to that.

[morteduzionism]

living in an urban area on the eastern coast of the US and frequently riding public transportation all i have to say is: its too many damn people out here...

some of the money being spent on Iraq needs to go to terraforming Mars or something...