Atomic scuffle

I don't understand the question, jkmac sorry.

I am not sure any mass-destruction of life can be labelled good. Though I guess it was a good thing for the surviving critters they preyed on.

I don't understand the question, jkmac sorry.

There seems to be some discussion going on about whether people dying even in large numbers can be seen as anything but a "bad thing". Should we by definition consider it as such?  And a nuclear attack is being used as an example (unless I am mis-reading).

I am seeing that some think it is obviously so.

My question refers to the last mass-extinction event, which according to experts looks to be an asteroid strike in the Gulf of Mexico. This event killed off all (or at least most) of the life on our planet.

And my question was: was this event happening, a "bad thing"?

I am not sure any mass-destruction of life can be labelled good. Though I guess it was a good thing for the surviving critters they preyed on.

Why not?

What if it lead to mankind's existence (or at least preeminence)? Isn't that "good"?

What if it lead to an ice age, that resulted in the development of our larger brain? Isn't that good?

I don't mean these questions to be goading or trolling: I'm being totally serious. 

Isn't it possible to look at the near destruction of life on the earth as beneficial? Good? 

I'd say it is clearly so.

Once we see this, the next step is to acknowledge that we are not omnipotent or omniscient. We don't have a large enough scope, or perspective, or understanding of our existence, to know the difference between bad and good. Further I'd say that distinction doesn't even have any meaning, mostly because it is unknowable.

There seems to be some discussion going on about whether people dying even in large numbers can be seen as anything but a "bad thing". Should we by definition consider it as such?  And a nuclear attack is being used as an example (unless I am mis-reading).

I am seeing that some think it is obviously so.

My question refers to the last mass-extinction event, which according to experts looks to be an asteroid strike in the Gulf of Mexico. This event killed off all (or at least most) of the life on our planet.

And my question was: was this event happening, a "bad thing"?

Right I see, jkmac. That's a complicated issue surely. We're talking there about dinosaurs and I guess if you consider them to be equal in value to humans then it would be a bad thing, yes.

Right I see, jkmac. That's a complicated issue surely. We're talking there about dinosaurs and I guess if you consider them to be equal in value to humans then it would be a bad thing, yes.

Are humans more "valuable" than dinosaurs? What is the value?

Are humans more "valuable" than dinosaurs? What is the value?

Yes and no. It depends if you think there is an intelligent force/creator behind existence. I personally regard humans as the
pinnacle of creation (at least on the earth that is because there's bound to be life elsewhere).

I do personally find Raquel Welch more appealing than Tyrannosaurus Rex but I'm guessing you'll play devil's advocate and try and tell me it's a subjective opinion. Not for me, Chuck.

Yes and no. It depends if you think there is an intelligent force/creator behind existence. I personally regard humans as the
pinnacle of creation (at least on the earth that is because there's bound to be life elsewhere).

I do personally find Raquel Welch more appealing than Tyrannosaurus Rex but I'm guessing you'll play devil's advocate and try and tell me it's a subjective opinion. Not for me, Chuck.

Not looking for a fight. Just checking.

When the last mass extinction event happened, we can assume billions of lives of all types were extinguished. Should we label it as a bad thing or a good thing that this happened?

What about the next one? Will that one be bad or good?

From our perspective the last mass extinction has to be seen as a good thing. 

For the next one it would be bad from our perspective but presumably good for whoever comes to flourish next. For many life forms the extinction or near extinction of humanity would be a good thing.

From our perspective the last mass extinction has to be seen as a good thing. 

For the next one it would be bad from our perspective but presumably good for whoever comes to flourish next. For many life forms the extinction or near extinction of humanity would be a good thing.

"From our perspective the last mass extinction has to be seen as a good thing."

That doesn't actually make sense, Arouet (to me anyway) If they hadn't been wiped out we wouldn't be here so we wouldn't have to worry.   

For many life forms the extinction or near extinction of humanity would be a good thing.

But what is humanity ? Every human dies anyway. Humanity (the collective) isn't anything at all other than a concept, an ever changing totality of individuals. I do agree that some species would be better of without us though.

The discussion has de/evolved into a "good" or "bad" judgments. That's OK but it misses the point.


Life is meaningless until it is given a meaning. Any event has two sides to it, we live in a trilateral physical reality, the positive, the negative and ourselves...sitting at the top of the triangle, viewing both possibilities. When we assign a positive meaning, we get a positive output; negative gets negative. Neither is invalid, one supports the other by contrast.

Nuclear-atomic war and the mass of tragedies that follow is a horrible situation. Guess what. Every single person affected chose that course of experience. Are we to deny them their opportunities? If that is what they chose, and they did, isn't this a positive thing for that individual?

Extrapolate. Create your path by choosing to view both the positive and the negative and choosing what kind of experience you want as well.