Who and what deserves to exist (water)

[Ravenfaust]

This take should be quite obvious,but I'd like to share it nonetheless. People in this "community" for whatever reason, seem to have forgotten or willfully choose to ignore the fact that ,in the eyes of the world, only things and beings that are pleasant to the eye have a right to exist. This does not only apply to people ,but to everything else. There are no massive conservation attempts for near extinct animals if they are ugly, take pandas for example, by all means, they should've been extinct by now, they are essentially predetermined to perish in nature, the fact that they have to be coerced into mating tells you this, but because they are very cute, the world has decided to allocate massive resources into the fight for their survival, countless animals have gone and are going extinct and no one cares because they are either boring to look at or are ugly, the only ones who genuinely care for their existence are the autists. Same goes for animal rights groups or nature conservationists, no one would care for pigs and cows and chickens and their atrocious living conditions and slaughter if they all looked like Nurgle from Warhammer, no one would care about deforestation if forests looked like sewers. I understand that this is pretty watery ,but still, I wanted to share my thoughts, feel free to discuss below.

TLDR: People don't view aestheticly boring or ugly things to be worthy of existence.

 

[Ravenfaust]

@sasha108 @7Azcendr7 @buccalfatremoval @Wrestle @Euron

 

[volgograd009]

ALWAYS add a tldr

 

[susborgerwaffen]

Dnr water

 

[Ravenfaust]

ALWAYS add a tldr

Sure.

 

[Euron]

Almost dnrd but saw the tldr

 

[7Azcendr7]

Most people would probably express general remorse if you informed them of any sort of animal going extinct. However I agree that the vast majority of people would be more proactive when it comes to conservation efforts for aesthetically pleasing animals.

 

[sasha108]

This take should be quite obvious,but I'd like to share it nonetheless. People in this "community" for whatever reason, seem to have forgotten or willfully choose to ignore the fact that ,in the eyes of the world, only things and beings that are pleasant to the eye have a right to exist. This does not only apply to people ,but to everything else. There are no massive conservation attempts for near extinct animals if they are ugly, take pandas for example, by all means, they should've been extinct by now, they are essentially predetermined to perish in nature, the fact that they have to be coerced into mating tells you this, but because they are very cute, the world has decided to allocate massive resources into the fight for their survival, countless animals have gone and are going extinct and no one cares because they are either boring to look at or are ugly, the only ones who genuinely care for their existence are the autists. Same goes for animal rights groups or nature conservationists, no one would care for pigs and cows and chickens and their atrocious living conditions and slaughter if they all looked like Nurgle from Warhammer, no one would care about deforestation if forests looked like sewers. I understand that this is pretty watery ,but still, I wanted to share my thoughts, feel free to discuss below.

TLDR: People don't view aestheticly boring or ugly things to be worthy of existence.

I can't fully agree. Of course, aesthetics and beauty are important all around the world, but many animals are protected by organizations, no matter how they look. And pigs look bad

I also think the example with forests is less convincing, since it's difficult to compare it in terms of beauty. Deforestation is an environmental catastrophe, not just aesthetic problem

Overall, I understand your point, but I think it's somewhat exaggerated

 

[Ravenfaust]

I can't fully agree. Of course, aesthetics and beauty are important all around the world, but many animals are protected by organizations, no matter how they look. And pigs look bad

I also think the example with forests is less convincing, since it's difficult to compare it in terms of beauty. Deforestation is an environmental catastrophe, not just aesthetic problem

Overall, I understand your point, but I think it's somewhat exaggerated

Hey, I'm just glad that you're discussing this instead of typing dnr.

 

[sasha108]

Hey, I'm just glad that you're discussing this instead of typing dnr.

Xd nah I understand this topic, but I don't agree with examples.

But for animals,it works for dogs or cats. There are a lot of homeless animals, but people still buying expensive breeds