- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
I would reformulate the question: do we deserve the existence of humanity?
If so, with what. And what kind of humanity it will be (because while we don't see it directly, it's just a word).
If not, how can we earn it? And can we still =))
There is such an anecdote. Two planets meet. One planet says to another: Why are you so gloomy? The second answers: Yes, people are wound up – I'm itching all over. Nothing, ” the first planet replies.- I also had them-they passed by themselves.
I love this joke. Look at a person: he kills his own kind, litters where he lives (this place is called planet Earth), asphalts roads, builds himself concrete boxes for living, etc. In short, from this point of view, no, he does not deserve it.
But there was such a philosopher in the 19th century – G. Hegel. One of Hegel's main conclusions can be expressed in today's language as follows: what has grown has grown. We are already here, and there are more and more of us.
What should I do here? I think there is one option – to learn to understand others, including our planet, which, in my opinion, is trying its best not to self-medicate. And when we understand that we should not destroy our place of residence, kill others just for their opinion, enjoy another concreted road, etc., then we may earn the right to exist.
Humanity, or anything else, doesn't need to deserve to exist. The very existence of an object implies its a priori right to be. Everything that exists is simply there, and its existence is in no way conditioned by merit. You might as well ask if penguins deserve to exist)
The question is very simple. Does the child deserve an existence that touches everything, breaks everything, etc. in the first years of life? Definitely yes. so humanity is a child who matures through its imperfections to something greater than it is now.
Your question makes me uneasy.
Maybe we've all done something, and you've come up with the idea to take stock?
Yes, humanity drinks strong drinks, smokes, swears, gets divorced, loves money, relax at the resort and much more.
Many were spoiled by the housing issue and the mortgage.
But, Messire, all this happened before and somehow did not cause your negative attitude towards the living.
We vow to improve and not bother you with our requests.
Deserves it. This existence is unavoidable in terms of the work of the evolution of matter and spirit in the universe. And this applies equally to stone, birch, and hare.
A meaningless question for an atheist. He is not a servant of God and does not serve God, before kam “deserve”something?
Well, if you take a believer, then there are many religions and interpretations, and they do not coincide.
So Jehovah somehow decided that he didn't deserve it and caused a worldwide flood…
Not a question. IT CAN'T HELP BUT BE. This is part of the Game of “God”, nature, which is necessary for its self-existence through us. But most people are degraded humus. Units per million – people. This totality provides Universal Processes. And so, humanity is by definition something that is degraded and erased periodically. Evolution is NOT a social or biological process.
The question is not quite correct, or I am not able to understand it correctly.
But does the knife that was cutting bread an hour ago and is now a weapon of crime deserve “life”?
But does a whale that has consumed several species of plankton or fish for the sake of its existence deserve to live?
But are our parents and we worthy of life, since they gave birth to us?
I'm inclined to assume the answer is yes.
Otherwise, we simply wouldn't exist, even as fossils for other evolved creatures, like dinosaur skeletons for us.
Whether we can make sense of everything is another matter…
Because humanity destroys nature, trees and animals, creates piles of garbage and does not understand at all what it is doing. If it disappears, it will only get better.
I try to look at life and humanity from the point of view of the universe. And then let's talk logically. I am a vast and unique universe, and what do I care about some small civilization that will literally destroy itself tomorrow? That's right, absolutely nothing.
And who should it earn it from? Who are the judges? Only people judge themselves. Humanity can decide whether it is worthy of something or not. But all this talk doesn't make sense. Who is worthy there, whether we are, or hares with tigers. Humanity is there – that's the main thing. And everything that is, should be. If something doesn't have to be, then it doesn't exist. Everything is simple here.
And by what laws should he be judged to determine whether he deserves it? And how to talk about the guilt or merits of all of humanity as a whole?
We have a given that humanity exists, so either some controlling body considers it worthy, or it exists simply by itself, without any merit or evaluation.
The answer to this question raises an additional question: before whom should humanity deserve its existence?
If we are talking about such a right before you personally, then this is an exclusively subjective view, which is determined only by yourself, and not by anyone else. In this case, any third-party response can only affect your decision, but the decision is still up to you.
If we are talking about some global issues such as the universal Mind or God, then the existence of such issues is not only not proven, but also unprovable in principle. That is, such a conversation will a priori be pointless-devoid of any meaning. It is impossible to speak about the role of humanity in binding to something that is impossible to know or even prove the very fact of its existence.
Well, if we talk about the role of humanity from the planetary point of view – a person on the planet Earth, then even here the answer to your question will not follow.
The whole point is that the person himself is not able to estimate his own value on a planetary scale.
We can't see all the consequences of being on a given planet. Also, we are not able to give an unambiguous answer to the question of whether our actions are positive or negative.
That is, any conclusions about the negative impact of humanity on our planet are as subjective as your own opinion on this matter. To date, it is not possible to conduct any objective scientific research on this issue in principle. Each of these studies is just anti-scientific, not scientific in nature. The fact is that the researcher sets himself the task in advance to prove the negative or positive influence of a person on certain moments, but he does not evaluate or try to evaluate the question in its entirety.
For example, everyone started talking about the extermination of whales. A ban on whaling was adopted. For whales, such fishing had an extremely negative impact, reducing the populations of individual species to almost zero. But at the same time , this same fishery allowed to increase the number of plankton in the world's oceans and, as a result, through an increase in the number of small planktonophages, the number of large predators increased. I.e., the extermination of whales caused an increase in the number of sharks, perches, dolphins, seals, etc. species of marine predators. Even the number of seabirds has increased.
So, a natural question arises: was the extermination of whales exclusively negative in nature? You can only answer by evaluating all the consequences of this phenomenon, both at the time of its occurrence and in the future. A person can't do that.
Thus, humanity did not deserve the right to exist in front of no one and does not deserve it. It simply exists as a given and is as much an integral part of the Earth system as any other organism, object, or phenomenon. The existence of humanity, like any other existence of any object or phenomenon, carries certain consequences that humanity itself will never be able to adequately assess.
One thing is certain: without humans, our planet Earth will be completely different – not the same as it is today. It won't get any better or worse – it will be different. Here, only we will never be able to see or evaluate this “otherwise”, because we ourselves will not be there.
But as long as we exist, we must remember that the main goal of any species ' existence is to expand its range, increase its population and evolve in the framework of progressive changes. That is, we must spread out, reproduce and become as perfect as possible in individual and collective aspects.
And this perfection, oddly enough, is determined precisely by the dominating of a person over other living beings and phenomena within the framework of their habitat.
Thus, humanity will continue to exist until there is another form of life that will destroy us and take our place.
Absolutely not! No options. But since any rule, even the most beautiful and powerful, still implies Exceptions to the rules, then a Wise bone carver comes out to create a masterpiece, sometimes grinds up to 50… 75% of the bone in the trash, which in general is not productive, and expensive! But the figure deserves admiration and is a Masterpiece!! So it is here in the whole mass of people all over the world! Units will be revealed, a small handful of true gold. The rest, after all, how not to push, will be intended for a completely different purpose!!! So I think it's extremely wise to collect a handful of people, but what kind of ones 🤗 👍 👍 👍 So he doesn't deserve it! And deserves it at the same time! It's a strange answer but it's true! With respect.
All God's creations are originally bright and pure, because God does not know how to create evil. So as long as we exist, we deserve to live. Of course, there is a lot of evil in the world. Trends in reducing its number are not yet visible. But evil is not a part of humanity, but a disease and dirt on humanity.
Humanity, as a species, is alive, survives, and therefore deserves to live. Anyone who wants to survive deserves it. And morality is not a permanent and adaptive phenomenon. History is written by the winners, and the rules are also set by the winners. Do not overly idealize and get lost in the clouds.
No…And again, no. I think nature will be very happy to get rid of us like locusts…And I'm totally on her side…Such as humanity is not worthy to live on Mother Earth.
Good question. Over the past two or three years, I have repeatedly asked myself this question.
So far, the following understanding has been formed.
Recklessness, irresponsibility and greed should not rule society. Because then such a society becomes an alien, hostile, oncological phenomenon for the Universe. The universe applies measures of an appropriate, cancer-clearing nature against such oncological formations.
At the same time, communities that think and live in accordance with the laws of the universe (including because they have knowledge of the basics of the Universe's structure) receive constant assistance from the Universe: both in scientific and intellectual development and in productive and resource development.
To such societies, the universe gives gratuitously (through insights and revelations) such knowledge that is completely inaccessible to greedy and reckless communities.
And as a result of these insights and revelations, people suddenly discover that in fact they live in a rich, rich, inexhaustible garden that has no borders and limits, and not in a lifeless cold wasteland with boulders, boulders, ice floes and stones rushing to no one knows where.
In the model of existence that humanity has chosen, it leads itself to destruction, which is just around the corner. This is a model of entropic collapse, from which everyone runs away in a fight against everyone in an attempt to capture the maximum amount of food and energy resources. This is a failed strategy. There is only one way out. We must finally become a sentient being, because only intelligence is negentropic. Only reason can change the present nature of a person in terms of his transformation, described by Tsiolkovsky and Umov, and in a mythopoetic form expressed in the teaching of Christ about the transfiguration and ascension. I understand that for most people this text looks like the ravings of a madman. Well, it means that sane skeptics will have to die in their right mind and solid memory, recording every moment of their dying. Personally, I no longer hope for anything, and I am only glad that I will not live to see the end of the century. I feel sorry for my granddaughter.
If humanity did not deserve to exist, there would be no Savior.
Lk, ch. 15:
“7 I tell you that in this way there will be more joy in heaven for one sinner who repents than for ninety-nine righteous people who do not need to repent.”
Humanity cannot be considered as a single entity, it is seven billion (or eight already) people, completely different in everything. Some of them are better than others in some ways, and some are worse.
And by what parameters is the “merit” of existence determined? If this parameter is the presence of achievements in science, culture and art, then most of the world's population does not deserve to exist. Judging by the absence of serious crimes, most people deserve to live. But first of all, it is necessary to answer the main question – is a person's life in general a thing worthy of using its taking away as a punishment?
Of course, it does, since it exists, because humanity is just a concept.�
No one is able to perceive it directly. Individuals or specific groups of people who fall into the field of view are directly perceived, but humanity is a phenomenon created solely by the thought of a person who becomes objective in the intersubjective reality that makes him objective. It is as real as intersubjective reality itself, which is always built on people's agreements in one way or another. This reality is only perceived by an individual as something objective, since it is not created by himself, but, in fact, it is subjective, since it was originally created by a person, and only then approved by society. Outside of human thought, there is no humanity as a material form. No one has seen it, heard it, or tasted it.
Humanity is a product of superindividual consciousness. And if this consciousness is treated as an existing reality, then humanity not only objectively exists, but also, of course, deserves to exist, because if someone's consciousness consciously created it, then it is necessary for this consciousness. If, for example, only what is connected with his immediate perceptions is real for a person, then he simply cannot find the whole of humanity in this reality.
That is, if it appears in reality as the fruit of conscious collective thought, then it is necessary and, therefore, deserves to exist. And if it doesn't deserve to exist, then it simply won't appear in anyone's mind.
This question can only be answered by the one who created humanity(if there is one). Because you can earn the right to exist only based on the opinion of the creator, depending on his views, preferences, as well as the goals and objectives that he pursued when creating humanity.
The problem is widespread ignorance , hypocrisy among people.
People mean by the word humanity, society, the flesh of the flesh of similar intelligent beings .
In fact, the word man originally meant the Holy Spirit, an image, a righteous disposition, inspiring the mind and hearts of people to do noble , righteous, just and merciful deeds.
It's not the evidence that matters here. Especially for a troll. What matters is who you think of as an investigator, judge, executioner, and jury. As soon as you name them, the answer will not be long in coming.
I have already spoken about this issue, and I will repeat it again: a human being is a parasite on the body of the planet earth. Let me clarify, a Reasonable Person, he belongs to the Earth, which ensures his existence, as a consumer. And its requests are constantly growing. We will very soon face the fact that the Earth will not be able to meet the needs of man… However, we are already witnessing the process of human-human collision in the struggle for the right to own certain resources. Then it will only get worse…
Incorrect question. To deserve means to serve someone, to perform a certain task for someone. Humanity does not perform any task for anyone, it simply originated and bred on the planet under favorable conditions for a protein life form. If we run into a black hole tomorrow and our entire system collapses, it is also inappropriate to talk about punishment for something.
Our life on a planetary scale is a matter of chance, as is our death.
The correct answer to this question is to ask the person who started our program. We don't know the specific role that is defined for people. Maybe someone at this time is chiseling a tree to build a new boat in new conditions. All this is not subordinate to us. If there is fatigue as a result of our activities, then the tap of LIFE can be screwed, only the living OCEAN will remain, yes, perhaps someone else. who behaved well…all health and kindness.
Well, if you asked such a profound question. Then, definitely yes!
For even in Descartes.
On the door of his office.
It was hanging. “I think, so I exist.”
The author can wish the whole range of emotions from “start with yourself” to “kill yourself for the wall”. It's a joke, of course, because such limited creatures are very often offended.
I think it still deserves it, because it is changing, developing, and increasing in number. Whoever created us should be interested in what happens next. Here the dinosaurs lost interest in their lives, because endlessly, for millions of years, they bred, ate each other, bred again, and nothing changed in the direction of development. This resulted in a dead-end branch that was destroyed. Now the bet was made on warm-blooded primates. It seems that there is still hope.
This is not for us to judge. Not to humanity. We don't have all the information we need about ourselves to do this.
Who knows, maybe we are destined to create something beyond in the future?
In what sense? Who's the judge? An ordinary natural species that was formed like all others. If it is formed and effective, then it is not a matter of evaluation, just a given. In general, I see no reason for misanthropy to strongly dislike humans as a species, and I see no reason for anthropocentrism to strongly praise humans.
The existence of humanity is a heterogeneous process, continuing in time and most importantly it has a different tendency – sometimes evil increases and manifestations that deserve death and then it engages in self-destruction, sometimes when evil is exhausted, awareness comes and then it deserves mercy, renewal, etc. There are times when humanity, with the exception of the remainder, deserved Drowning ( Flood time), but here still separate “instances” are preserved for the continuation of the human race.
� � Not everything is unique and unified-because humanity consists of many individuals, each of whom lives his own life: this can be compared to criminal jurisdiction, where, for example, some groups do not deserve to exist at large, but only in prison, and some who lead quite a decent lifestyle and deserve to exist at large.