If man has no purpose, why would animals have any?

Different people have different beliefs. Don’t make a strawman argument that because someone said at one time that “Man has no purpose on Earth” that it’s a generally relevant belief or statement that “everyone other than you” holds.

Similarly, one should not presume how others rank mankind among all organisms (or even “all objects”) on Earth. Even within this group you’ll find a lot of people who object to your assumption that “animals are ‘lower’ than humans” – whatever “lower” is considered to mean.

Because I can’t accept your syllogism or even understand your terms, I can’t begin to discuss this with you yet. Change the syllogism, define your terms, and we can talk.

As to the assumption of “positive or negative consequence”, it does seem to be only mankind that makes explicit value judgements of that type – as far as we can so far know – but that doesn’t mean that one person’s values are uniform across all Mankind.

They don’t.

We care because we have a conscious now. We are alive now. We just need to do the most responsible thing we can do now, to hand down a healthy earth, if we can, to our descendants. Why should I care about that? IDK. Why do I love my children?

purpose is a choice, not a mandate.

@CWOTUS Don’t make a strawman argument that because someone said at one time that “Man has no purpose on Earth” that it’s a generally relevant belief or statement that “everyone other than you” holds.
It is a logical question, if A is useless, serving no purpose, and A > B, then B has to be useless and have no purpose also, unless you have different logic than that?

Similarly, one should not presume how others rank mankind among all organisms (or even “all objects”) on Earth. Even within this group you’ll find a lot of people who object to your assumption that “animals are ‘lower’ than humans” – whatever “lower” is considered to mean.
We really have to go there? Even a gnat would know if I ran over your child drunk behind the wheel the consequences would be far worse than if I ran over your cat drunk behind the wheel, why do you suppose that? If I go shoot a deer, even out of season, why am I not charged with murder? I can use a drag net and pull in dozens of fish and not face charges of mass murder, why? Animals for most (and I will say that) are not equal to humans, that is why those who want to sex animals as zoophiles are often seen as abusing the animal because they human have more dominion and superiority over the beast. But….I am sure you have some spin to argue that.

@ragingloli purpose is a choice, not a mandate.
So man chooses not to have any purpose but chose to assign some purpose to animals.

This question is based on a false assumption that purpose = value.

Each of us decides for our own selves what our “purpose” is. It isn’t assigned to us by some creator.
It’s an illusion, but one that allows society to function as a whole.
By the same token, some people may choose to assign a purpose to an animal, also an illusion.
There is nothing earth shattering about it.

Animals have no more “purpose” than humans have. That doesn’t mean it’s okay to drive species to extinction. You are conflating two different types of issues.

The question of whether man or animals have “purpose” is a philosophical or religious question. It is about destiny and about meaning. I don’t believe anyone has a destiny, and I think we create our own meaning, as @ragingloli implied above.

Whether or not we value other species, or care about maintaining biodiversity, is about both science and sentiment. It is important not to let species go extinct because all species have effects on other species, as well as the environment in which they live. We don’t fully understand those effects, and we don’t know how to replicate them if a species disappears. The risk for humans is diverse – we might lose a key pollinator, endangering our food supply; we might lose bats, which would vastly increase the number of biting insects; we might lose a species that holds the key to curing a disease before we even know it could. These are dangers we don’t fully understand, although we’re trying. So, that’s the science part.

We also value species as food resources, or construction resources, or just because we like their company. We value them because they always were, and we want them always to be. We’d be sad to lose lions and polar bears, even if we never interact with them. That’s sentiment.

All of this is about how we value species. We value each other (humans), too. And if that’s what you mean by “purpose”, then sure, we all have purpose. But that’s not the same as saying that we only have that purpose because it was given to us by a being greater than ourselves. It’s not the same as saying that we have specific missions to fulfill over the course of a lifetime, and that straying from those missions is the wrong way to live. And that’s the kind of thing people usually mean when they use this word – for this reason, I would never choose it to describe our relationship to other animals, outside of this question.

We are not born with some predetermined purpose. We each create our own. This has nothing to do with animals.

“Purpose” is defined, for humans, by ego, we create our own purpose by the meaning we assign to our lives, unlike other species that actually do have a purpose in the grand scheme of life.
Humans, unlike animals are not content to just bask in their being, existence, without question.
Humans may be part of evolutionary biodiversity but we do not serve a particular purpose, like a being a predator ( though we, ultimately, are, clearly. ) We do not pollinate plants and flowers like insects, birds and bats, we do not provide food for carnivores like herbivores do.

We do not help spread seeds around like birds and bats to generate more plant life diversity. We do not enrich the soil like earthworms or aerate it like burrowing mammals. We do not provide food for other species, ( well, we certainly can be consumed by sharks, lions, tigers and other apex predators. ) We contribute nothing noteworthy in the grand scheme of life like many other species.

All other species are entwined in a symbiotic relationship to keep life alive, as we know it.
If humans disappeared tomorrow the planet would benefit, if birds, bees and bats disappeared tomorrow, the plant would be doomed. Not that it already isn’t dying a slow death from the impact of hominids. It is.

I don’t even know what to call the logical fallacy that is this question.

You claim many people claim that humans have no inherent purpose. This is true. I, myself, do not believe we have an inherent “purpose”, but that we each find our own meaning in existence.

You then go on to claim that because we do not believe humans have an inherent purpose that we should also believe that animals have no inherent purpose. Cool. I’m right with you there. We’re all the end result of approximately three and a half billion years of evolution. Awesome.

Here’s where you lose me: ”if man drove any species to extinction it would not matter, nothing would happen positive or negative by erasing any animal insect, or even several species would not have any significance.”

Whaaat?

At that point you’re just making shit up. It’s not even a strawman argument because you’re not misrepresenting any argument anyone has made. You’re just deciding all on your own that because we don’t believe that humans have a purpose handed to them by a telepathic sky-wizard, that we’re all just itching to wreak devastation all over the planet.

Last I checked it was the guys on the Sky Wizard team who are trying to kick-start the Apocalypse, and the secularists who are all, “Hey, let’s like, not blow everything up, ya dig?”

@zenvelo This question is based on a false assumption that purpose = value.
BIG SWING, and another miss. That is what you see. I am seeing straight purpose, a reason for being here, if there is any value in that it is arbitrary to who feels there is something of value to it.

@dappled_leaves Animals have no more “purpose” than humans have. That doesn’t mean it’s okay to drive species to extinction. You are conflating two different types of issues.
I am not saying drive certain animals into extinction, I am saying if greed or urban expansion that wipes out the areas sustaining certain species meant their extinction since if they had no purpose or reason for being on the planet, the planet would do just fine without them.

Whether or not we value other species, or care about maintaining biodiversity, is about both science and sentiment.
Yes, we as humans have many things that are just for sentimental value but no use or reason. How humans value any animals life has no bearing on their reason to exist on this planet.

The risk for humans is diverse – we might lose a key pollinator, endangering our food supply; we might lose bats, which would vastly increase the number of biting insects; we might lose a species that holds the key to curing a disease before we even know it could.
Our food supply is irrelevant as man has no purpose but smart enough to adapt. If bats were lost maybe an even greater insect controller will emerge that the bat thwarted. Cures in animals we have yet to find places us in the same boat as a gorilla, with no way to know or harness it, it has no importance.

@LostInParadise We are not born with some predetermined purpose. We each create our own
Again, man has no purpose but what he artificially manufactures himself, while animals have true purpose whether acknowledges or realizes it is?

@Seek I, myself, do not believe we have an inherent “purpose”, but that we each find our own meaning in existence.
Then what is the problem, that seems to be a backdoor alignment to man has no purpose less what he manufactured in his mind, but has no real teeth to it.

Whaaat?
Let me put it in a way you can understand. This is an example, if your vehicle was a representation of the whole ecosystem of the world, removing a species off the earth would be like you removing an air freshener from your dash, it would have no effect on how the vehicle operated at all.

You’re just deciding all on your own that because we don’t believe that humans have a purpose handed to them by a telepathic sky-wizard, that we’re all justitching to wreak devastation all over the planet.
Where did I say man is itching to cut off the limb he is sitting on? You must be playing the same ball game as @zenvelo, if you can’t keep your eye in the ball, you may need a way larger bat. The question has nothing to do with any sky-wizards as wizards do not exist, alien astronauts, being in the Matrix or anything like that….so we can skip that injection into the thread.

You mean that God or religion is necessary to give meaning to life? I don’t disagree with you entirely. Looking at things from a purely scientific point of view there is no meaning to life, human life or animal life but even scientists don’t look at things in a purely scientific way. They have a sense of curiosity and of wonder that is more than scientific. I remember Einstein describing how he paused in his calculations one day when a fly landed on his papers. He stopped everything for a moment just to gaze at it in the sunlight and to marvel at what an exquisite creation a fly is.

Then what is the problem, that seems to be a backdoor alignment to man has no purpose less what he manufactured in his mind, but has no real teeth to it.

This makes absolutely no sense in any form of the English language with which I am familiar.

Let me put it in a way you can understand. This is an example, if your vehicle was a representation of the whole ecosystem of the world, removing a species off the earth would be like you removing an air freshener from your dash, it would have no effect on how the vehicle operated at all.

I’m not following.

The extinction of any one species isn’t going to be the end of the whole world, no. Did anyone ever say it was? It’s still pretty awful when it happens.

Again, not sure where this question has come from or what your purpose is in asking it.

@flutherother I don’t disagree with you entirely. Looking at things from a purely scientific point of view there is no meaning to life, human life or animal life but even scientists don’t look at things in a purely scientific way.
How can one equate something they do not believe or acknowledge exist? Be it religion, magic, or superstition or anything in between, science cannot factor it in. For the sake of this question, since it cannot be scientifically factored in, it doesn’t exist for this question.

@Seek This makes absolutely no sense in any form of the English language with which I am familiar.
It means we are on the same page that in a world that is just the world any purpose man has is in his own mind, nothing more.

I’m not following.
Your vehicle, someone else’s vehicle, if you removed the air freshener stuck in the vent on the dash, the car would still start, the tranny would still work, the clock, the radio, the AC, would all work. The vehicle would drive and steer as it had, one could see out the windshield, the removal of the air freshener from the dash would have zero impact on the performance or operation of the vehicle. With animals having no purpose, if any went extinct like the Dodo bird, the saber-tooth tiger, etc. the world would survive and thrive and not miss a beat. No catastrophe or calamity as man would believe.

The catastrophe is the fact that a species is gone forever.

@Seek The catastrophe is the fact that a species is gone forever.
Catastrophe to whom? That is all mental, species have gone extinct, the world is still here, the seasons have not gone amok, the land still grows things, where is the real catastrophe?

As others state above, man decides his purpose. While it sounds ideal that a man decide his own purpose, we are plagued by annoying numbers of men prepared to not only announce the purpose of the rest of us, but willing to threaten and intimidate those hesitant to concur. You might notice that the word “purpose” is a particularly useful wedge in deflecting the masses from useful pursuits toward time wasting cults associated with the “divine”.

@Hypocrisy_Central – Clearly not to you. But to those of us who value life more than fetishize death, it’s terribly sad to lose a species.

Animals don’t have a purpose. Like Man, they just are.

Maybe the best way to argue the pointlessness of this is to argue the other side.

Let’s say, then, that mankind does have “a purpose” – whether we know it or not, and whether we even believe it or not. We could even individuate that and say that “every person” has a purpose. And let’s say, too, that all other living species have a purpose (or various purposes), whether we know or care about that. We could also imagine that even inanimate objects, the planet itself, to the extent that it is non-living, all have purposes.

So what?

Mass extinctions happen with depressing regularity (if you’re sentient and think about it), or with non-depressing regularity if you’re unaware or uncaring about that. The regularity is real; only the attitudes may have changed. It seems, according to a recent issue of Discover magazine, that approximately every 27 – 32 million years or so some event happens in or on the planet which causes the sudden extinction of up to 80% of all species on the planet. (Whether that is “80% of all life” or not is not the point.) Whether or not those species or the individual beings or plants among them had “a purpose” doesn’t matter. They die; the species become extinct.

The planet doesn’t seem to care much, one way or another.

Even apart from “the purpose of species” – which seems sort of specious, anyway – I have a pretty fair idea that we’re all going to die one of these days, anyway. So if there is any particular purpose to your own life, then even if you have a fair certainty that your end is far in the future, there’s no way to be certain. So you’d better hurry up and accomplish whatever your purpose is, and quickly. (But be careful about it, because it would be an ironic twist to fate if you worked so hard at a purpose of “keeping everyone and everything alive” for example … and the effort were to kill you.)

Animals don’t have a ‘purpose, ’ but most provide something beneficial to another species. Even if that purpose is just a food supply. It (nature) has struck a delicate balance and relationship between each species, through natural selection, and circumstance.

Let’s take HC’s car analogy. Some species would equate in importance to the air freshener. Like say, a spider that only lives / exists one cave on the world. Take it away, and the world wouldn’t be noticeably different.

Other species though,like bees, sharks, and flies, would be more equivalent to the head lights, doors, or alternator. Losing certain species like those,would have a noticeably negative effect.

Those animals, and others don’t have a designed purpose, but rather they are role players in what we consider the ‘normal ’ world.

If there is a ‘purpose ’ encoded into any animal, it is to pass it’s DNA on. To achieve the only form of immortality. Stay alive, and procreate.

I’d like to add that these types of questions sadden me. It is disappointing to me that so many see no value in life without preprogrammed purpose.

And on a side note, the ‘air freshener ’ species we lost, might have provided us with the cure for cancer, or alzheimers disease. Every species has a value to humanity. Either through observation, creating innovation ( like fly eyes helping us make no glare screens.)

Or through direct manipulation of the species’ physical properties ( like how we use the blood from Horseshoe Crabs to tell blood types.)

Just because something doesn’t have ‘purpose,’ doesn’t mean it has no ‘value.’

^ Other species though,like bees, sharks, and flies, would be more equivalent to the head lights, doors, or alternator. Losing certain species like those,would have a noticeably negative effect.
I am happy you can somewhat see the example with the vehicle, however there would be no species as important to the Earth as an alternator would to a car; remove the alternator, the vehicle will not run, there is no animal species that once removed will shut the world down.

^^Incorrect HC. The alternator charges the battery while the vehicle is running. An engine ‘requires’ a battery, but not an alternator to start, and run. Without the alternator in a modern engine, the battery will die, and hence all power functions. But that specific part of engine anatomy is not required for the engine to work.

An animal can survive ‘an amount’ of time without several organs as well.

The analogy was chose with ‘purpose. ’

There may be a species that will lead to the world’s destruction, should it become extinct…

What purpose does art serve? We might as well tear down all the museums and replace them with factories. If we removed everything that does not have a practical value, we would be left with one dreary world.

“What a sad thing you are. Unable to answer even such a simple question without falling back on references, and genealogies and what other people call you. Have you nothing of your own? Nothing to stand on that is not provided, defined, delineated, stamped, sanctioned, numbered, and approved by others? How can you expected to fight for someone else when you haven’t the fairest idea who you are?”

@Hypocrisy_Central
….there is no animal species that once removed will shut the world down.

If we lose bees, you might be changing your mind on that statement in about a year as you starve.

Let us also see how well he does without trees.

^^ If we lose bees, you might be changing your mind on that statement in about a year as you starve.
There is plenty of stuff that can serve as food on this planet that has nothing to do with bees, bees at the very core, are expendable.

Oh, I can’t wait to hear what comes next!

Humans are not only expendable, but the rest of the planet world be vastly improved by our absence.

^^^ Completely agree.

I agree too. Vastly improved. But at least we have the intelligence to (hopefully) turn the tide relatively soon.

Present company precludes my faith in that argument, @Dutchess_III. Alas.

And alack.

HC. With all do respect, it might interest you to learn exactly how important bees actually are. If there is one species that could be your alternator, it’s them. The car will keep running until the battery dies without recharge. The planet wouldn’t die immediately following their extinction, but things would get bad fast…

@MrGrimm888 HC. With all do respect, it might interest you to learn exactly how important bees actually are. If there is one species that could be your alternator, it’s them. The car will keep running until the battery dies without recharge. The planet wouldn’t die immediately following their extinction, but things would get bad fast…
I do not fully know how important bees are, but I know they serve a purpose to the system set in place of this planet, but my perspective of their use comes from a different place than where you and some others come from. However, I am suspending that for the sake of this question because I am using the lowest common denominator. You say if bees all of a sudden left the planet over a given set of time, things will go very bad, to whom? Like floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. they have always happened, and will happen, the only reason they are called disasters is because they took man’s stuff away from him, do you think a bear, deer, groundhog cares about a tornado, an earthquake, etc. I am not sure they even worry about it, it is just something to avoid until it passes then it is business as usual, and if they lose their tree that they live in, they just go find another.

All the things you mentioned could be a long reaching,but feasible outcome of losing bees. Without them many plant species would simply cease to exist. That would have a snowball effect on any animal that eats plants, or eats animals that eat plants, or lives in areas where the soil is healthy because of the plants there, or when erosion in coastal cities exponentially increases with no plants to hold the soil from washing away. The ‘dust bowl’ comes to mind. Once farmers removed all the normal plants for better farmland, there was nothing to hold the rain. Eventually the ground turned to dust,the weather even changed… Big lesson learned by us. The world requires balance to ‘act’ ‘normal.’

Bees are of vital importance for countless plant species, as they are the ones that do the pollination, which means, without bees, they can no longer procreate.
The extinction of bees will also ensure the extinction of countless plant species.
But of course your Koran does not tell you that.

@Hypocrisy_Central One of every three bites of food globally comes from pollination by bees. The 100 most important food crops are pollinated by insects. That includes the foods that are eaten by vegetarian animals and birds, which feed the carnivorous animals and birds, which keep rats and gophers and mice and other pests in check, which keeps the rivers happy, which keeps the water flowing smoothly to the ocean, which keeps the fish happy which encourages the kelp beds of the oceans which helps the rain cycle, which keeps the trees growing which keeps the carbon dioxide/oxygen cycle going, which gives everything a chance to breathe.

It is a lot more important than taking man’s stuff away.

@MrGrimm888 Without them many plant species would simply cease to exist. That would have a snowball effect on any animal that eats plants, or eats animals that eat plants,…]
And…if that happened, so what? The world still move on.

@ragingloli But of course your Koran does not tell you that.
I do not have a Koran, and that is another issue all together.

@zenvelo That includes the foods that are eaten by vegetarian animals and birds, which feed the carnivorous animals and birds, which keep rats and gophers and mice and other pests in check,…]
Again, having rodents ”in check” is important form who, if plants are keeping certain species alive, maybe what they eat will go and them with it.

It is a lot more important than taking man’s stuff away.
Let’s say some disease causes 70% of prairie dogs to die off, in the greater scheme of things, most people would not notice or care, because their day-to-day would not be effected.

Actual footage of Hypocrisy_Central right now

HC. No. The world wouldn’t move on as we know it. It would still rotate on an access,but it wouldn’t ‘move on.’ Not without bees. But I genuinely hope I’m wrong…..

In the corporate world we must have a purpose or be fired. As citizens of the universe a purpose is not necessary for man or for animals, we just are. Who would decide what our purpose should be anyway? Having a purpose could only take away from what we already are.

@MrGrimm888 HC. No. The world wouldn’t move on as we know it. It would still rotate on an access,but it wouldn’t ‘move on.’ Not without bees. But I genuinely hope I’m wrong…..
That is the rub, everyone wants to get caught up with ”as we know it” , if man has no reason to be here then it counts nothing what he thinks about if the world is hospitable to him or not, man is irrelevant to what goes on here, even if it goes radically different from what is beneficial for man.

@flutherother Having a purpose could only take away from what we already are.
What is man now?

We’re just another animal on this planet with no purpose other than to survive and reproduce.
What possible purpose could man even have? And are you assuming that if there is one, it’s a positive one?

What is a man? Nothing but a miserable pile of secrets.
But really, Man’s only ‘purpose’ is to provide sperm for the Woman. He can literally be reduced to a cock and balls, and he would be no less worth.

@Hypocrisy_Central Not just Man but the entire Animal Kingdom. What is it? Unless you already knew I couldn’t begin to tell you.

Rats and mice also serve a “purpose.” They also spread around seeds to contribute to plant diversity and they provide the main source of food for many birds of prey, especially owls, also small carnivores like foxes, coyotes, and snakes of all kinds. I had a very lucky little Vole over here the other day that was captured by one of my cats, the other right on her heels, they cornered it under one of the horse trailers here and tag teamed it all over, until it scurried into one of the horse corrals and scrambled under a drain pipe beneath a water trough.

Lucky little rodent, tales to tell the grand children Voles. lol

…n the greater scheme of things, most people would not notice or care, because their day-to-day would not be effected.

Actually, you and most people would notice, unless you are as blind to evidence as you are to other people’s statements on this thread.

Disruption of the eco system can have horrendous effects. When wolves were hunted to near extinction in parts of the Rockies, the deer elk and moose populations grew so much out of control that it changed the course of rivers and caused tremendous habitat problems that in turn affected the whole region.

I noticed, @Hypocrisy_Central when someone refutes you in a response, you pounce on one phrase you disagree with and take the conversation in a different direction.

^ When wolves were hunted to near extinction in parts of the Rockies, the deer elk and moose populations grew so much out of control that it changed the course of rivers and caused tremendous habitat problems that in turn affected the whole region.
A situation that most likely would not have happened less man created it, the only other way would had been if disease would have taken out the wolves but the end sum would have been the same, deer gone wild, maybe rabbits and some other animals too. Again, man might have been the catalyst but virtually irrelevant. Even though man caused it, the effects are only notices as positive or negative because of man and his perception. Do you actually think the eagles cared there was 4 times the amount of deer? What about the salmon did they care there was 4 times the amount of deer or that the wolves disappeared? They would carry one and do what they always did, and the world would roll on into the future, it would not shut down, stop or come to a halt, if it took a different ecological path, it does, but that might be the path it was supposed to take. Not having a purpose leave it with no effect good or bad.

Humans have no purpose, everything else does. It’s called symbiosis. Remove one species there is a chain reaction, cause and effect on all other species.
One thing is dependent on another and another and another. It is an intricate web.

This is the way of life/nature, humans have only disrupted the natural balance. ‘We are the only species that serves no purpose. It is that simple. Even fleas, ticks and mosquitoes serve a purpose, they are host species for viral life forms that help keep populations in check. The black plague wasn’t about rats, it was about fleas. The rats were just the host victims.

Humans serve no purpose whatsoever, we are an expendable species.

HC. So here’s where I ask you if there was a reason, or hoped for, predetermined answer. You greatly refute what most are saying. So what’s our OP asking us?

Hard to tell. We’ve said in the past that humans have no more special “purpose” here on earth than animals do, (or any more of a “soul” than animals) so now he’s trying to get us to tell what any animal’s “purpose” on earth is, so he can say, “AHA! You think animals DO have a purpose!!” I think that’s what he’s after.

He’s ultimately after us “admitting” that everything has a purpose because God gave us one.

It’s a terribly transparent and, frankly, tired argument.

@MrGrimm888 HC. So here’s where I ask you if there was a reason, or hoped for, predetermined answer. You greatly refute what most are saying.
There was no predetermined answer to wait on, it was about someone proving animals have a reason to be here when neither is the lynch pin to any existence. If I refute or fail to accept an answer is because it plain doesn’t make sense, if A = 0 and A is greater than C, it has to be a zero or less as well; that is straight logic some can’t seem to accept.

Seek He’s ultimately after us “admitting” that everything has a purpose because God gave us one.
It’s a terribly transparent and, frankly, tired argument.
If it were true though <cough, lie cough, cough> being a tired argument leading to a purpose is better than being a silly folly leading to uselessness and meaninglessness.

We get your purpose, HC.

That’s the whole problem with religion. The need to assign some sort of meaning to the randomness of existence. Not knowing anything for certain is too uncomfortable for those whose egos insist on some solid, irrevocable answer to the mysteries of life. The perfect storm of life giving components that just so happened to find their way to a hospitable planetary environment that created life is much more digestible than some magic sky wizard being responsible for it all.

The difference between agnostic/atheists and religious diehards. At least we can admit we don’t really know, but highly doubt that existence is related to one supreme being in the clouds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2ufC2OtH28

^^ The perfect storm of life giving components that just so happened to find their way to a hospitable planetary environment that created life is much more digestible than some magic sky wizard being responsible for it all.
There it is there, many, many people would hate to have someone or something out there better and smarter than man, even If HE created it himself, that would mean there might be consequences to his action other than what other men can enforce on him. What you have is the default position, which some seem to hate just as much, that man ended up here for no reason, purpose, etc. to live out a life without meaning or true use. I can roll with that, people who want to believe their existence here is for no reason, just a random fluke, I can respect that, however I believe different.

HC. As much as I hate to admit. We (humans ) could be the ‘lynch pin’ species you speak of, in theory.For instance. If ‘we’ were the only animals that could save the planet from an asteroid, or comet, through our technological advances.
No other animals, or lifeforms on this planet currently, are remotely close to that possibility.

We’ll probably destroy Earth. But we also provide a unique way of defending the planet.

We could maybe nuke an incoming object, depending on circumstances. No other animal even has a concept of space. We’re the only ones who could potentially avert such a cataclysm…

To add to this. I feel viruses are one of the most relevant things to this thread. ’ Purpose’ or not, they can have catastrophic effects on any population.
The removal of such organisms has a HUGE effect on humanity, and what happens to the planet when our heard isn’t culled.

Removing any species has an effect ,even if slight, on other species. Most extinctions have a negative impact on the environment from which they have been removed.

The world seems to run on balance. In a balanced existence, all organisms would have value. Adaptation is possible from loss of some, but much more difficult from loss of others.

Think of each species as a coin. The Earth is a purse,with finite amount ofcurrency. Some coins are worth more than others. But to lose any, is to lose.

HC, Have you figured out what your purpose is? Maybe it is to try to convert a bunch of atheistic jellies to your way of thinking. You don’t seem to be doing too well, but you can tell God that you at least made an effort.

@MrGrimm888 HC. As much as I hate to admit. We (humans ) could be the ‘lynch pin’ species you speak of, in theory.For instance. If ‘we’ were the only animals that could save the planet from an asteroid, or comet, through our technological advances.
No other animals, or lifeforms on this planet currently, are remotely close to that possibility.
OK, I will grant humans are the only species on this planet that has a ghost of a chance to prevent a catastrophe like that, however, it is only that for man, the animals would not care for such an occurrence, those that survived will have a time of adjustment, and if they did not do it fast enough will die off. But in a world that is just the world, that comet might be the lynch event getting rid of the deadweight and ushering a greater form of life, some new bacteria that will evolve into another subhuman into a greater form of man.

Removing any species has an effect ,even if slight, on other species. Most extinctions have a negative impact on the environment from which they have been removed.
It might, for a time, and if a species cannot adapt due to the loss of another species, then that species was a weak link and needs to go, isn’t that natural selection. Those still here will adjust, because in a world that is just it, nature finds a way, isn’t that is how it is believed to have happened for millions of years? Animals are still on the planet long after the dinosaurs, so that should mean animals will be here long after dog, cats, horses, and cows.

@LostInParadise HC, Have you figured out what your purpose is? Maybe it is to try to convert a bunch of atheistic jellies to your way of thinking.
Yes, I know my purpose, it is not to convert anyone, but give them a fighting chance, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. If the horse is not before the trough he can’t drink because he doesn’t even have the water to reject.

You have poisoned the water @Hypocrisy_Central. None of us want to drink what you’re drinking.

^ It wasn’t me, you made your mind not to drink long before I came around….get real with it now….

^^HC. What if I’m not thirsty? A well hydrated animal will never take more water than it needs. I’m perfectly content spiritually.

You can shove my face in it,but don’t expect me to think you’re doing anything but trying to drown me…

The thing is, we’re surrounded by water.

There’s a nice glass of water on the table, and a well, and a lake, and a spring-fed river, and an Evian bottling plant all around us and we’ve got Dudebro von Jesusface over here going

“GUYS GUYS I HAVE THIS MUDDY TROUGH OVER HERE FOR YOU TO DRINK FROM I’M SAVING YOUR LIFE FROM DEHYDRATION WHY DON’T YOU APPRECIATE THE TROUGH I BROUGHT YOU?!?!?! YOU’RE SO MEAN FOR NOT TAKING MY MUDDY TROUGH DON’T YOU KNOW YOU’RE GOING TO DIE IF YOU DON’T DRINK THIS MUD BECAUSE THE GUY THAT MADE THE MUD IS GOING TO KILL YOU IF YOU DONT DRINK IT? YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO SAY THANK YOU AND DRINK THE MUD OR YOU WILL DIE OF THIRST!!!

…or maybe it’s really brown Kool-Aide. haha

Or a guy in the pouring rain trying to sell a bottle of water he claims he got directly from god.

@MrGrimm888 You can shove my face in it,but don’t expect me to think you’re doing anything but trying to drown me…
If you believe someone has your face in the water holding it down, I cannot imagine who it is because it is not I.

@Seek The thing is, we’re surrounded by water.
You might be, but not all things not good are the size of sharks, pray the germs in it you don’t see don’t doom you in the end, even if yu don’t believe it is in there.

Oh, give it a rest.

I would love to but people keep swatting and s**ting on the floor I have to clean it up.