Something of a philosophical question. By what criteria would you define specific forms of life as being valuable, worth preserving etc? This will almost certainly have overlaps with abortion debates, and feel free to refer to it, but I mean in much broader terms that abortion here.
That's a hard topic! To me, "Life" is anything that constitutes the ability to learn and adapt. Anything that has the ability to survive and the DRIVE and WANT to survive is life. So plants, animals...and humans. And anything else out there in the universe. As for topics like abortion, I believe that's left to the parents decision and their decision alone. Part of being as smart as we humans are is that we not only survive, but we also make our own decisions on our future and the future of others. The problem is, human morality gets in the way and can cause problems. But I think that growing as a species and society that, that's something we just learn to deal with.
imo, everything has value. something being alive (me, an animal, a tree) is already fulfilling its "purpose", but nothing operates outside of greater systems. Heron without frog or fish dies like the frog and fish die without insect larvae in the marsh. Life is what it looks like, something being "worthy" of preservation entirely depends on what it contributes to the system it's found itself in. domestic cats are worthless for already instable wilderness settings, but find a home in human environments because of their symbiosis with humans. a redwood tree is worthless if somehow grown in the southwest, but acts as a keystone species in a northwestern forests.
I define life as anything that has a pattern, grows, and alters its environment against entropy. That INCLUDES inorganic life if it exists somewhere. I think all life is worth preserving due to the extreme slim chances of it being formed in the first place. Even viruses have a place in nature.
I think people have somewhat misinterpreted my question. I'm not asking for what constitutes life, but what constitutes valuable life. For instance, I'd imagine people would agree with me that a self aware, conscious human should not be murdered. And that its perfectly acceptable to kill and eat plants. I doubt people worry about disinfecting the toilet. So... where do you draw the line? And how?
Well really, I believe there are many humans who I would not act to preserve. I'd rather shoot a murderee then an innocent animal. With intelligence comes evil, so I'd be more willing to end an evil life. Killing and eating is an unfair arguement. We are omnivores meant to eat both plants and meat. Our teeth tell us all we need to know. So I guess EVERYTHING is worth saving. Disinfecting the toilet amd killing one murderer won't upset the balance of the species. ERADICATING E. Coli and humans would have huge impacts on both kibds of life. There is good E. Coli in our gut and there are good people on earth. One extinction sends ripples throughout the ecosystem.
Alright...well if I'm understanding correctly, then all life is valuable in my opinion. Selfless killing like murder is bad in my opinion and where I would draw the line, but eating plants and animals to survive is sometimes necessary. You can argue that's bad or good but in my opinion, if you need to do it to survive, then it is good. And leave it at that
When it comes to humans, I don't think I'm in the position to say if a life is valuable or worth living. I'm in favour of the right of self-determination and it's really up to the indivudual. To me it's unacceptable that anyone interferes with someone's life and tells them what to do or not do with their lives. EDIT: this probably isn't what you expected with this thread but whatever
