>>>>>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38957020/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Nothing is more important than saving ... the Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels. The humans? The planet does not need humans."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What a looney.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You think the planet needs humans? For what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Humans are the best known predictors of the future. Any way the planet could benefit from human foresight would be lost if there were no humans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>For example, predicting and possibly diverting the next mass-extinction-causing asteroid impact. Or, if impact is inevitable, prepare as best as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think you've just moved the argument from the definition of 'need' to the definition of 'benefit' :-}
>>>>>
>>>>>Surely 'need' is essentially a psychological definition. The planet is incapable of 'needing' anything. If someone says the planet 'needs' something what they really mean is 'I need the planet to have something for my benefit;'
>>>>
>>>>The ability to "need" depends on your definition of the "planet". If you're referring to a sterile ball of rock, then yes, it's not capable of any "need". The thin biological skin on its surface, however, definitely has needs in order to survive.
>>>>
>>>>So, the question really is whether the thin biological skin is part of the planet. I think it is.
>>>
>>>Oh-ho a Gaia man :-}
>>
>>No, that's something completely different. Anyone who proclaims any belief, or even sympathy for a "Gaia" concept earns my deepest suspicions.
>>
>>>>Your last sentence is a useful first lens through which to view claims made by environmentalists etc.; but altruism is at least theoretically possible.
>>>
>>>I think Altruism has been postulated as a useful evolutionary trait - which doesn't make it less selfish. And it's very easy to confuse Altruism with Arrogance in this context.
>>
>>Altruism as a useful evolutionary trait has only been postulated for (mainly closely related) consanguine kin.
>Not really. Have you read Matt Ridley's 'The origins of virtue' ?

No.

>
>> That doesn't explain charitable donations for Haiti/Pakistani etc. relief.
>The above goes a long way to giving a plausible explanation.

How so?
>
>>
>>And, you're implying selfish a bad thing! Are you a commie or something? :-\
>Hmmm I didn't think I was implying that either altruism or selfishness were 'good' or 'bad' - they are both part of the human condition that in certain circumstances aid survival....