I don't think ethnicities are "inherently" better, but some cultures, and by extension the people of that culture, certainly are.

You're probably not qualified to logically make any assumptions of any cultures being better than the other.

Do you really believe a fly or mouse is worth as much as a human?

Flies don't have really pain or brains much, but a mouse, absolutely. It's terrible how they're dealt with, though. Furthermore, it doesn't even matter. It's not as if most beasts will get offended if humans say they're the best beast, but what does matter, is their lives.

Imagine if much more advanced aliens came to the Earth. If they dealt with us, like we dealt with other beasts, we're in for trouble, and we earned 150% of it. Do as you would like to have done.

You're probably not qualified to logically make any assumptions of any cultures being better than the other.

Darwinism ftw

Humans are beasts, but yes, they can't really be classed as anything other as specie: wise man.

I'll use this as a base to answer most of the stuff here. As Жұқтыру said, humans aren't better then animals, we just happen to be some evolved monkeys that have a bigger brain then the rest. Any argument pro-supremacy of the "human kind" is mostly done under religious concepts, you know, that idea that god created men at his image.

Any kind of supremacy is a problem, until people understand that there isn't such a thing as pure superiority, but rather a complex spectrum of local advantages based on million of years of luck.


Major, that quote serves to you too. People overate too much mankind. We're nothing but advanced beasts. The lack of a police, a central justice system and even a light military will certainly end with a widespread return to a primitive state of fight for survival and early government formations.

I don't think ethnicities are "inherently" better, but some cultures, and by extension the people of that culture, certainly are.

Therefore you're supporting that some ethnical groups are superior to others. Using this "soft" vocabulary doesn't make it any less racist I fear...

Darwinism ftw

I'm pretty sure we don't know the same Darwin lol. Darwinism says that the most advanced individuals/groups/species will survive and transmit their genes to their kids. As long as there's muslims that are alive and reproducing well, they're winning under darwin's idea. As are christians, budhists, americans, south africans, blacks, whites,...

Edited 4/20/2016 00:34:48

Militaries are useless when there are no governments, the point of a military is to gather more land to govern. You rob someone, no one will deal with you again and some people will try to kill you, deterrent enough, if not deterrent enough, private police. You've failed to state how if humans naturally want to kill each other, we don't kill each other off at random more often.

I see this as an awful kind of supremacism. It's no better than some ethnicities thinking they're "inherently better" and worth more than others.

Yet, the very fact that you are sending me this message disproves your point. I live in tennessee, a part of the united states of america, whereas you live in Eritrea, or Kazakhstan, or whatever other place you live in that is not America. If we were beasts, we would never even have the chance to have a discussion, as even if you traveled to Tennessee by somehow overcoming the Ocean, deserts and thick forests that separate us, you would still not be able to communicate with me due to the fact that Beasts have no language.

However, we are not beasts. We can instantly communicate with each other using language, over a network of computers all over the world. This alone proves that Humans are superior, since most animals only have very basic forms of communication.

Furthermore, most beasts have on par with, and sometimes even superior physical capabilities form humans, ie Most animals have arms, legs, brains, and the like. Humans are obviously something special, as our intellectual accomplishments simply outpace that of any beast by many orders of magnitudes. There is no species in the world that is comparable to humans.

Yet, the very fact that you are sending me this message disproves your point. I live in tennessee, a part of the united states of america, whereas you live in Eritrea, or Kazakhstan, or whatever other place you live in that is not America. If we were beasts, we would never even have the chance to have a discussion, as even if you traveled to Tennessee by somehow overcoming the Ocean, deserts and thick forests that separate us, you would still not be able to communicate with me due to the fact that Beasts have no language.

However, we are not beasts. We can instantly communicate with each other using language, over a network of computers all over the world. This alone proves that Humans are superior, since most animals only have very basic forms of communication.

Furthermore, most beasts have on par with, and sometimes even superior physical capabilities form humans, ie Most animals have arms, legs, brains, and the like. Humans are obviously something special, as our intellectual accomplishments simply outpace that of any beast by many orders of magnitudes. There is no species in the world that is comparable to humans.

Humans have done much more than other beasts, so what? Germans did much more than and were better-taught and brought the first telegrammes to Namibia that could connect to all about the world. None of that's justification at all to kill in bulk Namibians.

Again, do you think aliens should deal with us like s--- like we deal with other beasts? Pray to the gods that aliens will be kinder and more selfless than humans.

From the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much – the wheel, New York, wars and so on – whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man – for precisely the same reasons.

Edited 4/20/2016 00:57:21

Humans deal with beasts through necessity first then habit afterwards. Why did we imprison cattle and molest them and eat their children? We would have died without doing that. Now? We do it because we've done it since forever. So most likely, aliens would not have to eat us or imprison us (they are space-faring, they ought to be able to provide for themselves without eating things from another planet) and they can't do something from habit that they've never done.

Also this is why genetically modified foodstuffs and mass bug eating will be good, less pressure on the conscience of the conscious.

Humans have done much more than other beasts, so what? Germans did much more than and were better-taught and brought the first telegrammes to Namibia that could connect to all about the world. None of that's justification at all to kill in bulk Namibians.

Again, do you think aliens should deal with us like s--- like we deal with other beasts? Pray to the gods that aliens will be kinder and more selfless than humans.

I am a firm believer in the idea that it is never justifiable to kill another human, as I'm sure you're aware of by now. However, I'd like to ask you this question. Is it justifiable to kill other humans simply because they are not as developed as you? The answer would seem to be yes according to your logic on abortion.

Believe me, if there were aliens with the same mental capacity as humans. we would know about them by now. Therefore, these aliens exist only as a thought experiment, and in my opinion, a pointless one.

However, I'd like to ask you this question. Is it justifiable to kill other humans simply because they are not as developed as you? The answer would seem to be yes according to your logic on abortion.

No, as long as the beast will not be missed and will not die in a painful way. I'm a big supporter of soap and killing germs, mainly since noone, human or not, gets psychologically attached to germs, or literally brainless life.

Believe me, if there were aliens with the same mental capacity as humans. we would know about them by now. Therefore, these aliens exist only as a thought experiment, and in my opinion, a pointless one.

It's loads of speculation, don't do as if you know everything. There've been no definite signs of aliens, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Furthermore, what does it matter?

Would you want more developed life forms to disregard your life's worth totally, and kill you and your kind, painfully and in bulk?

Anarchy = Without rulers

Nothing bad about that.

There are many bad things about that. How would diseases be handled? How would we stop the apocalypse from happening? Also, since no major scientific projects would be carried out, we would be stuck on Earth until it is swallowed by the Sun. We NEED to get off to continue the human race. Plus,l with anarchy, much needed scientific advancement would be lost (space travel, antibiotics) and it would push humanity back MANY years before governments set themselves back up. Anarchy is not a state of mind humanity needs at this time. Just look at Somalia... it's terrible down there.

Edited 4/20/2016 01:16:53

Believe me, if there were aliens with the same mental capacity as humans. we would know about them by now. Therefore, these aliens exist only as a thought experiment, and in my opinion, a pointless one.

You are directly referring to the Fermi Paradox.
https://m.youtube.com/?reload=7&rdm=1zd93d67z#/watch?v=sNhhvQGsMEc

How would diseases be handled?

A company or charity starts working on a cure, and if the disease is lethal enough would most likely ship it out for free to not lose all of their customers.

How would we stop the apocalypse from happening?

Doesn't exist, and if it does it is not stoppable. What kind of religious weirdo are you that asks how to stop the apocalypse when supposedly you would want it due to you being a religious weirdo.

we would be stuck on Earth until it is swallowed by the Sun

Private space travel

Just look at Somalia

Al-Shabab, Mogadishu and Somililand are not anarchist.

No, as long as the beast will not be missed and will not die in a painful way. I'm a big supporter of soap and killing germs, mainly since noone, human or not, gets psychologically attached to germs, or literally brainless life.

Missing people is very much an invented practice. If there was a society where death was celebrated, this does not take away the humanity of the person who died, but it's rather just a different culture. Suggesting that the people who are a part of it are somehow less human is pretty racist.

It's loads of speculation, don't do as if you know everything. There've been no definite signs of aliens, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Furthermore, what does it matter?

Would you want more developed life forms to disregard your life's worth totally, and kill you and your kind, painfully and in bulk?

The real question is whether animals are even capable of wanting or not wanting this. Most animals are not even capable of imagining or being opposed to the idea that they will be raised for the sole purpose of being killed and eaten.

You are directly referring to the Fermi Paradox.
https://m.youtube.com/?reload=7&rdm=1zd93d67z#/watch?v=sNhhvQGsMEc

I'm well aware of the concept. However, my belief is that human society is advancing so rapidly, and so many previous "Impossibilities" are being discovered as possible that if there were a race capable of overcoming impossibilities like humans have, they would have done so and we would know about it.

For example, Many humans believe that it is impossible for anything with mass to travel at the speed of light. Likewise, several hundred years ago, many people believed that it was impossible for a flying machine to cross the atlantic ocean. I believe that like the latter, the former is actually possible with more advanced technology that we don't yet have.

Edited 4/20/2016 01:30:59

A company or charity starts working on a cure, and if the disease is lethal enough would most likely ship it out for free to not lose all of their customers.

A company or a charity would not be true anarchy as it is headed by leaders.

Doesn't exist, and if it does it is not stoppable. What kind of religious weirdo are you that asks how to stop the apocalypse when supposedly you would want it due to you being a religious weirdo.

Fine, I'll use the term "end of humanity event." This would include a pandemic (stoppable), meteor impact (Eventually stoppable) and many other possibilities.

Private space travel

Corporations would have leaders, therefore the corporations are not true anarchy.

Missing people is very much an invented practice. If there was a society where death was celebrated, this does not take away the humanity of the person who died, but it's rather just a different culture. Suggesting that the people who are a part of it are somehow less human is pretty racist.

In that society, if death is thought to be a good thing, then, what? I'm fully for consenting suicide or helped suicide. Saying they're not human wouldn't be racist, it would just be wrong. If everyone likes death so much there, than be my guest and die, I don't see what your point is.

The real question is whether animals are even capable of wanting or not wanting this. Most animals are not even capable of imagining or being opposed to the idea that they will be raised for the sole purpose of being killed and eaten.

You're still evading my "thought experiment". And it's not the thought of being killed or eaten that's the worst, it's being killed and eaten. I'm not too afraid of my death, but I couldn't bear to have the folk who love me be notified of it.

Most babies, until they've a few years, can not imagine being killed either, that doesn't mean that it's okay to kill them. But babies that don't have the psychologyit's fully fine to kill them, as well as anybody else that does not have the psychology development of life nor human ties.

For example, Many humans believe that it is impossible for anything with mass to travel at the speed of light. Likewise, several hundred years ago, many people believed that it was impossible for a flying machine to cross the atlantic ocean.

The difference is, for weight to go at vacuum light-speed, there's good scientific backing to it, when (qualified) folk say that you probably can't, where as back then, all you had to know was that it was ridiculous.

The basis of Anarcho-Capitalism is voluntaryism and the non-aggression principal. You are completely free to deal with one company or another or none at all, and they cannot force you to shop there. You are free to work at a company or not. You are not ruled over.

The problem with unrule is that governments will come out of unrule - it's near guaranteed. A government is just an alliance of businesses that got powerful enough to mandate their will upon all.

To build a government out of a bunch of businesses would be very hard, it was easier when all you had were tribes that were used to strong rule then build up. Monopolies would be broken after a while in a free market because of the incentives for doing so are very good. If you and nine other businesses that sell firewood and coal have fixed a price for coal and firewood, you only have to lower your price and most folk will shop at your company ,driving up your profits.