It groups all people as one but at the same time not all people are one identity are they?
All people do not necessarily have the same identity, no. And all people have an individual identity. I am Didymos Thomas. But I am also an American, and not the only American. And I am also human, and not the only human.
If you are an individual human, you are part of humanity.
Exactly. It groups and condenses all individuals as being one identity when in actuality clearly they are not.
As for the one identity issue, see above. Humanity, like American, like individual (I, self, ect), are labels. All human individuals are labeled Humanity, some human individuals are labeled American, and some portion of reality is labeled an individual.
But unlike whales in zoology or biology through labeling it just doesn't stop their with people in contrast
This super identity over people known as "humanity" then comes up with universal rights, entitlements, values, expressions of worth, regulations, restrictions, varios posturings, evaluations, categorizations and so on.
What's wrong with discussing the nature of humanity? We label things out of convenience; humanity is a label of convenience. These things you mention develop because humans interact with one another. Unless there is only one human, there is reason to investigate the way humans interact.
You will find many dictatorial forms of purpose in markets, governments, religions and so on.
Most of them oppressive and sinister of course.
So what? People tend to be selfish, and as a result, they abuse one another.
As I said before with whales we just use labels and words that is all.
With people we use goals, beliefs, dictatorial categorizations and so on along with labels in contrast.
Because we interact with one another. We do not have
to be so terrible when we interact.
Are you serious? I asked a question about one of your claims.
That only describes us as very destructive and dangerous.
That doesn't entail us a special privilege or right.
That doesn't make us unique. ( Stupid maybe.)
There isn't a privilege or a right to be spoken of - instead there is an obligation to be stewards. Being stewards of the planet is not some joy ride, but something we have to do or we die.
If you admit that then you would also know that the cosmos is indifferent and uncaring being totally unconcerned about our plight not to mention it is unrational having no desire in being rationalized.
The irony of this is that if the destruction of the world by our own species does come about it will come out of our "reason" which has no reason to exist in the first place other than the crazed existential fears that we have brought onto ourselves.
How could non-sentient things have concern of care?
I really do not understand what you are trying to explain with this thread. You criticize the term "humanity", claiming the word causes various things like oppression. But the word "humanity" does not create government, humanity does.
Sure, humanity has messed up quite a bit. But there's your criticism. Instead of saying there is no humanity (because there are, in fact, individual humans), perhaps we should criticize humanity and figure out what humanity should be doing instead of whatever humanity is doing that is causing trouble.
Suffering, destruction and extinction is cosmic.
It is a futile or useless effort in limiting or reducing it.
Sure, these things exist - isn't that the point? If we are capable of reducing them, even in the slightest, shouldn't we?
Never going to happen. Besides were too busy exploiting each other selfishly anyways.
I get that pessimism is your thing, but being pessimistic isn't much of an argument.
And it seems your simply wrong. People do spend their lives trying to reduce the suffering of others. So, obviously "never" was too strong of a word.
You are right about people being selfish. But that's the point - being selfish is a mistake, so let's try not to be so selfish.
Sounds like a absurd one to me.
Sorry to hear that.
No one has ever been nice to you? You have never been nice to anyone?