Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Stupid question?
#21
Quote:So if we do stupid shit to it, then it also does stupid shit back to us in return.

I'd rather put it like this: Do stupid thoughtless shit - face bad consequences.
Reply
#22
Aurora Moon Wrote:...the only difference between us and those other "harmful" animals... is that we can make decisions to do it or not, fully aware of the consequences. that's the only thing that separates us from the animals.

What separates us is the undebated concept that things that die off naturally must be saved from doing so. My original question reflected the moral philosophers who state that keeping every species in existence viable is a good thing. Others reject that as simplistic and harmful by stopping Nature's own plan from coming to fruition. If a species is unsuccessful, then what good is served by not allowing it to quietly fade into oblivion as more successful relatives replace it?

This is becoming more complicated as invasive species that kill off formerly successful species proliferate. The Zebra Mussel and the flying killer fish coming up the Mississippi are good examples. It used to be that invasive species were prevented from making the trip to an undefendable environment because the distances were just too great for it to happen. However; now such critters hitch rides on mankinds' transports and get where they couldn't before.

Anyone who subscribes to Darwin should desire the killing off of what is unsuccessful, so that better things supplant them. The argument that it may not be a natural weeding-out is flawed. What happens happens, neh?
Reply
#23
IMO the difference between natural and unnatural is conciouseness. If men are concious that their action dirctly endanger species, it's not natural anymore.
If one specy uncounciousely destroy another, then it's natural.

When men know what action is causing a specy to nearly disapear, they should do something to reverse that.
Just saying "we shape the world now, others have to adapt to survive - anyway... dinosaurs disapeared too!" is not a responsible attitude.

The goal is not to be natural or unnatural. The goal is to do what's better for us. destroying half of the species on the planet cannot do us any good. Period.

Men have to protect endangered species in the context of preserving their environement to keep their living condition as best as possible.
This is not minkind against nature. It's mankind for mankind.
Reply
#24
(09-22-2011, 05:14 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: IMO the difference between natural and unnatural is conciouseness. If men are concious that their action dirctly endanger species, it's not natural anymore.
If one specy uncounciousely destroy another, then it's natural.

When men know what action is causing a specy to nearly disapear, they should do something to reverse that.
Just saying "we shape the world now, others have to adapt to survive - anyway... dinosaurs disapeared too!" is not a responsible attitude.

The goal is not to be natural or unnatural. The goal is to do what's better for us. destroying half of the species on the planet cannot do us any good. Period.

Men have to protect endangered species in the context of preserving their environement to keep their living condition as best as possible.
This is not minkind against nature. It's mankind for mankind.

I don't see the logic. Mankind is natural. If species die off, what is the problem with half the species on Earth dying off if they are supplanted by more successful ones?
Reply
#25
Ho Hum. The world has been there, done that several times already.

The only wrinkle now is that some humans try to guilt trip other humans. Bad bad humans.

Let's see now. We can't blame Darwin for these extinctions. Man was not there, nor was Womyn. Who else could we blame, G-d bless our blame addicted souls?S4

Quote: Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event (End Cretaceous or K-T extinction) – 65.5 Ma at the Cretaceous.Maastrichtian-Paleogene.Danian transition interval.[4] The K–T event is now called the Cretaceous–Paleogene (or K–Pg) extinction event by many researchers. About 17% of all families, 50% of all genera[5] and 75% of species became extinct.[6] In the seas it reduced the percentage of sessile animals to about 33%. The boundary event was severe with a significant amount of variability in the rate of extinction between and among different clades. Mammals and birds emerged as dominant land vertebrates in the age of new life.
Triassic–Jurassic extinction event (End Triassic) – 205 Ma at the Triassic-Jurassic transition. About 23% of all families and 48% of all genera (20% of marine families and 55% of marine genera) went extinct.[5] Most non-dinosaurian archosaurs, most therapsids, and most of the large amphibians were eliminated, leaving dinosaurs with little terrestrial competition. Non-dinosaurian archosaurs continued to dominate aquatic environments, while non-archosaurian diapsids continued to dominate marine environments. The Temnospondyl lineage of large amphibians also survived until the Cretaceous in Australia (e.g., Koolasuchus).
Permian–Triassic extinction event (End Permian) – 251 Ma at the Permian-Triassic transition. Earth's largest extinction killed 57% of all families and 83% of all genera[5] (53% of marine families, 84% of marine genera, about 96% of all marine species and an estimated 70% of land species) including insects.[7] The evidence of plants is less clear, but new taxa became dominant after the extinction.[8] The "Great Dying" had enormous evolutionary significance: on land, it ended the primacy of mammal-like reptiles. The recovery of vertebrates took 30 million years,[9] but the vacant niches created the opportunity for archosaurs to become ascendant. In the seas, the percentage of animals that were sessile dropped from 67% to 50%. The whole late Permian was a difficult time for at least marine life, even before the "Great Dying".
Late Devonian extinction – 360–375 Ma near the Devonian-Carboniferous transition. At the end of the Frasnian Age in the later part(s) of the Devonian Period, a prolonged series of extinctions eliminated about 19% of all families, 50% of all genera[5] and 70% of all species.[citation needed] This extinction event lasted perhaps as long as 20 MY, and there is evidence for a series of extinction pulses within this period.
Ordovician–Silurian extinction event (End Ordovician or O-S) – 440–450 Ma at the Ordovician-Silurian transition. Two events occurred that killed off 27% of all families and 57% of all genera.[5] Together they are ranked by many scientists as the second largest of the five major extinctions in Earth's history in terms of percentage of genera that went extinct.

LINK

Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#26
Yeah, comets can definitely make a bigger impact than anything we could even dream up. Perhaps we habitually flatter ourselves, if we believe we are about to cause a 'great dying' any time soon.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#27
This topic brings up some interesting ideas that should be examined more closely.

Is man a part of nature evolved from a process of natural selection? If you believe this than certainly it would be illogical to deem any of his deeds as anything but the natural course of events regardless of the constructive or destructive effects.

If you believe man is put on this earth by a divine being that inhabits some other world then as a matter of semantics you believe you were created by an alien and put here to inhabit this foreign world and are as such a guest charged with its stewardship.

Or as suggested man is indeed natural and "unnatural" is a consequence of our consciousness. Well now we're going down a very interesting road. Define Consciousness. Conscious of what exactly? Since the beginning of recorded history man has played with altered states of consciousness and explored those bounds.

I mean how many of us really live in the most real and natural conditions. How many of us focus the attention of our conscious minds on things which aren't real or tangible or important for that matter.

"And down through the centuries the robes have never failed to keep the public at a respectful distance, inspire a decent awe for the professions, and impart an air of solemnity and mystery that has been as good as money in the bank. The four faculties of theology, philosophy, medicine, and law have been the perennial seedbeds, not only of professional wisdom, but of the quackery and venality so generously exposed to public view by Plato, Rabelais, Molière, Swift, Gibbon, A. E. Housman, H. L. Mencken, and others. What took place in the Greco-Roman as in the Christian world was that fatal shift from leadership to management that marks the decline and fall of civilizations." - taken from a speech by Hugh Nibley
Reply
#28
(10-01-2011, 05:45 PM)TheMan Wrote: This topic brings up some interesting ideas that should be examined more closely.

Is man a part of nature evolved from a process of natural selection? If you believe this than certainly it would be illogical to deem any of his deeds as anything but the natural course of events regardless of the constructive or destructive effects.

If you believe man is put on this earth by a divine being that inhabits some other world then as a matter of semantics you believe you were created by an alien and put here to inhabit this foreign world and are as such a guest charged with its stewardship.

Or as suggested man is indeed natural and "unnatural" is a consequence of our consciousness. Well now we're going down a very interesting road. Define Consciousness. Conscious of what exactly? Since the beginning of recorded history man has played with altered states of consciousness and explored those bounds.

I mean how many of us really live in the most real and natural conditions. How many of us focus the attention of our conscious minds on things which aren't real or tangible or important for that matter.

Philosophers have argued about the origins of man and why man seems to be strongly quantitatively different from other animals for a long time. Today people quibble about whether the "consciousness" and "intelligence" of man is "that different at all" from the rest of the animals. And we are expected to take sides between the Creationists (Christian, Muslim, Hindoo) or the Darwinists (out of muck ye came and to muck ye shall return) without much thought.

As you note, people have loved alternate reality for years: One of the first written words (on stone tablets) described how to make beer. Today, we have a plethora of legal and illegal drugs to do the job. In addition we also have virtual reality (internet, TV, etc. etc.) to relieve us of the tedium of not having to fend for ourselves.

When I was a kid, most people knew how to make soap, forge iron, hunt, grow a garden, raise animals, cure meat, store vegetables, make clothes, etc. Or, if they did not know, there was someone in the neighborhood who did. All this is gone today, even by 1970 most of it was gone. Today's people live in a very detached world. Food comes from the grocery store. Iron comes from the hardware store. (Do they know what iron is??) All you this you pay for with paper money or welfare cards, and watch TV or surf AlGore's creation to pass the time.

And the pastimes today seem to be quibbling about abstractions, sports, etc. and waxing hot about this polarized belief or that. No one seems to be able to have an informed discussion because they are ignorant of past ideas and ill trained in ratiocination. So they just get hot and excited.



Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#29
jt Wrote:...When I was a kid, most people knew how to make soap, forge iron, hunt, grow a garden, raise animals, cure meat, store vegetables, make clothes, etc. Or, if they did not know, there was someone in the neighborhood who did. All this is gone today, even by 1970 most of it was gone. Today's people live in a very detached world. Food comes from the grocery store. Iron comes from the hardware store. (Do they know what iron is??) All you this you pay for with paper money or welfare cards, and watch TV or surf AlGore's creation to pass the time.

And the pastimes today seem to be quibbling about abstractions, sports, etc. and waxing hot about this polarized belief or that. No one seems to be able to have an informed discussion because they are ignorant of past ideas and ill trained in ratiocination. So they just get hot and excited.

It is said that Erasmus was the last man to know everything. After him the world's technology and lore expanded exponentially, and there was no way to know it all. The greatest minds have always admitted they stand on the shoulders of those who came before. However, communication has also expanded exponentially, and the ability to access data is greater than ever. If we take that telepathy implant from another thread and use it with processing assists, like math chips or memory storage outside the brain - perhaps, even if we can't know it all, we could access everything we need to know when we need to use it.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)