I think humans would be most harmonious with the Earth if we were to be a hunter-gatherer society.
Do you honestly, truly believe that you would survive in such a society? Nothing personal, because I don't know anything about you personally, but do you honestly believe that you could hunt and kill your own food, treat your own injuries, monitor your own health, fight for territory?
Have you ever broken a bone, let's say your ankle? If so, you're dead now. Ever had a significant infection? Dead. Did your mother have complications or unusual bleeding when you were born? If so, she's dead, and probably so are you. The planet supports a population of more than 6 billion which, yes, is too many people. IF we all went back to hunter-gatherer state...what, maybe 100 million? Do you think you'd be one of the few strong, tough, lucky individuals who survive that?
I know I'd be dead in a week if I had to find, kill or gather and prepare my own food.
Honestly, if I didn't survive, thats the way it is, and I don't see how thats relevant. If we went back and the global population was 100 million, how is this a bad thing? You assume more is better, when its not true. Theres always an optimal level for something...100 million might just be the optimal population of humans.
You're ignoring the fact that it's the nature of humans to do what we've done. Unless you're making a fundamental change to the way human beings are constructed, it will always be our nature to try and understand the world around us, to use that understanding to create efficiencies, and to use those efficiencies to our advantage, whether individual or collective.
No I'm not ignoring the fact. Just because its our nature doesn't mean I can't critique it and voice my dissent.
Honestly, if I didn't survive, thats the way it is, and I don't see how thats relevant. If we went back and the global population was 100 million, how is this a bad thing? You assume more is better, when its not true. Theres always an optimal level for something...100 million might just be the optimal population of humans.
Shouldn't you, as a rational actor in your own life want to support policies that would keep you from being killed off almost immediately? What is to stop the people, now without you leading the global crusade toward hunter gatherer barbarism, and all you can eat human BBQ until the population stabilizes, from just deciding the idea sucked now that you are gone? I mean hell its all fun and games to butcher our neighbors, get some rioting and looting in, and degenerate into a state of feral barbarism during the summer rerun months. However once the fall season starts people are not going to want to miss their favorite shows.
I think you're forgetting an important aspect of science, or at least the ideal scientific process: all knowledge is inherently limited and provisional.
Obviously this isn't being practiced, considering how strongly people are responding to me voicing doubt over science in general.
Sure, it sounds great in theory, but if you don't agree with the prevailing theories of the time you are an idiot, no?
To be sure, you're right that scientists don't always stick to these bases of the scientific process, because they're human. We aren't perfect. The fact that some people profess to use science without understanding what it means should not compel us to throw the entire though structure away, any more than hypocritical religious folk who treat people like shit once they leave the church should compel us to throw religion away. It means that better education is needed.
And feel free to disagree with prevailing theories of the time. That's how advancements are made in any area of life. Ironically, I don't think you understand that science encourages disagreement and debate, so that the best ideas can be advanced. But you have to back up your ideas with some facts and evidence. THe most extraordinary statements must be backed with the most extraordinary evidence, there's your checks and balances.
GoodOmens on
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited June 2009
Wait should we allow language at all?
It might lead to thinking, and that will rape the Earth!
Why are you all attacking me so viciously? I am merely using my free will and voicing some of my thoughts.
So are we.
Your thoughts are stupid. If you didn't want to open yourself to criticism, perhaps this is not the place for you.
Yeah, because opening myself up to criticism is exactly the same as getting harassed.
If you haven't noticed, I'm responding to the people that are voicing their opinions kindly (or in a semi-kind way).
The way you want to critique me is barbaric and immature, to be honest.
Would this be a bad time to point out that the ideal you wish to abide by is barbaric and immature?
No, the ideal that I wish that we all would abide by allows the Earth to live and other species to co-exist harmoniously with us.
As another user has said, humans are like a virus, and thats a wonderful way of putting it. Sure, all of this advancement is great to you, but at what cost to the Earth?
Deep ecology is an interesting theory, but it kind of relies on a mixture of science and nature worship, both of which you apparently hate.
If humans were gone, the Earth might heal itself from the changes man has inflicted. But you have to realize the inherent irony in expecting a lack of anthropocentrism in the only species capable of understanding such a concept.
You wouldn't expect a lion to stop being a lion because it was hurting the planet. You're asking that from humans, though.
To be fair, a lion does what a lion does to survive. Or does what it does to at least do what it believes needs to be done for survival. I would state (an educated guess) that 95-99% of life on the planet does most of their activities based on survival. A lion won't kill you because you called it's mother fat, or because you believe something the lion doesn't.
Humans, on the other hand, will kill and destory for pleasure, money, beliefs, disbeliefs, power, land, shiney rocks, because the voices told them to or any other reason you can imagine. Not many animals aside from people will kill "just cause''. Humans also are the most destructive animal on the planet, changing and destroying entire ecosystems by either doing it ourselves or incorporating and/or taking out different aspects of an ecosystem.
But here is the thing, we would have to damn near destory the planet to make it 100% inhospitibal to all life, since I am pretty sure that there are forms of life now that can withstand just about anything we could do to the planet and then become the dominate species.
Why are you all attacking me so viciously? I am merely using my free will and voicing some of my thoughts.
So are we.
Your thoughts are stupid. If you didn't want to open yourself to criticism, perhaps this is not the place for you.
Yeah, because opening myself up to criticism is exactly the same as getting harassed.
If you haven't noticed, I'm responding to the people that are voicing their opinions kindly (or in a semi-kind way).
The way you want to critique me is barbaric and immature, to be honest.
Would this be a bad time to point out that the ideal you wish to abide by is barbaric and immature?
No, the ideal that I wish that we all would abide by allows the Earth to live and other species to co-exist harmoniously with us.
As another user has said, humans are like a virus, and thats a wonderful way of putting it. Sure, all of this advancement is great to you, but at what cost to the Earth?
So you're saying we should live in a completely vegan society devoid of technology? Because technology could eventually one day result in the destruction of the Earth?
I think humans would be most harmonious with the Earth if we were to be a hunter-gatherer society.
Do you honestly, truly believe that you would survive in such a society? Nothing personal, because I don't know anything about you personally, but do you honestly believe that you could hunt and kill your own food, treat your own injuries, monitor your own health, fight for territory?
Have you ever broken a bone, let's say your ankle? If so, you're dead now. Ever had a significant infection? Dead. Did your mother have complications or unusual bleeding when you were born? If so, she's dead, and probably so are you. The planet supports a population of more than 6 billion which, yes, is too many people. IF we all went back to hunter-gatherer state...what, maybe 100 million? Do you think you'd be one of the few strong, tough, lucky individuals who survive that?
I know I'd be dead in a week if I had to find, kill or gather and prepare my own food.
Honestly, if I didn't survive, thats the way it is, and I don't see how thats relevant. If we went back and the global population was 100 million, how is this a bad thing? You assume more is better, when its not true. Theres always an optimal level for something...100 million might just be the optimal population of humans.
You're ignoring the fact that it's the nature of humans to do what we've done. Unless you're making a fundamental change to the way human beings are constructed, it will always be our nature to try and understand the world around us, to use that understanding to create efficiencies, and to use those efficiencies to our advantage, whether individual or collective.
No I'm not ignoring the fact. Just because its our nature doesn't mean I can't critique it and voice my dissent.
All of your arguments seem to be made with the idea that something is supposed to benefit from there being less humans.
I think humans would be most harmonious with the Earth if we were to be a hunter-gatherer society.
Do you honestly, truly believe that you would survive in such a society? Nothing personal, because I don't know anything about you personally, but do you honestly believe that you could hunt and kill your own food, treat your own injuries, monitor your own health, fight for territory?
Have you ever broken a bone, let's say your ankle? If so, you're dead now. Ever had a significant infection? Dead. Did your mother have complications or unusual bleeding when you were born? If so, she's dead, and probably so are you. The planet supports a population of more than 6 billion which, yes, is too many people. IF we all went back to hunter-gatherer state...what, maybe 100 million? Do you think you'd be one of the few strong, tough, lucky individuals who survive that?
I know I'd be dead in a week if I had to find, kill or gather and prepare my own food.
Honestly, if I didn't survive, thats the way it is, and I don't see how thats relevant. If we went back and the global population was 100 million, how is this a bad thing? You assume more is better, when its not true. Theres always an optimal level for something...100 million might just be the optimal population of humans.
You're ignoring the fact that it's the nature of humans to do what we've done. Unless you're making a fundamental change to the way human beings are constructed, it will always be our nature to try and understand the world around us, to use that understanding to create efficiencies, and to use those efficiencies to our advantage, whether individual or collective.
No I'm not ignoring the fact. Just because its our nature doesn't mean I can't critique it and voice my dissent.
All of your arguments seem to be made with the idea that something is supposed to benefit from there being less humans.
Why are you all attacking me so viciously? I am merely using my free will and voicing some of my thoughts.
So are we.
Your thoughts are stupid. If you didn't want to open yourself to criticism, perhaps this is not the place for you.
Yeah, because opening myself up to criticism is exactly the same as getting harassed.
If you haven't noticed, I'm responding to the people that are voicing their opinions kindly (or in a semi-kind way).
The way you want to critique me is barbaric and immature, to be honest.
Would this be a bad time to point out that the ideal you wish to abide by is barbaric and immature?
No, the ideal that I wish that we all would abide by allows the Earth to live and other species to co-exist harmoniously with us.
As another user has said, humans are like a virus, and thats a wonderful way of putting it. Sure, all of this advancement is great to you, but at what cost to the Earth?
Deep ecology is an interesting theory, but it kind of relies on a mixture of science and nature worship, both of which you apparently hate.
If humans were gone, the Earth might heal itself from the changes man has inflicted. But you have to realize the inherent irony in expecting a lack of anthropocentrism in the only species capable of understanding such a concept.
You wouldn't expect a lion to stop being a lion because it was hurting the planet. You're asking that from humans, though.
To be fair, a lion does what a lion does to survive. Or does what it does to at least do what it believes needs to be done for survival. I would state (an educated guess) that 95-99% of life on the planet does most of their activities based on survival. A lion won't kill you because you called it's mother fat, or because you believe something the lion doesn't.
Humans, on the other hand, will kill and destory for pleasure, money, beliefs, disbeliefs, power, land, shiney rocks, because the voices told them to or any other reason you can imagine. Not many animals aside from people will kill "just cause''. Humans also are the most destructive animal on the planet, changing and destroying entire ecosystems by either doing it ourselves or incorporating and/or taking out different aspects of an ecosystem.
But here is the thing, we would have to damn near destory the planet to make it 100% inhospitibal to all life, since I am pretty sure that there are forms of life now that can withstand just about anything we could do to the planet and then become the dominate species.
Go find a lion and call it's mother fat. To it's face.
I think humans would be most harmonious with the Earth if we were to be a hunter-gatherer society.
Do you honestly, truly believe that you would survive in such a society? Nothing personal, because I don't know anything about you personally, but do you honestly believe that you could hunt and kill your own food, treat your own injuries, monitor your own health, fight for territory?
Have you ever broken a bone, let's say your ankle? If so, you're dead now. Ever had a significant infection? Dead. Did your mother have complications or unusual bleeding when you were born? If so, she's dead, and probably so are you. The planet supports a population of more than 6 billion which, yes, is too many people. IF we all went back to hunter-gatherer state...what, maybe 100 million? Do you think you'd be one of the few strong, tough, lucky individuals who survive that?
I know I'd be dead in a week if I had to find, kill or gather and prepare my own food.
Honestly, if I didn't survive, thats the way it is, and I don't see how thats relevant. If we went back and the global population was 100 million, how is this a bad thing? You assume more is better, when its not true. Theres always an optimal level for something...100 million might just be the optimal population of humans.
You're ignoring the fact that it's the nature of humans to do what we've done. Unless you're making a fundamental change to the way human beings are constructed, it will always be our nature to try and understand the world around us, to use that understanding to create efficiencies, and to use those efficiencies to our advantage, whether individual or collective.
No I'm not ignoring the fact. Just because its our nature doesn't mean I can't critique it and voice my dissent.
All of your arguments seem to be made with the idea that something is supposed to benefit from there being less humans.
Obviously its not humans, so who? Or what?
Obviously the Earth would benefit from there being substantially less humans.
And actually, yeah, like I said early on, humans WOULD benefit to there being less of us. We are sucking the Earth dry and overpopulating it, and its not going to be able to support us in time.
Why are you all attacking me so viciously? I am merely using my free will and voicing some of my thoughts.
So are we.
Your thoughts are stupid. If you didn't want to open yourself to criticism, perhaps this is not the place for you.
Yeah, because opening myself up to criticism is exactly the same as getting harassed.
If you haven't noticed, I'm responding to the people that are voicing their opinions kindly (or in a semi-kind way).
The way you want to critique me is barbaric and immature, to be honest.
Would this be a bad time to point out that the ideal you wish to abide by is barbaric and immature?
No, the ideal that I wish that we all would abide by allows the Earth to live and other species to co-exist harmoniously with us.
As another user has said, humans are like a virus, and thats a wonderful way of putting it. Sure, all of this advancement is great to you, but at what cost to the Earth?
Deep ecology is an interesting theory, but it kind of relies on a mixture of science and nature worship, both of which you apparently hate.
If humans were gone, the Earth might heal itself from the changes man has inflicted. But you have to realize the inherent irony in expecting a lack of anthropocentrism in the only species capable of understanding such a concept.
You wouldn't expect a lion to stop being a lion because it was hurting the planet. You're asking that from humans, though.
To be fair, a lion does what a lion does to survive. Or does what it does to at least do what it believes needs to be done for survival. I would state (an educated guess) that 95-99% of life on the planet does most of their activities based on survival. A lion won't kill you because you called it's mother fat, or because you believe something the lion doesn't.
Humans, on the other hand, will kill and destory for pleasure, money, beliefs, disbeliefs, power, land, shiney rocks, because the voices told them to or any other reason you can imagine. Not many animals aside from people will kill "just cause''. Humans also are the most destructive animal on the planet, changing and destroying entire ecosystems by either doing it ourselves or incorporating and/or taking out different aspects of an ecosystem.
There are plenty of primates that kill for pleasure and ritual, not just survival. Humans are the most destructive animal because we are the most evolved. Our capacities are also our capacities to do damage. We just need to keep evolving as a species to a point where we realize that sustainability is more important than endless acquisition. Like the paradigm shift that originally occurred when humans stopped foraging and started farming.
Why are you all attacking me so viciously? I am merely using my free will and voicing some of my thoughts.
So are we.
Your thoughts are stupid. If you didn't want to open yourself to criticism, perhaps this is not the place for you.
Yeah, because opening myself up to criticism is exactly the same as getting harassed.
If you haven't noticed, I'm responding to the people that are voicing their opinions kindly (or in a semi-kind way).
The way you want to critique me is barbaric and immature, to be honest.
Would this be a bad time to point out that the ideal you wish to abide by is barbaric and immature?
No, the ideal that I wish that we all would abide by allows the Earth to live and other species to co-exist harmoniously with us.
As another user has said, humans are like a virus, and thats a wonderful way of putting it. Sure, all of this advancement is great to you, but at what cost to the Earth?
Deep ecology is an interesting theory, but it kind of relies on a mixture of science and nature worship, both of which you apparently hate.
If humans were gone, the Earth might heal itself from the changes man has inflicted. But you have to realize the inherent irony in expecting a lack of anthropocentrism in the only species capable of understanding such a concept.
You wouldn't expect a lion to stop being a lion because it was hurting the planet. You're asking that from humans, though.
To be fair, a lion does what a lion does to survive. Or does what it does to at least do what it believes needs to be done for survival. I would state (an educated guess) that 95-99% of life on the planet does most of their activities based on survival. A lion won't kill you because you called it's mother fat, or because you believe something the lion doesn't.
Humans, on the other hand, will kill and destory for pleasure, money, beliefs, disbeliefs, power, land, shiney rocks, because the voices told them to or any other reason you can imagine. Not many animals aside from people will kill "just cause''. Humans also are the most destructive animal on the planet, changing and destroying entire ecosystems by either doing it ourselves or incorporating and/or taking out different aspects of an ecosystem.
But here is the thing, we would have to damn near destory the planet to make it 100% inhospitibal to all life, since I am pretty sure that there are forms of life now that can withstand just about anything we could do to the planet and then become the dominate species.
Well, more advanced brain activity does result in things killing other things for pleasure, resources, etc. Things other than humans, I mean. Dolphin rape squads, pack animal infighting, tribes of monkeys flinging poop at each other to drive intruders away from their homes, etc.
I think humans would be most harmonious with the Earth if we were to be a hunter-gatherer society.
Do you honestly, truly believe that you would survive in such a society? Nothing personal, because I don't know anything about you personally, but do you honestly believe that you could hunt and kill your own food, treat your own injuries, monitor your own health, fight for territory?
Have you ever broken a bone, let's say your ankle? If so, you're dead now. Ever had a significant infection? Dead. Did your mother have complications or unusual bleeding when you were born? If so, she's dead, and probably so are you. The planet supports a population of more than 6 billion which, yes, is too many people. IF we all went back to hunter-gatherer state...what, maybe 100 million? Do you think you'd be one of the few strong, tough, lucky individuals who survive that?
I know I'd be dead in a week if I had to find, kill or gather and prepare my own food.
Honestly, if I didn't survive, thats the way it is, and I don't see how thats relevant. If we went back and the global population was 100 million, how is this a bad thing? You assume more is better, when its not true. Theres always an optimal level for something...100 million might just be the optimal population of humans.
You're ignoring the fact that it's the nature of humans to do what we've done. Unless you're making a fundamental change to the way human beings are constructed, it will always be our nature to try and understand the world around us, to use that understanding to create efficiencies, and to use those efficiencies to our advantage, whether individual or collective.
No I'm not ignoring the fact. Just because its our nature doesn't mean I can't critique it and voice my dissent.
All of your arguments seem to be made with the idea that something is supposed to benefit from there being less humans.
Obviously its not humans, so who? Or what?
Obviously the Earth would benefit from there being substantially less humans.
The only amount of humans from which the Earth would derive the benefits you're talking about is zero....or one.
I think humans would be most harmonious with the Earth if we were to be a hunter-gatherer society.
Do you honestly, truly believe that you would survive in such a society? Nothing personal, because I don't know anything about you personally, but do you honestly believe that you could hunt and kill your own food, treat your own injuries, monitor your own health, fight for territory?
Have you ever broken a bone, let's say your ankle? If so, you're dead now. Ever had a significant infection? Dead. Did your mother have complications or unusual bleeding when you were born? If so, she's dead, and probably so are you. The planet supports a population of more than 6 billion which, yes, is too many people. IF we all went back to hunter-gatherer state...what, maybe 100 million? Do you think you'd be one of the few strong, tough, lucky individuals who survive that?
I know I'd be dead in a week if I had to find, kill or gather and prepare my own food.
Honestly, if I didn't survive, thats the way it is, and I don't see how thats relevant. If we went back and the global population was 100 million, how is this a bad thing? You assume more is better, when its not true. Theres always an optimal level for something...100 million might just be the optimal population of humans.
You're ignoring the fact that it's the nature of humans to do what we've done. Unless you're making a fundamental change to the way human beings are constructed, it will always be our nature to try and understand the world around us, to use that understanding to create efficiencies, and to use those efficiencies to our advantage, whether individual or collective.
No I'm not ignoring the fact. Just because its our nature doesn't mean I can't critique it and voice my dissent.
All of your arguments seem to be made with the idea that something is supposed to benefit from there being less humans.
Obviously its not humans, so who? Or what?
Obviously the Earth would benefit from there being substantially less humans.
And actually, yeah, like I said early on, humans WOULD benefit to there being less of us. We are sucking the Earth dry and overpopulating it, and its not going to be able to support us in time.
What makes you think that the Earth cares one way or another about the status of the living organisms on the rock? Or the chemicals floating about it for that matter.
How can the earth benefit?
Seriously. Tell me how the earth can benefit. Maybe the Earth is really really jealous of Mercury and would prefer to be a nice small sized hot rock revolving at a rapid rate. Every time a NEO misses the Earth lets out a depressed sigh and only dreams of being small and closer to the sun.
Your idea of a benefit is exactly that, your idea. You don't speak for the Earth.
Well, more advanced brain activity does result in things killing other things for pleasure, resources, etc. Things other than humans, I mean. Dolphin rape squads, pack animal infighting, tribes of monkeys flinging poop at each other to drive intruders away from their homes, etc.
So, that could be called natural.
That reminds me....dolphins kill porpoises for fun.
The animal kingdom is not like the Lion King. Except for the part with Scar killing Mufasa and wanting to fuck his queen.
DarwinsFavoriteTortoise, I assume you haven't lurked in this forum at all. Had you, you'd have noticed we have a particular rhetorical tone, A lot of your ideas have been addressed, rather than playing the victim and starting a meta-debate, which is just going to result in you being further lambasted, you'd be better served by commenting on some of those very real criticisms of and apparent flaws in your argument.
You aren't going to gain anything here being offended by people's tone.
I made one comment about the tone of you guys, and that was just reinforce my point in the OP. Its not like I'm whining every post.
And look, its me vs. all of you. I'm trying to respond to everything I can, but for every post I make you guys make 10.
Yeah, that's pretty much how things go when you are on the extreme minority side of an argument. You've got to realize, this isn't even an issue people have a lot of emotion invested in. Check out, at some point, how political conservatives are often treated.
As another user has said, humans are like a virus, and thats a wonderful way of putting it. Sure, all of this advancement is great to you, but at what cost to the Earth?
There is no cost to the Earth. It's a hunk of rock with stuff growing on it. No real action by humans is likely to change that. Different stuff my grow on it, but how can you assign any of it a value?
In what sense is there a cost to the earth that matters in any significant way?
I think humans would be most harmonious with the Earth if we were to be a hunter-gatherer society.
Do you honestly, truly believe that you would survive in such a society? Nothing personal, because I don't know anything about you personally, but do you honestly believe that you could hunt and kill your own food, treat your own injuries, monitor your own health, fight for territory?
Have you ever broken a bone, let's say your ankle? If so, you're dead now. Ever had a significant infection? Dead. Did your mother have complications or unusual bleeding when you were born? If so, she's dead, and probably so are you. The planet supports a population of more than 6 billion which, yes, is too many people. IF we all went back to hunter-gatherer state...what, maybe 100 million? Do you think you'd be one of the few strong, tough, lucky individuals who survive that?
I know I'd be dead in a week if I had to find, kill or gather and prepare my own food.
Honestly, if I didn't survive, thats the way it is, and I don't see how thats relevant. If we went back and the global population was 100 million, how is this a bad thing? You assume more is better, when its not true. Theres always an optimal level for something...100 million might just be the optimal population of humans.
You're ignoring the fact that it's the nature of humans to do what we've done. Unless you're making a fundamental change to the way human beings are constructed, it will always be our nature to try and understand the world around us, to use that understanding to create efficiencies, and to use those efficiencies to our advantage, whether individual or collective.
No I'm not ignoring the fact. Just because its our nature doesn't mean I can't critique it and voice my dissent.
All of your arguments seem to be made with the idea that something is supposed to benefit from there being less humans.
Obviously its not humans, so who? Or what?
Obviously the Earth would benefit from there being substantially less humans.
And actually, yeah, like I said early on, humans WOULD benefit to there being less of us. We are sucking the Earth dry and overpopulating it, and its not going to be able to support us in time.
The Earth is a large hunk of rock. A very large hunk of rock, granted, but size does not grant personality, sentience, or desires.
Is the mountain benefited when the sea wears it down to sand? Is the sea benefited when a undersea volcano erupts, forming a mountain?
You are making an argument that the lifestyle of the top 10-15% of the earth's humans is unsustainable in the long run, which I can agree with.
At least, I hope you are, because if you are actually saying that the Earth will benefit from there being less humans, then I can say that you don't hate religion at all.
Obviously the Earth would benefit from there being substantially less humans.
And actually, yeah, like I said early on, humans WOULD benefit to there being less of us. We are sucking the Earth dry and overpopulating it, and its not going to be able to support us in time.
Well, one solution is to kill more than 99% of us.
Or we can, y'know, invest in research. And SCIENCE. Oh, the horror.
As to the mysteriously anthropomorphic Earth... I give up. Sorry, Earth.
DarwinsFavoriteTortoise, I assume you haven't lurked in this forum at all. Had you, you'd have noticed we have a particular rhetorical tone, A lot of your ideas have been addressed, rather than playing the victim and starting a meta-debate, which is just going to result in you being further lambasted, you'd be better served by commenting on some of those very real criticisms of and apparent flaws in your argument.
You aren't going to gain anything here being offended by people's tone.
I made one comment about the tone of you guys, and that was just reinforce my point in the OP. Its not like I'm whining every post.
And look, its me vs. all of you. I'm trying to respond to everything I can, but for every post I make you guys make 10.
Yeah, that's pretty much how things go when you are on the extreme minority side of an argument. You've got to realize, this isn't even an issue people have a lot of emotion invested in. Check out, at some point, how political conservatives are often treated.
Yeah I know this. Since you obviously do as well, why are you critiquing my lack of responses in the first place?
On topic: I see humans as a flaw, to be honest. Sure, some species cause the extinction of another, but thats just how it is. Humans, however, cause dozens of different types of animals and plants to become extinct every week, and I just don't see how thats right. We're literally raping the world for our own benefit.
And on the medical point, frankly, medicinal science is halting the natural checks and balance system employed by nature (ie diseases, viruses, etc). Sure, I want the overall advancement of the species, but I don't think this is the way to go...I think our existence with the Earth should be harmonious, not destructive.
OK, maybe now we're getting somewhere. The fact is that by an accident of evolution we have become an intelligent, curious, inventive species and we will keep on developing and expanding. To deny that would be like expecting an eagle not to fly. For maybe the last 100 years I will admit we've been making a bit of a mess of the planet. Maybe I'm being a hopeless optimist here but we do seem to be wising up a little these days and staring to develop ways of achieving our potential in a sustainable way. Guess how we're going to do that.
Obviously the Earth would benefit from there being substantially less humans.
And actually, yeah, like I said early on, humans WOULD benefit to there being less of us. We are sucking the Earth dry and overpopulating it, and its not going to be able to support us in time.[/QUOTE]
Now your just assuming here. Your assuming that we won't in the future try to stop our damage to nature, nor assume that we might introduce technology that might revert some damage we have done. Your also assuming that if Earth's population increased by 3 billion it wouldn't be able to handle it, which is true if we kept our technology to not change at all.
Of course I'm assuming that we will create technology to magically save us, but barring nuclear holocaust, killer aliens and asteroids our level of technology will increase, what it exactly does and how it helps is up to question.
Why are you all attacking me so viciously? I am merely using my free will and voicing some of my thoughts.
So are we.
Your thoughts are stupid. If you didn't want to open yourself to criticism, perhaps this is not the place for you.
Yeah, because opening myself up to criticism is exactly the same as getting harassed.
If you haven't noticed, I'm responding to the people that are voicing their opinions kindly (or in a semi-kind way).
The way you want to critique me is barbaric and immature, to be honest.
Would this be a bad time to point out that the ideal you wish to abide by is barbaric and immature?
No, the ideal that I wish that we all would abide by allows the Earth to live and other species to co-exist harmoniously with us.
As another user has said, humans are like a virus, and thats a wonderful way of putting it. Sure, all of this advancement is great to you, but at what cost to the Earth?
Deep ecology is an interesting theory, but it kind of relies on a mixture of science and nature worship, both of which you apparently hate.
If humans were gone, the Earth might heal itself from the changes man has inflicted. But you have to realize the inherent irony in expecting a lack of anthropocentrism in the only species capable of understanding such a concept.
You wouldn't expect a lion to stop being a lion because it was hurting the planet. You're asking that from humans, though.
To be fair, a lion does what a lion does to survive. Or does what it does to at least do what it believes needs to be done for survival. I would state (an educated guess) that 95-99% of life on the planet does most of their activities based on survival. A lion won't kill you because you called it's mother fat, or because you believe something the lion doesn't.
Humans, on the other hand, will kill and destory for pleasure, money, beliefs, disbeliefs, power, land, shiney rocks, because the voices told them to or any other reason you can imagine. Not many animals aside from people will kill "just cause''. Humans also are the most destructive animal on the planet, changing and destroying entire ecosystems by either doing it ourselves or incorporating and/or taking out different aspects of an ecosystem.
But here is the thing, we would have to damn near destory the planet to make it 100% inhospitibal to all life, since I am pretty sure that there are forms of life now that can withstand just about anything we could do to the planet and then become the dominate species.
Well, more advanced brain activity does result in things killing other things for pleasure, resources, etc. Things other than humans, I mean. Dolphin rape squads, pack animal infighting, tribes of monkeys flinging poop at each other to drive intruders away from their homes, etc.
So, that could be called natural.
I wasn't arguing against other animals doing this, as is very obvious in chimps and orcs/dolphins, I'm just saying that we do it to a much larger degree in more varying ways. Also, we're the only animal that has the ability to grasp how their actions affect the world around them not only on an instant basis, but also in a long continual sense in how we view growing pollution, depleting species and so forth.
Also, the natural way of any species is to simply further the species. Is science furthering our species? Yes. Is our destruction of ecosystems, natural resources and thusly the planet furthering our species? For the time being, yes. Is going to a hunter-gathering society, thusly going backwards in our societal evolution to help further the rest of the planet at the cost of our quality of life furthering our species? Hell no.
On topic: I see humans as a flaw, to be honest. Sure, some species cause the extinction of another, but thats just how it is. Humans, however, cause dozens of different types of animals and plants to become extinct every week, and I just don't see how thats right. We're literally raping the world for our own benefit.
And on the medical point, frankly, medicinal science is halting the natural checks and balance system employed by nature (ie diseases, viruses, etc). Sure, I want the overall advancement of the species, but I don't think this is the way to go...I think our existence with the Earth should be harmonious, not destructive.
OK, maybe now we're getting somewhere. The fact is that by an accident of evolution we have become an intelligent, curious, inventive species and we will keep on developing and expanding. To deny that would be like expecting an eagle not to fly. For maybe the last 100 years I will admit we've been making a bit of a mess of the planet. Maybe I'm being a hopeless optimist here but we do seem to be wising up a little these days and staring to develop ways of achieving our potential in a sustainable way. Guess how we're going to do that.
Starts with S, ends with "ience".
Hate to ruin the spoiler, but you seem to be missing a c there.
Also, I would disagree that it was any kind of accident. In a system where the most able to survive... well, survive, smarts beat strength. Its just progression, not any kind of fluke or bizarre happenstance. A million billion different life forms, humanity came out on top. Had to be one species that would be on top of the food chain, and humanity made it.
I wasn't arguing against other animals doing this, as is very obvious in chimps and orcs/dolphins, I'm just saying that we do it to a much larger degree in more varying ways. Also, we're the only animal that has the ability to grasp how their actions affect the world around them not only on an instant basis, but also in a long continual sense in how we view growing pollution, depleting species and so forth.
Also, the natural way of any species is to simply further the species. Is science furthering our species? Yes. Is our destruction of ecosystems, natural resources and thusly the planet furthering our species? For the time being, yes. Is going to a hunter-gathering society, thusly going backwards in our societal evolution to help further the rest of the planet at the cost of our quality of life furthering our species? Hell no.
I say hell yes.
Thanks to science, we humans now possess weapons that can annihilate the entire planet many times over...and we've come extremely close to using them in the past!
Do we have this threat in a hunter-gathering society? No.
DarwinsFavoriteTortoise on
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited June 2009
We can't annihilate the planet.
We can fuck up it's ability to support life but the big ball of rock and gas we call Earth will still exist.
So, let's wait until we can actually destroy the planet before having this debate I say!
Why are you all attacking me so viciously? I am merely using my free will and voicing some of my thoughts.
So are we.
Your thoughts are stupid. If you didn't want to open yourself to criticism, perhaps this is not the place for you.
Yeah, because opening myself up to criticism is exactly the same as getting harassed.
If you haven't noticed, I'm responding to the people that are voicing their opinions kindly (or in a semi-kind way).
The way you want to critique me is barbaric and immature, to be honest.
Would this be a bad time to point out that the ideal you wish to abide by is barbaric and immature?
No, the ideal that I wish that we all would abide by allows the Earth to live and other species to co-exist harmoniously with us.
As another user has said, humans are like a virus, and thats a wonderful way of putting it. Sure, all of this advancement is great to you, but at what cost to the Earth?
Deep ecology is an interesting theory, but it kind of relies on a mixture of science and nature worship, both of which you apparently hate.
If humans were gone, the Earth might heal itself from the changes man has inflicted. But you have to realize the inherent irony in expecting a lack of anthropocentrism in the only species capable of understanding such a concept.
You wouldn't expect a lion to stop being a lion because it was hurting the planet. You're asking that from humans, though.
To be fair, a lion does what a lion does to survive. Or does what it does to at least do what it believes needs to be done for survival. I would state (an educated guess) that 95-99% of life on the planet does most of their activities based on survival. A lion won't kill you because you called it's mother fat, or because you believe something the lion doesn't.
Humans, on the other hand, will kill and destory for pleasure, money, beliefs, disbeliefs, power, land, shiney rocks, because the voices told them to or any other reason you can imagine. Not many animals aside from people will kill "just cause''. Humans also are the most destructive animal on the planet, changing and destroying entire ecosystems by either doing it ourselves or incorporating and/or taking out different aspects of an ecosystem.
But here is the thing, we would have to damn near destory the planet to make it 100% inhospitibal to all life, since I am pretty sure that there are forms of life now that can withstand just about anything we could do to the planet and then become the dominate species.
Well, more advanced brain activity does result in things killing other things for pleasure, resources, etc. Things other than humans, I mean. Dolphin rape squads, pack animal infighting, tribes of monkeys flinging poop at each other to drive intruders away from their homes, etc.
So, that could be called natural.
I wasn't arguing against other animals doing this, as is very obvious in chimps and orcs/dolphins, I'm just saying that we do it to a much larger degree in more varying ways. Also, we're the only animal that has the ability to grasp how their actions affect the world around them not only on an instant basis, but also in a long continual sense in how we view growing pollution, depleting species and so forth.
Also, the natural way of any species is to simply further the species. Is science furthering our species? Yes. Is our destruction of ecosystems, natural resources and thusly the planet furthering our species? For the time being, yes. Is going to a hunter-gathering society, thusly going backwards in our societal evolution to help further the rest of the planet at the cost of our quality of life furthering our species? Hell no.
I say hell yes.
Thanks to science, we humans now possess weapons that can annihilate the entire planet many times over...and we've come extremely close to using them in the past!
Do we have this threat in a hunter-gathering society? No.
Nuclear weapons would, if used on a large enough scale, make the Earth inhabitable by the number of humans currently on it. Supposing the whole nuclear winter theory is true, obviously.
But it would not even come close to wiping out life on earth.
Bugs, bacteria, viruses, other microscopic organisms, would all survive quite ably. Even humans could survive a nuclear winter, with hydroponics, fallout shelters.
Nuclear weapons are a major threat. But not to 'the earth.'
Thanks to science, we humans now possess weapons that can annihilate the entire planet many times over...and we've come extremely close to using them in the past!
Do we have this threat in a hunter-gathering society? No.
This isn't strictly true. Even supposing some kind of crazy worst case nuclear winter scenario, life would go on. Human life, maybe not, but total life extinction is incredibly unlikely. As for the structural integrity of the planet itself, nuclear war would have an effect comparable to the effect of a pigeon shitting on a car.
Well, more advanced brain activity does result in things killing other things for pleasure, resources, etc. Things other than humans, I mean. Dolphin rape squads, pack animal infighting, tribes of monkeys flinging poop at each other to drive intruders away from their homes, etc.
So, that could be called natural.
That reminds me....dolphins kill porpoises for fun.
That's not necessarily true. It's entirely possible that they kill porpoises to practice committing infanticide.
Why are you all attacking me so viciously? I am merely using my free will and voicing some of my thoughts.
So are we.
Your thoughts are stupid. If you didn't want to open yourself to criticism, perhaps this is not the place for you.
Yeah, because opening myself up to criticism is exactly the same as getting harassed.
If you haven't noticed, I'm responding to the people that are voicing their opinions kindly (or in a semi-kind way).
The way you want to critique me is barbaric and immature, to be honest.
Would this be a bad time to point out that the ideal you wish to abide by is barbaric and immature?
No, the ideal that I wish that we all would abide by allows the Earth to live and other species to co-exist harmoniously with us.
As another user has said, humans are like a virus, and thats a wonderful way of putting it. Sure, all of this advancement is great to you, but at what cost to the Earth?
Deep ecology is an interesting theory, but it kind of relies on a mixture of science and nature worship, both of which you apparently hate.
If humans were gone, the Earth might heal itself from the changes man has inflicted. But you have to realize the inherent irony in expecting a lack of anthropocentrism in the only species capable of understanding such a concept.
You wouldn't expect a lion to stop being a lion because it was hurting the planet. You're asking that from humans, though.
To be fair, a lion does what a lion does to survive. Or does what it does to at least do what it believes needs to be done for survival. I would state (an educated guess) that 95-99% of life on the planet does most of their activities based on survival. A lion won't kill you because you called it's mother fat, or because you believe something the lion doesn't.
Humans, on the other hand, will kill and destory for pleasure, money, beliefs, disbeliefs, power, land, shiney rocks, because the voices told them to or any other reason you can imagine. Not many animals aside from people will kill "just cause''. Humans also are the most destructive animal on the planet, changing and destroying entire ecosystems by either doing it ourselves or incorporating and/or taking out different aspects of an ecosystem.
But here is the thing, we would have to damn near destory the planet to make it 100% inhospitibal to all life, since I am pretty sure that there are forms of life now that can withstand just about anything we could do to the planet and then become the dominate species.
Well, more advanced brain activity does result in things killing other things for pleasure, resources, etc. Things other than humans, I mean. Dolphin rape squads, pack animal infighting, tribes of monkeys flinging poop at each other to drive intruders away from their homes, etc.
So, that could be called natural.
I wasn't arguing against other animals doing this, as is very obvious in chimps and orcs/dolphins, I'm just saying that we do it to a much larger degree in more varying ways. Also, we're the only animal that has the ability to grasp how their actions affect the world around them not only on an instant basis, but also in a long continual sense in how we view growing pollution, depleting species and so forth.
Also, the natural way of any species is to simply further the species. Is science furthering our species? Yes. Is our destruction of ecosystems, natural resources and thusly the planet furthering our species? For the time being, yes. Is going to a hunter-gathering society, thusly going backwards in our societal evolution to help further the rest of the planet at the cost of our quality of life furthering our species? Hell no.
I say hell yes.
Thanks to science, we humans now possess weapons that can annihilate the entire planet many times over...and we've come extremely close to using them in the past!
Do we have this threat in a hunter-gathering society? No.
Nuclear weapons would, if used on a large enough scale, make the Earth inhabitable by the number of humans currently on it. Supposing the whole nuclear winter theory is true, obviously.
But it would not even come close to wiping out life on earth.
Bugs, bacteria, viruses, other microscopic organisms, would all survive quite ably. Even humans could survive a nuclear winter, with hydroponics, fallout shelters.
Nuclear weapons are a major threat. But not to 'the earth.'
Wow, congrats to the bugs and bacteria. Sorry, I value the millions of other species as well.
Well, more advanced brain activity does result in things killing other things for pleasure, resources, etc. Things other than humans, I mean. Dolphin rape squads, pack animal infighting, tribes of monkeys flinging poop at each other to drive intruders away from their homes, etc.
So, that could be called natural.
That reminds me....dolphins kill porpoises for fun.
That's not necessarily true. It's entirely possible that they kill porpoises to practice committing infanticide.
Are you suggesting they aren't having fun when they're doing it?
necroSYS on
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Wow, congrats to the bugs and bacteria. Sorry, I value the millions of other species as well.
I hate to tell you this but, species will go extinct even without human influence so...you're still a moron.
Yeah, but to ignore the effect humans have had on other species is pretty ignorant.
necroSYS on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited June 2009
Science is a method of testing theories determined to be falsifiable. Science is fine. It's how it's used, thought about and assumed to be always correct that is the problem.
The scientific method might be objective but what you feed into it and the generalisations and interpretations of the results is basically a more rigorous form of philosophy. ie the philosophy of empericism. The most important thing for a scientist to be is healthily skeptical until evidence is presented and even then inspect the evidence.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Posts
No I'm not ignoring the fact. Just because its our nature doesn't mean I can't critique it and voice my dissent.
Shouldn't you, as a rational actor in your own life want to support policies that would keep you from being killed off almost immediately? What is to stop the people, now without you leading the global crusade toward hunter gatherer barbarism, and all you can eat human BBQ until the population stabilizes, from just deciding the idea sucked now that you are gone? I mean hell its all fun and games to butcher our neighbors, get some rioting and looting in, and degenerate into a state of feral barbarism during the summer rerun months. However once the fall season starts people are not going to want to miss their favorite shows.
To be sure, you're right that scientists don't always stick to these bases of the scientific process, because they're human. We aren't perfect. The fact that some people profess to use science without understanding what it means should not compel us to throw the entire though structure away, any more than hypocritical religious folk who treat people like shit once they leave the church should compel us to throw religion away. It means that better education is needed.
And feel free to disagree with prevailing theories of the time. That's how advancements are made in any area of life. Ironically, I don't think you understand that science encourages disagreement and debate, so that the best ideas can be advanced. But you have to back up your ideas with some facts and evidence. THe most extraordinary statements must be backed with the most extraordinary evidence, there's your checks and balances.
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
It might lead to thinking, and that will rape the Earth!
To be fair, a lion does what a lion does to survive. Or does what it does to at least do what it believes needs to be done for survival. I would state (an educated guess) that 95-99% of life on the planet does most of their activities based on survival. A lion won't kill you because you called it's mother fat, or because you believe something the lion doesn't.
Humans, on the other hand, will kill and destory for pleasure, money, beliefs, disbeliefs, power, land, shiney rocks, because the voices told them to or any other reason you can imagine. Not many animals aside from people will kill "just cause''. Humans also are the most destructive animal on the planet, changing and destroying entire ecosystems by either doing it ourselves or incorporating and/or taking out different aspects of an ecosystem.
But here is the thing, we would have to damn near destory the planet to make it 100% inhospitibal to all life, since I am pretty sure that there are forms of life now that can withstand just about anything we could do to the planet and then become the dominate species.
So you're saying we should live in a completely vegan society devoid of technology? Because technology could eventually one day result in the destruction of the Earth?
Manifest destiny would like a word with you.
All of your arguments seem to be made with the idea that something is supposed to benefit from there being less humans.
Obviously its not humans, so who? Or what?
The Lizardmen who he secretly works for.
Go find a lion and call it's mother fat. To it's face.
Obviously the Earth would benefit from there being substantially less humans.
And actually, yeah, like I said early on, humans WOULD benefit to there being less of us. We are sucking the Earth dry and overpopulating it, and its not going to be able to support us in time.
There are plenty of primates that kill for pleasure and ritual, not just survival. Humans are the most destructive animal because we are the most evolved. Our capacities are also our capacities to do damage. We just need to keep evolving as a species to a point where we realize that sustainability is more important than endless acquisition. Like the paradigm shift that originally occurred when humans stopped foraging and started farming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN_SxiP6RZ0
Well, more advanced brain activity does result in things killing other things for pleasure, resources, etc. Things other than humans, I mean. Dolphin rape squads, pack animal infighting, tribes of monkeys flinging poop at each other to drive intruders away from their homes, etc.
So, that could be called natural.
The only amount of humans from which the Earth would derive the benefits you're talking about is zero....or one.
Dibs.
What makes you think that the Earth cares one way or another about the status of the living organisms on the rock? Or the chemicals floating about it for that matter.
How can the earth benefit?
Seriously. Tell me how the earth can benefit. Maybe the Earth is really really jealous of Mercury and would prefer to be a nice small sized hot rock revolving at a rapid rate. Every time a NEO misses the Earth lets out a depressed sigh and only dreams of being small and closer to the sun.
Your idea of a benefit is exactly that, your idea. You don't speak for the Earth.
That reminds me....dolphins kill porpoises for fun.
The animal kingdom is not like the Lion King. Except for the part with Scar killing Mufasa and wanting to fuck his queen.
Yeah, that's pretty much how things go when you are on the extreme minority side of an argument. You've got to realize, this isn't even an issue people have a lot of emotion invested in. Check out, at some point, how political conservatives are often treated.
There is no cost to the Earth. It's a hunk of rock with stuff growing on it. No real action by humans is likely to change that. Different stuff my grow on it, but how can you assign any of it a value?
In what sense is there a cost to the earth that matters in any significant way?
:x
The Earth is a large hunk of rock. A very large hunk of rock, granted, but size does not grant personality, sentience, or desires.
Is the mountain benefited when the sea wears it down to sand? Is the sea benefited when a undersea volcano erupts, forming a mountain?
You are making an argument that the lifestyle of the top 10-15% of the earth's humans is unsustainable in the long run, which I can agree with.
At least, I hope you are, because if you are actually saying that the Earth will benefit from there being less humans, then I can say that you don't hate religion at all.
Well, one solution is to kill more than 99% of us.
Or we can, y'know, invest in research. And SCIENCE. Oh, the horror.
As to the mysteriously anthropomorphic Earth... I give up. Sorry, Earth.
Yeah I know this. Since you obviously do as well, why are you critiquing my lack of responses in the first place?
OK, maybe now we're getting somewhere. The fact is that by an accident of evolution we have become an intelligent, curious, inventive species and we will keep on developing and expanding. To deny that would be like expecting an eagle not to fly. For maybe the last 100 years I will admit we've been making a bit of a mess of the planet. Maybe I'm being a hopeless optimist here but we do seem to be wising up a little these days and staring to develop ways of achieving our potential in a sustainable way. Guess how we're going to do that.
Obviously the Earth would benefit from there being substantially less humans.
And actually, yeah, like I said early on, humans WOULD benefit to there being less of us. We are sucking the Earth dry and overpopulating it, and its not going to be able to support us in time.[/QUOTE]
Now your just assuming here. Your assuming that we won't in the future try to stop our damage to nature, nor assume that we might introduce technology that might revert some damage we have done. Your also assuming that if Earth's population increased by 3 billion it wouldn't be able to handle it, which is true if we kept our technology to not change at all.
Of course I'm assuming that we will create technology to magically save us, but barring nuclear holocaust, killer aliens and asteroids our level of technology will increase, what it exactly does and how it helps is up to question.
I wasn't arguing against other animals doing this, as is very obvious in chimps and orcs/dolphins, I'm just saying that we do it to a much larger degree in more varying ways. Also, we're the only animal that has the ability to grasp how their actions affect the world around them not only on an instant basis, but also in a long continual sense in how we view growing pollution, depleting species and so forth.
Also, the natural way of any species is to simply further the species. Is science furthering our species? Yes. Is our destruction of ecosystems, natural resources and thusly the planet furthering our species? For the time being, yes. Is going to a hunter-gathering society, thusly going backwards in our societal evolution to help further the rest of the planet at the cost of our quality of life furthering our species? Hell no.
Hate to ruin the spoiler, but you seem to be missing a c there.
Also, I would disagree that it was any kind of accident. In a system where the most able to survive... well, survive, smarts beat strength. Its just progression, not any kind of fluke or bizarre happenstance. A million billion different life forms, humanity came out on top. Had to be one species that would be on top of the food chain, and humanity made it.
I say hell yes.
Thanks to science, we humans now possess weapons that can annihilate the entire planet many times over...and we've come extremely close to using them in the past!
Do we have this threat in a hunter-gathering society? No.
We can fuck up it's ability to support life but the big ball of rock and gas we call Earth will still exist.
So, let's wait until we can actually destroy the planet before having this debate I say!
Nuclear weapons would, if used on a large enough scale, make the Earth inhabitable by the number of humans currently on it. Supposing the whole nuclear winter theory is true, obviously.
But it would not even come close to wiping out life on earth.
Bugs, bacteria, viruses, other microscopic organisms, would all survive quite ably. Even humans could survive a nuclear winter, with hydroponics, fallout shelters.
Nuclear weapons are a major threat. But not to 'the earth.'
This isn't strictly true. Even supposing some kind of crazy worst case nuclear winter scenario, life would go on. Human life, maybe not, but total life extinction is incredibly unlikely. As for the structural integrity of the planet itself, nuclear war would have an effect comparable to the effect of a pigeon shitting on a car.
Edit: Double beat'd. Embarrassing.
That's not necessarily true. It's entirely possible that they kill porpoises to practice committing infanticide.
because you are defensive, not without some justification, and totally missed my point.
Wow, congrats to the bugs and bacteria. Sorry, I value the millions of other species as well.
Are you suggesting they aren't having fun when they're doing it?
I hate to tell you this but, species will go extinct even without human influence so...you're still a moron.
You still haven't addressed the idea that humanity is still basically a hunter-gatherer species, just with far more evolved tastes and weapons.
Yeah, but to ignore the effect humans have had on other species is pretty ignorant.
The scientific method might be objective but what you feed into it and the generalisations and interpretations of the results is basically a more rigorous form of philosophy. ie the philosophy of empericism. The most important thing for a scientist to be is healthily skeptical until evidence is presented and even then inspect the evidence.
What is there to address? Could you expand please?
Damn stars, clinging to science and not being harmonious with the universe!