OP. Go see my previous post. Also take your head out of your ass and take a walk outside. Look at the people in the world who are forced to suffer because they have no other choice but to endure the harsh circumstances that they have been born in. These are people that can be helped by science. Do you really deny them a chance at prosperity or a comfortable living?
Yes science has created some horrific things but that's no reason to discredit the wondrous and numerous advancements that we have been so ungracious to receive.
You have a really immature knee-jerk reaction and your argument isn't thought out in the slightest. In a natural hunter gatherer state we killed off all of the Mammoths.
On the current topic about destroying the planet, let me make this very simple.
If it's not humans, it's gonna be something else. Meteor, super volcano, super virus, cosmic rays... the universe quite honestly is much more destructive then we will ever be. Even the planet is more destructive then us at this point, though not as frequently as we are.
I vote we ban natural disasters because they don't live harmoniously with the rest of the planet.
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.
Yes. this is what I believe.
And I really apologize for not making that clearer early on...its 4am right now (I'm trying to reset my schedule :P)
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.[/QUOTE]
Bugs and bacteria and other microscopic organisms make up most of the species on the earth. If you count everything else, its in the maybe hundreds of thousands range.
If you're just counting 'numbers of species wiped out' as most important, anyway.
And I thought it was all relative. Or have we abandoned that?
What is it about the earth, what property of the earth, that is, is being damaged by humanity proliferation on it?
Is it earth's ability to maintain a complex worldwide ecology? A weather system? Is it merely important that a ball of rock roughly earth's size and shape orbit the sun for the next few billions and billions of years before being consumed and destroyed in a supernova?
On the current topic about destroying the planet, let me make this very simple.
If it's not humans, it's gonna be something else. Meteor, super volcano, super virus, cosmic rays... the universe quite honestly is much more destructive then we will ever be. Even the planet is more destructive then us at this point, though not as frequently as we are.
I vote we ban natural disasters because they don't live harmoniously with the rest of the planet.
Sorry I don't see how the logic is sound with that.
Thats like me killing people, and then telling the police, "hey they were going to die sooner or later! what did i do wrong?"
Wow, congrats to the bugs and bacteria. Sorry, I value the millions of other species as well.
You still haven't addressed the idea that humanity is still basically a hunter-gatherer species, just with far more evolved tastes and weapons.
What is there to address? Could you expand please?
Okay, your premise is based on the idea that humanity is no longer a hunter-gatherer species. I'm contending that humanity is absolutely a hunter-gatherer species (resource-acquisitive and consumption-based), but because humans have evolved our capacities, we are hunting more sophisticated resources to consume. Instead of focusing on hunting elk and gathering berries, we're focused on hunting pretty cars and houses and gathering stock options.
But the basic instincts are the same and the need to acquire and consume is the same.
On the current topic about destroying the planet, let me make this very simple.
If it's not humans, it's gonna be something else. Meteor, super volcano, super virus, cosmic rays... the universe quite honestly is much more destructive then we will ever be. Even the planet is more destructive then us at this point, though not as frequently as we are.
I vote we ban natural disasters because they don't live harmoniously with the rest of the planet.
I vote we use our capacity for reason and our ability to evolve and adapt to create a new, sustainable mode of living, so that when one of the mindless entropic events does happen, at least we won't have caused it.
Because living in a post-apocalyptic environmental wasteland and living on the cannibalized flesh of other people doesn't sound swell.
Wow, congrats to the bugs and bacteria. Sorry, I value the millions of other species as well.
You still haven't addressed the idea that humanity is still basically a hunter-gatherer species, just with far more evolved tastes and weapons.
What is there to address? Could you expand please?
Okay, your premise is based on the idea that humanity is no longer a hunter-gatherer species. I'm contending that humanity is absolutely a hunter-gatherer species (resource-acquisitive and consumption-based), but because humans have evolved our capacities, we are hunting more sophisticated resources to consume. Instead of focusing on hunting elk and gathering berries, we're focused on hunting pretty cars and houses and gathering stock options.
But the basic instincts are the same and the need to acquire and consume is the same.
Yes but its not the same. The things that were hunted in original hunter-gatherer societies were needed for survival, and thats it.
The things that we "hunt" for now are completely unnecessary and their importance is entirely fabricated.
Meanwhile, the unnecessary car that we have is spewing pollution into the air and its fuel source is causing conflict worldwide.
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?
no, but typically the phrase 'for fun' implies no other reason. I doubt you are being serious here, and it's beyond tangential to the topic of the thread.
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.
Yes. this is what I believe.
And I really apologize for not making that clearer early on...its 4am right now (I'm trying to reset my schedule :P)
Well, see, now you don't hate science or even technology at all. You just hate the attitudes we have towards it and the uncaring way you see others use that technology.
Or am I wrong and you hate technology itself? (ie tools)
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
On the current topic about destroying the planet, let me make this very simple.
If it's not humans, it's gonna be something else. Meteor, super volcano, super virus, cosmic rays... the universe quite honestly is much more destructive then we will ever be. Even the planet is more destructive then us at this point, though not as frequently as we are.
I vote we ban natural disasters because they don't live harmoniously with the rest of the planet.
I vote we use our capacity for reason and our ability to evolve and adapt to create a new, sustainable mode of living, so that when one of the mindless entropic events does happen, at least we won't have caused it.
Because living in a post-apocalyptic environmental wasteland and living on the cannibalized flesh of other people doesn't sound swell.
I think you guys are applying my points incorrectly.
I'm not saying DROP EVERYTHING GO BACK TO HUNTER-GATHERER SOCIETY NAOW. Obviously that would create a lot of problems...we are just too far ahead.
I am commenting on how I believe we should have stayed at the basic hunter-gatherer level and how that would be what is best 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.
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?
no, but typically the phrase 'for fun' implies no other reason. I doubt you are being serious here, and it's beyond tangential to the topic of the thread.
Yeah, you're probably right. I mean, they use sonar to figure out the place to beat the porpoises that will do the most damage, but that just proves they're efficient dicks, not psychopathic ones.
On the current topic about destroying the planet, let me make this very simple.
If it's not humans, it's gonna be something else. Meteor, super volcano, super virus, cosmic rays... the universe quite honestly is much more destructive then we will ever be. Even the planet is more destructive then us at this point, though not as frequently as we are.
I vote we ban natural disasters because they don't live harmoniously with the rest of the planet.
Sorry I don't see how the logic is sound with that.
Thats like me killing people, and then telling the police, "hey they were going to die sooner or later! what did i do wrong?"
Your analogy assumes that everyone participating in the discussion values human life. Which you, evidently, do not, as you are espousing the deaths of billions of people in order to benefit, 'the earth.'
necroSYS wrote: View Post
DarwinsFavoriteTortoise wrote: View Post
necroSYS wrote: View Post
DarwinsFavoriteTortoise wrote: View Post
Wow, congrats to the bugs and bacteria. Sorry, I value the millions of other species as well.
You still haven't addressed the idea that humanity is still basically a hunter-gatherer species, just with far more evolved tastes and weapons.
What is there to address? Could you expand please?
Okay, your premise is based on the idea that humanity is no longer a hunter-gatherer species. I'm contending that humanity is absolutely a hunter-gatherer species (resource-acquisitive and consumption-based), but because humans have evolved our capacities, we are hunting more sophisticated resources to consume. Instead of focusing on hunting elk and gathering berries, we're focused on hunting pretty cars and houses and gathering stock options.
But the basic instincts are the same and the need to acquire and consume is the same.
Yes but its not the same. The things that were hunted in original hunter-gatherer societies were needed for survival, and thats it.
The things that we "hunt" for now are completely unnecessary and their importance is entirely fabricated.
Meanwhile, the unnecessary car that we have is spewing pollution into the air and its fuel source is causing conflict worldwide.
Why does it matter that the car is spewing pollution into the air?
Why does it matter that humans fight each other, worldwide, over resources they find valuable?
Why is it that basic survival is all you feel is needed?
On the current topic about destroying the planet, let me make this very simple.
If it's not humans, it's gonna be something else. Meteor, super volcano, super virus, cosmic rays... the universe quite honestly is much more destructive then we will ever be. Even the planet is more destructive then us at this point, though not as frequently as we are.
I vote we ban natural disasters because they don't live harmoniously with the rest of the planet.
Sorry I don't see how the logic is sound with that.
Thats like me killing people, and then telling the police, "hey they were going to die sooner or later! what did i do wrong?"
His logic wasn't that we can kill Earth because it might die anyway which would make your analogy correct, but that even without humanity Earth stands to die because of the big bad universe.
On the current topic about destroying the planet, let me make this very simple.
If it's not humans, it's gonna be something else. Meteor, super volcano, super virus, cosmic rays... the universe quite honestly is much more destructive then we will ever be. Even the planet is more destructive then us at this point, though not as frequently as we are.
I vote we ban natural disasters because they don't live harmoniously with the rest of the planet.
I vote we use our capacity for reason and our ability to evolve and adapt to create a new, sustainable mode of living, so that when one of the mindless entropic events does happen, at least we won't have caused it.
Because living in a post-apocalyptic environmental wasteland and living on the cannibalized flesh of other people doesn't sound swell.
I think you guys are applying my points incorrectly.
I'm not saying DROP EVERYTHING GO BACK TO HUNTER-GATHERER SOCIETY NAOW. Obviously that would create a lot of problems...we are just too far ahead.
I am commenting on how I believe we should have stayed at the basic hunter-gatherer level and how that would be what is best for the Earth.
And we're saying that it's impossible for that to have happened, due to the nature of humans qua humans.
Sorry I don't see how the logic is sound with that.
Given your OP, you don't get to use logic in this thread. Science is derived from logic.
Uhm even accepting your misinterpretation of my critique of science, we can still use logic without using science (according to what you just said), so therefore I do get to use it.
On the current topic about destroying the planet, let me make this very simple.
If it's not humans, it's gonna be something else. Meteor, super volcano, super virus, cosmic rays... the universe quite honestly is much more destructive then we will ever be. Even the planet is more destructive then us at this point, though not as frequently as we are.
I vote we ban natural disasters because they don't live harmoniously with the rest of the planet.
I vote we use our capacity for reason and our ability to evolve and adapt to create a new, sustainable mode of living, so that when one of the mindless entropic events does happen, at least we won't have caused it.
Because living in a post-apocalyptic environmental wasteland and living on the cannibalized flesh of other people doesn't sound swell.
I think you guys are applying my points incorrectly.
I'm not saying DROP EVERYTHING GO BACK TO HUNTER-GATHERER SOCIETY NAOW. Obviously that would create a lot of problems...we are just too far ahead.
I am commenting on how I believe we should have stayed at the basic hunter-gatherer level and how that would be what is best for the Earth.
And we're saying that it's impossible for that to have happened, due to the nature of humans qua humans.
Which I am not disputing. Just because its impossible doesn't mean its not optimal, or how things should be.
Sorry I don't see how the logic is sound with that.
Given your OP, you don't get to use logic in this thread. Science is derived from logic.
Uhm even accepting your misinterpretation of my critique of science, we can still use logic without using science (according to what you just said), so therefore I do get to use it.
No, logic is a rational thought process used to understand external stimuli. It's that rational thought process that gave rise to both religion and, later, science as ways to explain the natural world.
That's exactly what you "hate" in the OP and why you don't get to use it in this thread.
necroSYS on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Sorry I don't see how the logic is sound with that.
Given your OP, you don't get to use logic in this thread. Science is derived from logic.
Uhm even accepting your misinterpretation of my critique of science, we can still use logic without using science (according to what you just said), so therefore I do get to use it.
No, logic is a rational thought process used to understand external stimuli. It's that rational thought process that gave rise to both religion and, later, science as ways to explain the natural world.
That's exactly what you "hate" in the OP and why you don't get to use it in this thread.
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.
Yes. this is what I believe.
And I really apologize for not making that clearer early on...its 4am right now (I'm trying to reset my schedule :P)
Ok, when I say the Earth, I'm not referring to just the rock. I'm referring to everything that makes the Earth, well, Earth. I take the gas, the animals, and the plants into account, and when the majority of one of those is destroyed, I consider the Earth "hurt."
DarwinsFavoriteTortoise on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Ok, when I say the Earth, I'm not referring to just the rock. I'm referring to everything that makes the Earth, well, Earth. I take the gas, the animals, and the plants into account, and when the majority of one of those is destroyed, I consider the Earth "hurt."
"Ecosystem"
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Wow, congrats to the bugs and bacteria. Sorry, I value the millions of other species as well.
You still haven't addressed the idea that humanity is still basically a hunter-gatherer species, just with far more evolved tastes and weapons.
What is there to address? Could you expand please?
Okay, your premise is based on the idea that humanity is no longer a hunter-gatherer species. I'm contending that humanity is absolutely a hunter-gatherer species (resource-acquisitive and consumption-based), but because humans have evolved our capacities, we are hunting more sophisticated resources to consume. Instead of focusing on hunting elk and gathering berries, we're focused on hunting pretty cars and houses and gathering stock options.
But the basic instincts are the same and the need to acquire and consume is the same.
Yes but its not the same. The things that were hunted in original hunter-gatherer societies were needed for survival, and thats it.
The things that we "hunt" for now are completely unnecessary and their importance is entirely fabricated.
Meanwhile, the unnecessary car that we have is spewing pollution into the air and its fuel source is causing conflict worldwide.
You know that Hunter-Gatherer societies where responsible for the annihilation of several species right? The human migration in America 29k years ago alone wiped out hundreds of species. Hunter-Gatherers walked down from Alaska killing as they went(insert Sarah Pallin joke here).
The Idea of people living in harmony with the Earth is bullshit. The only thing that makes Humans different from other animals is our Brains and our willingness to use it to improve our odds of survival(science). Without brains and science the proper name for the human race is "lunch".
PS. even making spears and flint knives are a science of sorts.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
So, I guess the 'everything is relative' approach has been abandoned as stupid?
Optimal, thats an odd word to choose. Optimal for whom?
And if you say 'the earth' again please explain more in depth.
The earth does not have standards. It does not say 'I would like to have this many humans on me. And no mining out metal or processing gases or liquids into more energy efficient forms.'
Ok, when I say the Earth, I'm not referring to just the rock. I'm referring to everything that makes the Earth, well, Earth. I take the gas, the animals, and the plants into account, and when the majority of one of those is destroyed, I consider the Earth "hurt."
Creeper vines slaughter other plant life.
We as hunter gatherers without science drove mammoths into extinction (although we had a little bit of help from natural global warming )
Volcanos and earthquakes destroy entire biomes.
The earth is not a human being. It does not hurt like you hurt.
Sorry I don't see how the logic is sound with that.
Given your OP, you don't get to use logic in this thread. Science is derived from logic.
Uhm even accepting your misinterpretation of my critique of science, we can still use logic without using science (according to what you just said), so therefore I do get to use it.
No, logic is a rational thought process used to understand external stimuli. It's that rational thought process that gave rise to both religion and, later, science as ways to explain the natural world.
That's exactly what you "hate" in the OP and why you don't get to use it in this thread.
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.
Yes. this is what I believe.
And I really apologize for not making that clearer early on...its 4am right now (I'm trying to reset my schedule :P)
HE didn't really misinterpret it so much as you didn't really express yourself properly. (just sayin)
Fair enough.
Sorry, the thread's moving too fast. I didn't read that.
necroSYS on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited June 2009
From what I've gathered Darwin you lack the terminology to properly enage in the arguments you want to have here and it's causing a lot of arguments because nobody can tell if you are saying something of worth or not because everything you are saying is too general.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
So, I guess the 'everything is relative' approach has been abandoned as stupid?
Optimal, thats an odd word to choose. Optimal for whom?
And if you say 'the earth' again please explain more in depth.
The earth does not have standards. It does not say 'I would like to have this many humans on me. And no mining out metal or processing gases or liquids into more energy efficient forms.'
No I have not abandoned the relative argument, I am just busy in other areas.
Optimal for Earth, and I don't know how I can explain the Earth in more depth without it being unnecessary.
And just because the Earth doesn't have standards and can't declare what it does and doesn't like doesn't mean that we should fuck it over for the rest of the species.
Ok, when I say the Earth, I'm not referring to just the rock. I'm referring to everything that makes the Earth, well, Earth. I take the gas, the animals, and the plants into account, and when the majority of one of those is destroyed, I consider the Earth "hurt."
And if its explained again that humanity, barring the LHC spawning a black hole or something equally ridiculous, has an incredibly minimal effect on the earth in comparison to natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, or astrolonomical events like a major meteorite strike, a rogue star, or a supernova, then will you abandon this whole 'Humanity is a plague unto the earth' opinion?
From what I've gathered Darwin you lack the terminology to properly enage in the arguments you want to have here and it's causing a lot of arguments because nobody can tell if you are saying something of worth or not because everything you are saying is too general.
No, it might be because its past 4am and I'm trying to respond to everything here.
Ok, when I say the Earth, I'm not referring to just the rock. I'm referring to everything that makes the Earth, well, Earth. I take the gas, the animals, and the plants into account, and when the majority of one of those is destroyed, I consider the Earth "hurt."
Ok your arguments have jumped all over the place, from this philosophical view of everything being relative to this new "Humanity is bad for the Earth"
What is your inherent argument? That humanity should have stayed at hunter gatherer levels to stop "hurting the Earth"?
If that's the case we would be hurting the Earth no matter what. If it's to reduce the levels of "hurt" toward the Earth, I reject the idea that staying at hunter gatherer levels would be the optimal solution. (It's also an impossible solution without artificial involvement)
So, I guess the 'everything is relative' approach has been abandoned as stupid?
Optimal, thats an odd word to choose. Optimal for whom?
And if you say 'the earth' again please explain more in depth.
The earth does not have standards. It does not say 'I would like to have this many humans on me. And no mining out metal or processing gases or liquids into more energy efficient forms.'
No I have not abandoned the relative argument, I am just busy in other areas.
Optimal for Earth, and I don't know how I can explain the Earth in more depth without it being unnecessary.
And just because the Earth doesn't have standards and can't declare what it does and doesn't like doesn't mean that we should fuck it over for the rest of the species.
When the entire natural process from primordial ooze to a rocket scientist has been rewarding the answer to the question 'which species is best at fucking other species over?' it means that the most natural thing is to fuck other species over. Now is natural best?
So, I guess the 'everything is relative' approach has been abandoned as stupid?
Optimal, thats an odd word to choose. Optimal for whom?
And if you say 'the earth' again please explain more in depth.
The earth does not have standards. It does not say 'I would like to have this many humans on me. And no mining out metal or processing gases or liquids into more energy efficient forms.'
No I have not abandoned the relative argument, I am just busy in other areas.
Optimal for Earth, and I don't know how I can explain the Earth in more depth without it being unnecessary.
And just because the Earth doesn't have standards and can't declare what it does and doesn't like doesn't mean that we should fuck it over for the rest of the species.
Species are going to eventually evolve to fill what niches need filling. So what does it really matter if we screw over the ones that exist now? Species go extinct. New ones evolve. It is an ugly inharmonious process. It is life.
Ok, when I say the Earth, I'm not referring to just the rock. I'm referring to everything that makes the Earth, well, Earth. I take the gas, the animals, and the plants into account, and when the majority of one of those is destroyed, I consider the Earth "hurt."
And if its explained again that humanity, barring the LHC spawning a black hole or something equally ridiculous, has an incredibly minimal effect on the earth in comparison to natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, or astrolonomical events like a major meteorite strike, a rogue star, or a supernova, then will you abandon this whole 'Humanity is a plague unto the earth' opinion?
I think we have a larger effect than earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, meteor strikes, a rogue star, and a supernova combined, especially considering the incredibly low probability of the last three occurring and affecting us in a substantial way and the fact that none of the first three, excluding a few cases, wipe out an entire species.
Ok, when I say the Earth, I'm not referring to just the rock. I'm referring to everything that makes the Earth, well, Earth. I take the gas, the animals, and the plants into account, and when the majority of one of those is destroyed, I consider the Earth "hurt."
Ok your arguments have jumped all over the place, from this philosophical view of everything being relative to this new "Humanity is bad for the Earth"
What is your inherent argument? That humanity should have stayed at hunter gatherer levels to stop "hurting the Earth"?
If that's the case we would be hurting the Earth no matter what. If it's to reduce the levels of "hurt" toward the Earth, I reject the idea that staying at hunter gatherer levels would be the optimal solution. (It's also an impossible solution without artificial involvement)
Yep, given that humans are the only species capable of grasping the concept of anthropocentrism or sustainability and the fact that it's only been in the last 70 or so years that humanity's been able to focus on anything beyond the struggle to provide basic necessities, I'd argue that it's only through further evolution as a species that man will be able to minimize his impact on the rest of the planet's species of flora and fauna.
Posts
Yes science has created some horrific things but that's no reason to discredit the wondrous and numerous advancements that we have been so ungracious to receive.
You have a really immature knee-jerk reaction and your argument isn't thought out in the slightest. In a natural hunter gatherer state we killed off all of the Mammoths.
Oops. We didn't care.
(and still don't)
If it's not humans, it's gonna be something else. Meteor, super volcano, super virus, cosmic rays... the universe quite honestly is much more destructive then we will ever be. Even the planet is more destructive then us at this point, though not as frequently as we are.
I vote we ban natural disasters because they don't live harmoniously with the rest of the planet.
Yes. this is what I believe.
And I really apologize for not making that clearer early on...its 4am right now (I'm trying to reset my schedule :P)
Wow, congrats to the bugs and bacteria. Sorry, I value the millions of other species as well.[/QUOTE]
Bugs and bacteria and other microscopic organisms make up most of the species on the earth. If you count everything else, its in the maybe hundreds of thousands range.
If you're just counting 'numbers of species wiped out' as most important, anyway.
And I thought it was all relative. Or have we abandoned that?
What is it about the earth, what property of the earth, that is, is being damaged by humanity proliferation on it?
Is it earth's ability to maintain a complex worldwide ecology? A weather system? Is it merely important that a ball of rock roughly earth's size and shape orbit the sun for the next few billions and billions of years before being consumed and destroyed in a supernova?
Sorry I don't see how the logic is sound with that.
Thats like me killing people, and then telling the police, "hey they were going to die sooner or later! what did i do wrong?"
Okay, your premise is based on the idea that humanity is no longer a hunter-gatherer species. I'm contending that humanity is absolutely a hunter-gatherer species (resource-acquisitive and consumption-based), but because humans have evolved our capacities, we are hunting more sophisticated resources to consume. Instead of focusing on hunting elk and gathering berries, we're focused on hunting pretty cars and houses and gathering stock options.
But the basic instincts are the same and the need to acquire and consume is the same.
I vote we use our capacity for reason and our ability to evolve and adapt to create a new, sustainable mode of living, so that when one of the mindless entropic events does happen, at least we won't have caused it.
Because living in a post-apocalyptic environmental wasteland and living on the cannibalized flesh of other people doesn't sound swell.
Yes but its not the same. The things that were hunted in original hunter-gatherer societies were needed for survival, and thats it.
The things that we "hunt" for now are completely unnecessary and their importance is entirely fabricated.
Meanwhile, the unnecessary car that we have is spewing pollution into the air and its fuel source is causing conflict worldwide.
no, but typically the phrase 'for fun' implies no other reason. I doubt you are being serious here, and it's beyond tangential to the topic of the thread.
Given your OP, you don't get to use logic in this thread. Science is derived from logic.
Well, see, now you don't hate science or even technology at all. You just hate the attitudes we have towards it and the uncaring way you see others use that technology.
Or am I wrong and you hate technology itself? (ie tools)
I think you guys are applying my points incorrectly.
I'm not saying DROP EVERYTHING GO BACK TO HUNTER-GATHERER SOCIETY NAOW. Obviously that would create a lot of problems...we are just too far ahead.
I am commenting on how I believe we should have stayed at the basic hunter-gatherer level and how that would be what is best for the Earth.
Yeah, you're probably right. I mean, they use sonar to figure out the place to beat the porpoises that will do the most damage, but that just proves they're efficient dicks, not psychopathic ones.
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showpost.php?p=10335021&postcount=97
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showpost.php?p=10335099&postcount=122
Your analogy assumes that everyone participating in the discussion values human life. Which you, evidently, do not, as you are espousing the deaths of billions of people in order to benefit, 'the earth.'
Why does it matter that the car is spewing pollution into the air?
Why does it matter that humans fight each other, worldwide, over resources they find valuable?
Why is it that basic survival is all you feel is needed?
His logic wasn't that we can kill Earth because it might die anyway which would make your analogy correct, but that even without humanity Earth stands to die because of the big bad universe.
And we're saying that it's impossible for that to have happened, due to the nature of humans qua humans.
As humans evolve, so does our definition of "survival". We're moving into more sophisticated realms of Maslow's hierarchy.
Oh god.
Maslow. You are one of them.
Which I am not disputing. Just because its impossible doesn't mean its not optimal, or how things should be.
Fair enough.
No, logic is a rational thought process used to understand external stimuli. It's that rational thought process that gave rise to both religion and, later, science as ways to explain the natural world.
That's exactly what you "hate" in the OP and why you don't get to use it in this thread.
Ok, when I say the Earth, I'm not referring to just the rock. I'm referring to everything that makes the Earth, well, Earth. I take the gas, the animals, and the plants into account, and when the majority of one of those is destroyed, I consider the Earth "hurt."
"Ecosystem"
You know that Hunter-Gatherer societies where responsible for the annihilation of several species right? The human migration in America 29k years ago alone wiped out hundreds of species. Hunter-Gatherers walked down from Alaska killing as they went(insert Sarah Pallin joke here).
The Idea of people living in harmony with the Earth is bullshit. The only thing that makes Humans different from other animals is our Brains and our willingness to use it to improve our odds of survival(science). Without brains and science the proper name for the human race is "lunch".
PS. even making spears and flint knives are a science of sorts.
Optimal, thats an odd word to choose. Optimal for whom?
And if you say 'the earth' again please explain more in depth.
The earth does not have standards. It does not say 'I would like to have this many humans on me. And no mining out metal or processing gases or liquids into more energy efficient forms.'
Anthropomorphism? Check.
Goddamned hippie tree worship? Check.
Creeper vines slaughter other plant life.
We as hunter gatherers without science drove mammoths into extinction (although we had a little bit of help from natural global warming
Volcanos and earthquakes destroy entire biomes.
The earth is not a human being. It does not hurt like you hurt.
Sorry, the thread's moving too fast. I didn't read that.
No I have not abandoned the relative argument, I am just busy in other areas.
Optimal for Earth, and I don't know how I can explain the Earth in more depth without it being unnecessary.
And just because the Earth doesn't have standards and can't declare what it does and doesn't like doesn't mean that we should fuck it over for the rest of the species.
And if its explained again that humanity, barring the LHC spawning a black hole or something equally ridiculous, has an incredibly minimal effect on the earth in comparison to natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, or astrolonomical events like a major meteorite strike, a rogue star, or a supernova, then will you abandon this whole 'Humanity is a plague unto the earth' opinion?
No, it might be because its past 4am and I'm trying to respond to everything here.
Of course some things aren't going to be clear.
Ok your arguments have jumped all over the place, from this philosophical view of everything being relative to this new "Humanity is bad for the Earth"
What is your inherent argument? That humanity should have stayed at hunter gatherer levels to stop "hurting the Earth"?
If that's the case we would be hurting the Earth no matter what. If it's to reduce the levels of "hurt" toward the Earth, I reject the idea that staying at hunter gatherer levels would be the optimal solution. (It's also an impossible solution without artificial involvement)
When the entire natural process from primordial ooze to a rocket scientist has been rewarding the answer to the question 'which species is best at fucking other species over?' it means that the most natural thing is to fuck other species over. Now is natural best?
Species are going to eventually evolve to fill what niches need filling. So what does it really matter if we screw over the ones that exist now? Species go extinct. New ones evolve. It is an ugly inharmonious process. It is life.
I think we have a larger effect than earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, meteor strikes, a rogue star, and a supernova combined, especially considering the incredibly low probability of the last three occurring and affecting us in a substantial way and the fact that none of the first three, excluding a few cases, wipe out an entire species.
Yep, given that humans are the only species capable of grasping the concept of anthropocentrism or sustainability and the fact that it's only been in the last 70 or so years that humanity's been able to focus on anything beyond the struggle to provide basic necessities, I'd argue that it's only through further evolution as a species that man will be able to minimize his impact on the rest of the planet's species of flora and fauna.