What do you think we can actually do to this 4.5 billion year old, 25,000 mile wide, 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilogram rock with a core temperature that nearly equals that of the sun?
We're insignificant. We can do our worse and the Earth will continue and rebuild until the sun goes out.
DasUberEdward on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
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.
Of course some things aren't going to be clear.
Yah, I'm just saying, lots of people react with hostility to certain types of arguments and since you started off defining a key term wrongly they're all going to treat what you say within the relative framework of "the first thing this guy said sounds really stupid".
Instead of trying to react to everybody all at once, which is impossible since they're all roused up, sit down and think about what you want to say.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos 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."
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.
Then you would be wrong.
Any of the first three, by themselves, have been, can, and will wipe out several species by themselves.
Any of the last three, which could over a long enough time-frame be considered inevitable rather than unlikely, would wipe out the entire planet. Making it actually unable to sustain any life at all.
Yeah I'll just reiterate what Morninglord said. You came off like someone who didn't even think more than two minutes about their view, had really no idea to support it and abandoned it really quickly. Take a while and really think about what you want to say and how to say it.
Firstly I sincerely apologize for any confusion I made by not clearly defining my point from the get go.
Secondly I'm going to bed in a few minutes...I am just too beat. So what I think you should do is write up your entire argument in a nice tidy post, and then PM it to me. Tomorrow I will take whatever you post, quote it, and respond to it. (Is this allowed? It just seems like the easiest way to do things).
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.
Then you would be wrong.
Any of the first three, by themselves, have been, can, and will wipe out several species by themselves.
Any of the last three, which could over a long enough time-frame be considered inevitable rather than unlikely, would wipe out the entire planet. Making it actually unable to sustain any life at all.
Firstly I sincerely apologize for any confusion I made by not clearly defining my point from the get go.
Secondly I'm going to bed in a few minutes...I am just too beat. So what I think you should do is write up your entire argument in a nice tidy post, and then PM it to me. Tomorrow I will take whatever you post, quote it, and respond to it. (Is this allowed? It just seems like the easiest way to do things).
Yeah I'll just reiterate what Morninglord said. You came off like someone who didn't even think more than two minutes about their view, had really no idea to support it and abandoned it really quickly. Take a while and really think about what you want to say and how to say it.
I didn't abandon it at all. While I admit some things are not clear, I think that it all is on the same page and that I've stayed with my views throughout.
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.
Of course some things aren't going to be clear.
I'm going to say part of this is that you started off saying that true knowldge, being it through scientific or religious understanding is unattainable due to the belief that reality is entirely relative to the perceiver and no one single objective truth does exist. Or if it does it is unknowable as we all perceive it different. You cannot claim to know anything past this point, for you have previously stated that knowledge of the world around us does not exist, at best the knowledge of what we perceive to be the world around us exists and thusly we cannot truly gain knowledge as it is relative and not objective.
Then you tell us that we should live harmoniously with the earth so as to fall back into a realistic check and balances scenario with the rest of nature which we, at this point, are far above. Due to science and the furthering of our understandings we have been able to better the lives of humans, and a select number of animals while also hindering/destroying more species then have been helped. This is just an example of how we are above the current check and balance system, as other species can cause extinction. We just do it on a much larger scale.
How do you know that it is not our place to be above this natural system that all the other animals are in, and that this is our natural order? What if it's time the ecosystems started progressing and this is nature's way of saying "get on it or you're extinct!"?
Firstly I sincerely apologize for any confusion I made by not clearly defining my point from the get go.
Secondly I'm going to bed in a few minutes...I am just too beat. So what I think you should do is write up your entire argument in a nice tidy post, and then PM it to me. Tomorrow I will take whatever you post, quote it, and respond to it. (Is this allowed? It just seems like the easiest way to do things).
Just frame your argument well and reply to the thread when you think you have a clear handle on things. As you can see it's a hot topic and if you can frame your argument well and defend it, it would be a good discussion. Until then good night.
So what I think you should do is write up your entire argument in a nice tidy post, and then PM it to me. Tomorrow I will take whatever you post, quote it, and respond to it. (Is this allowed? It just seems like the easiest way to do things).
Firstly I sincerely apologize for any confusion I made by not clearly defining my point from the get go.
Secondly I'm going to bed in a few minutes...I am just too beat. So what I think you should do is write up your entire argument in a nice tidy post, and then PM it to me. Tomorrow I will take whatever you post, quote it, and respond to it. (Is this allowed? It just seems like the easiest way to do things).
Don't worry. We'll be here when you get back.
Yeah I know. It'd be easier for me to respond if it was in my inbox though, to be honest I'm not going to go through pages and pages to try to get your complete point.
If you want me to respond with thought, like I said, PM me and I'll quote it and respond in this thread.
Firstly I sincerely apologize for any confusion I made by not clearly defining my point from the get go.
Secondly I'm going to bed in a few minutes...I am just too beat. So what I think you should do is write up your entire argument in a nice tidy post, and then PM it to me. Tomorrow I will take whatever you post, quote it, and respond to it. (Is this allowed? It just seems like the easiest way to do things).
Just frame your argument well and reply to the thread when you think you have a clear handle on things. As you can see it's a hot topic and if you can frame your argument well and defend it, it would be a good discussion. Until then good night.
Firstly I sincerely apologize for any confusion I made by not clearly defining my point from the get go.
Secondly I'm going to bed in a few minutes...I am just too beat. So what I think you should do is write up your entire argument in a nice tidy post, and then PM it to me. Tomorrow I will take whatever you post, quote it, and respond to it. (Is this allowed? It just seems like the easiest way to do things).
Don't worry. We'll be here when you get back.
Yeah I know. It'd be easier for me to respond if it was in my inbox though, to be honest I'm not going to go through pages and pages to try to get your complete point.
If you want me to respond with thought, like I said, PM me and I'll quote it and respond in this thread.
I feel you assume too much. We, as Penny Arcade forum goers do not have one complete point that all of us stand by. We have too broad a spectrum to get one single view on... are we discussing if we should go to a hunter-gathering society to better everything on the planet besides us... or are we discussing if all knowledge is relative?
It's much easier if you post yours and then let us respond, because you're defending yours and not the other way around.
Any of the first three, by themselves, have been, can, and will wipe out several species by themselves.
Any of the last three, which could over a long enough time-frame be considered inevitable rather than unlikely, would wipe out the entire planet. Making it actually unable to sustain any life at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Bangladesh_cyclone
one event.
and some statutes in pompei would like a word with you OP.
I think every war in human history, cancer, genocide, deformities, wildfires, deforestation, polution, desertification, animal extinction, dead zones in the ocean, etc, might just write a strongly worded letter to you.
I don't know if humans cause more harm to life on Earth than natural disasters, but I'm pretty sure that 1) the Earth can recover far more easily from a hurricane than an oil spill and 2) it doesn't really matter since we're still fucking shit up. And, I don't blame science or technology... just the way humans use it.
Ok, in respect to a gotdamn meteor humanity is just one giant PETA party. But, I really doubt that's a relevant argument since extinction-inducing meteor impacts are extremely rare and humans are ruining shit right now, and have been for quite some time.
There is one defineably difference between previous mass extinctions and a hypothetical human caused mass extinction. Meteors and volcanoes don't have a choice about what they do, their just natural reactions to a long string of events. We as humans have the ability to possibly stop these events rather than cause one of our own.
Ok, in respect to a gotdamn meteor humanity is just one giant PETA party. But, I really doubt that's a relevant argument since extinction-inducing meteor impacts are extremely rare and humans are ruining shit right now, and have been for quite some time.
Does it count if other humans are the only victims?
I dunno. I hardly even know what this thread is about.
I would say on a big scale from Planet remains the same to Planet is dead... I would rate this a pretty big planet stays the same. People tend to live outside of most ecosystems, and then kind of reach in and take what we need. Very little eats humans, and at most our positive interference is generally keeping populations in check (which doesn't count for much since in some instances it's because we took out the predators of the region to begin with).
Any of the first three, by themselves, have been, can, and will wipe out several species by themselves.
Any of the last three, which could over a long enough time-frame be considered inevitable rather than unlikely, would wipe out the entire planet. Making it actually unable to sustain any life at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Bangladesh_cyclone
one event.
and some statutes in pompei would like a word with you OP.
I think every war in human history, cancer, genocide, deformities, wildfires, deforestation, polution, desertification, animal extinction, dead zones in the ocean, etc, might just write a strongly worded letter to you.
I don't know if humans cause more harm to life on Earth than natural disasters, but I'm pretty sure that 1) the Earth can recover far more easily from a hurricane than an oil spill and 2) it doesn't really matter since we're still fucking shit up. And, I don't blame science or technology... just the way humans use it.
Edit: Sorry if I messed up the quoting.
Depends on your definition of recover. A hurricane changing water temperatures and balances can completely destroy something delicate like a reef ecosystem. Our 60 years or so of advanced technology has nothing on the planets volatile ability to change in the last few millenia or so.
We're just not that important. I'm not saying we should treat the environment like shit but we really don't matter too much in the grand scheme of the planet. As it stands we're a prosperous blip.
I'm sure I missed some points through this thread because it's moving so damned quickly, but I think a core problem here is that the OP is not really understanding "science," or perhaps more accurately is confusing science with technology. I think he's not understanding that even the primordial hunter-gatherers used science.
Scenario: you are a hunter. You come across an area with a large depression in the ground, surrounded by lots of animal footprints. It almost looks like they were at a watering hole, but there's no water there. You guess that, when it rains, the depressions fills with water. You come back the next time it rains and are happy to find animals drinking at a new pond. You kill a rabbit, bring it back to your tribe, and tell them about it.
Observation, hypothesis, experimentation/observation, confirmation of your hypothesis, communication of new knowledge. That's science. So it was when the first clever person figured out that he dropped some seeds on the way back to the village, and plants grew where the seeds fell, and he tried planting seeds, and now we have agriculture. That's science too. Science is merely confirming ideas with evidence, it's not just lab coats and beakers.
Now, technology is where we start pumping oil and making CFC's (along with all the wonderful stuff like this computer).
I also find it interesting (though not at all surprising, given the nature of this board) that nobody has really discussed his rejection of religion.
I would say on a big scale from Planet remains the same to Planet is dead... I would rate this a pretty big planet stays the same. People tend to live outside of most ecosystems, and then kind of reach in and take what we need. Very little eats humans, and at most our positive interference is generally keeping populations in check (which doesn't count for much since in some instances it's because we took out the predators of the region to begin with).
You are pretty much mistaken. Very little things eat people. We are as much a part of the ecosystem as anything else.
a worm eat a king. a fish eats a worm. I eat a fish. I don't use Iambic pentameter though.
Depends on your definition of recover. A hurricane changing water temperatures and balances can completely destroy something delicate like a reef ecosystem. Our 60 years or so of advanced technology has nothing on the planets volatile ability to change in the last few millenia or so.
We're just not that important. I'm not saying we should treat the environment like shit but we really don't matter too much in the grand scheme of the planet. As it stands we're a prosperous blip.
I agree, but being a short-lived, short-sighted creature I don't really care too much what happens in the next few millenia. But, I do care that I can't eat the fish from the river by my house and that I have to be careful when I go swimming in Lake Erie (I don't go swimming in Lake Erie) cuz I might cut my feet on some invasive snails (introduced by man) with titanium bladed shells.
And, when I said nature can recover, I meant that life returns... perhaps just not the exact same life forms (and I'm not talking about evolution).
Any of the first three, by themselves, have been, can, and will wipe out several species by themselves.
Any of the last three, which could over a long enough time-frame be considered inevitable rather than unlikely, would wipe out the entire planet. Making it actually unable to sustain any life at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Bangladesh_cyclone
one event.
and some statutes in pompei would like a word with you OP.
I think every war in human history, cancer, genocide, deformities, wildfires, deforestation, polution, desertification, animal extinction, dead zones in the ocean, etc, might just write a strongly worded letter to you.
Cancer, what? Genocide of... what, human races? What do you mean by deformities? Wildfires like the ones set off in dry areas by lightning strikes? Desertification like that caused by frickin' goats of all things? Animal extinction happens, but yes, we do cause a great deal more of it than other species.
I don't know if humans cause more harm to life on Earth than natural disasters, but I'm pretty sure that 1) the Earth can recover far more easily from a hurricane than an oil spill and 2) it doesn't really matter since we're still fucking shit up. And, I don't blame science or technology... just the way humans use it.
Edit: Sorry if I messed up the quoting.
Yes, humanity, namely the industrialized nations that have a (relative to humanity's perspective) major impact on the environment, need to modify their behavior to ensure that the earth can sustain a sizeable human population. But thats it, survival. That is the one motivator. Ascribing some strange spirituality to the planet, assigning any kind of responsibility to maintain the welfare of species other than ourselves beyond the degree to which they must be maintained to encourage our own survival is making an argument based on something other than rationality.
Saying that it would be 'better for the world' if humanity had never progressed beyond a primitive tribal collective of hooting apes just takes it to a whole other level.
I would say on a big scale from Planet remains the same to Planet is dead... I would rate this a pretty big planet stays the same. People tend to live outside of most ecosystems, and then kind of reach in and take what we need. Very little eats humans, and at most our positive interference is generally keeping populations in check (which doesn't count for much since in some instances it's because we took out the predators of the region to begin with).
You are pretty much mistaken. Very little things eat people. We are as much a part of the ecosystem as anything else.
a worm eat a king. a fish eats a worm. I eat a fish. I don't use Iambic pentameter though.
Worms don't just eat kings, because otherwise there would be very few worms. And with how we treat most of our dead, such as caskets and such, how many people that die become food for small scavanger animals?
At this point, most cultures don't live in a ecological system which relies on other animals/plants other then what we grow/raise. We rarely go hunting or scavanging for our food do to our ability to farm and herd for our needs. We prey on few wild animals, and are hunted by even fewer. As far as I'm aware only abnormal incidents with animals lead to humans being preferred prey, as most of the animals that eat humans tend to be things that eat anything made of meat (i.e. crocodiles, some sharks and the like) and they tend to not go out hunting for just people.
As far as I'm aware, there aren't any ecosystems that rely on people as a necessary piece to sustain a balance. That is, aside from instances where we have gone in and altered the ecosystem by taking out predators or introducing other species and have to keep things in balance due to this. And even these will eventually fix themselves given enough time.
Worms don't just eat kings, because otherwise there would be very few worms. And with how we treat most of our dead, such as caskets and such, how many people that die become food for small scavanger animals?
Everyone. Everyone gets eaten by bacteria and fungi.
I would say on a big scale from Planet remains the same to Planet is dead... I would rate this a pretty big planet stays the same. People tend to live outside of most ecosystems, and then kind of reach in and take what we need. Very little eats humans, and at most our positive interference is generally keeping populations in check (which doesn't count for much since in some instances it's because we took out the predators of the region to begin with).
You are pretty much mistaken. Very little things eat people. We are as much a part of the ecosystem as anything else.
a worm eat a king. a fish eats a worm. I eat a fish. I don't use Iambic pentameter though.
Worms don't just eat kings, because otherwise there would be very few worms. And with how we treat most of our dead, such as caskets and such, how many people that die become food for small scavanger animals?
Pretty much all of them become food for some sort of plant or animal. There are rare exceptions in peat bogs and such that will end up as fossil fuels.
At this point, most cultures don't live in a ecological system which relies on other animals/plants other then what we grow/raise. We rarely go hunting or scavanging for our food do to our ability to farm and herd for our needs. We prey on few wild animals, and are hunted by even fewer. As far as I'm aware only abnormal incidents with animals lead to humans being preferred prey, as most of the animals that eat humans tend to be things that eat anything made of meat (i.e. crocodiles, some sharks and the like) and they tend to not go out hunting for just people.
As far as I'm aware, there aren't any ecosystems that rely on people as a necessary piece to sustain a balance. That is, aside from instances where we have gone in and altered the ecosystem by taking out predators or introducing other species and have to keep things in balance due to this. And even these will eventually fix themselves given enough time.
the animals and plants we raise are just as much a part of the ecosystem as anything else. If you choose to look at small enough parts of the ecosystem, you can eliminate people from them. That doesn't really matter when you are talking about the world as a whole.
If you remove something from the ecosystem, it will adjust. Fix implies one state is superior to the other. I don't believe this is a particularly good position to argue from as it appeals to nature and runs afoul of the naturalistic fallacy.
Not at all, what you do if you don't agree with the prevailing theories of the time is to form your own theory, test it, and come back with evidence your theory is truth and the existing theory forgot to check its work.
The great thing about science is the way we know it works is because anyone can try it. We do not call things laws just because 3/5 of the scientists supporting it won cage matches against the detractors.
This thread is slowly building up a large body of awesome.
Cancer, what? Genocide of... what, human races? What do you mean by deformities? Wildfires like the ones set off in dry areas by lightning strikes? Desertification like that caused by frickin' goats of all things? Animal extinction happens, but yes, we do cause a great deal more of it than other species.
Yes, human activity is a cause of many cases of cancer and, my apologies, developmental disorders.
Some of the wildfires that rage across California are caused by humans. Not all of them, but enough to be significant.
Goats overgrazing is a cause of desertification. But, who raises those goats?
As far as I'm aware, there aren't any ecosystems that rely on people as a necessary piece to sustain a balance. That is, aside from instances where we have gone in and altered the ecosystem by taking out predators or introducing other species and have to keep things in balance due to this. And even these will eventually fix themselves given enough time.
I think we've created our own ecosystems called cities (edit: I just realized that sentence might sound patronizing. Didn't mean it that way.). There are animals who do rely on us, perhaps in a very abstract way, for survival... mostly birds, insects, small mammals and parasites though.
Cancer, what? Genocide of... what, human races? What do you mean by deformities? Wildfires like the ones set off in dry areas by lightning strikes? Desertification like that caused by frickin' goats of all things? Animal extinction happens, but yes, we do cause a great deal more of it than other species.
Yes, human activity is a cause of many cases of cancer and, my apologies, developmental disorders.
Some of the wildfires that rage across California are caused by humans. Not all of them, but enough to be significant.
Goats overgrazing is a cause of desertification. But, who raises those goats?
My point in regards to desertification is it can happen due to a large number of different factors. Some of those are due to humans, overfarming, overgrazing, others, such as changes in weather raising the salt level in the soil of an area, or even a change in sea level for a short time, entirely divorced from humans.
I assume you mean cancer and developmental disorders in humans? Those things we have plenty of?
Fire is a helpful enough invention that I think the benefits outweigh the dangers.
At this point, most cultures don't live in a ecological system which relies on other animals/plants other then what we grow/raise. We rarely go hunting or scavanging for our food do to our ability to farm and herd for our needs. We prey on few wild animals, and are hunted by even fewer. As far as I'm aware only abnormal incidents with animals lead to humans being preferred prey, as most of the animals that eat humans tend to be things that eat anything made of meat (i.e. crocodiles, some sharks and the like) and they tend to not go out hunting for just people.
As far as I'm aware, there aren't any ecosystems that rely on people as a necessary piece to sustain a balance. That is, aside from instances where we have gone in and altered the ecosystem by taking out predators or introducing other species and have to keep things in balance due to this. And even these will eventually fix themselves given enough time.
the animals and plants we raise are just as much a part of the ecosystem as anything else. If you choose to look at small enough parts of the ecosystem, you can eliminate people from them. That doesn't really matter when you are talking about the world as a whole.
If you remove something from the ecosystem, it will adjust. Fix implies one state is superior to the other. I don't believe this is a particularly good position to argue from as it appeals to nature and runs afoul of the naturalistic fallacy.
When I talk about fix, I mean that life is able to sustain itself through predation keeping prey in check, prey keeping plant life in check, and so forth. When you take out a predator, such as wolves in parts of the United States, their prey's population grow. Then when their population grow, there isn't enough food for them to all eat enough and begin to starve. Given enough time, how much I wouldn't know, either more vegitation will grow, a predator will be introduced or the prey will move on to a different area for more food. In the mean time, the prey wil begin to slowly starve. If the prey move on to another area, they will interfere with other wildlife, causing not enough vegitation, and so forth. This is what I would consider a broken ecosystem, one that cannot sustain the life within it so that some sort of change must occur so that a circle of life if you will may continue.
I guess I should change what I'm saying though. The more I think about it the more I realise that even though we aren't as direct a part of eco systems (very little prey on us, we don't need to live off wild animals for the most part, we grow a lot of our vegitation that we eat), I guess we are more of a part then I first thought. However, I still stand by the point that we are not directly a part of those ecosystems, but more of an intruder trying to push them aside and sort of getting caught with them. Such as farms who have animals preying on their live stock, all of the scavangers and stuff who live in and around cities, the massive amount of sea life that we eat. Does that make sense?
Cancer, what? Genocide of... what, human races? What do you mean by deformities? Wildfires like the ones set off in dry areas by lightning strikes? Desertification like that caused by frickin' goats of all things? Animal extinction happens, but yes, we do cause a great deal more of it than other species.
Yes, human activity is a cause of many cases of cancer and, my apologies, developmental disorders.
Some of the wildfires that rage across California are caused by humans. Not all of them, but enough to be significant.
Goats overgrazing is a cause of desertification. But, who raises those goats?
My point in regards to desertification is it can happen due to a large number of different factors. Some of those are due to humans, overfarming, overgrazing, others, such as changes in weather raising the salt level in the soil of an area, or even a change in sea level for a short time, entirely divorced from humans.
I assume you mean cancer and developmental disorders in humans? Those things we have plenty of?
Fire is a helpful enough invention that I think the benefits outweigh the dangers.
I mean cancer and developmental disorders in humans and other animals. And, it doesn't quite matter that we have plenty of cases caused by more natural factors, we could have far fewer cases were we to use technology more responsibly.
And... really... I'm not implying that fire isn't useful. I'm implying that human irresponsibility and maliciousness causes a hell of a lot of destruction with it.
I don't agree with the OP since I'm not quite sure what he was saying, but I can get behind the fact that technology and certain flaws in human nature has had a more immediate, detrimental effect on the life on this planet.
Richard_Dastardly on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited June 2009
huh
No offense to Darwin but I was half expecting that last attempt at diplomacy to blow up all over the thread. Nice to know my intuition was right about him.
(he talks like my thought processes....has an idea but can't work out the words)
Course its probably just the 4amness whereas for me its you know, all day erreday hyundai.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited June 2009
I knew as soon as I saw the thread title that this would be ugly.
So what you're saying is that you're stupid* and like to be stupid
have I summed things up
*well perhaps the technical term is 'nihilistic'
I think it's funny how many atheists look down on nihilism.
It's like, they're willing to accept that there is no larger purpose for the worse, but they still refuse to follow that through to its logical conclusion.
When I talk about fix, I mean that life is able to sustain itself through predation keeping prey in check, prey keeping plant life in check, and so forth. When you take out a predator, such as wolves in parts of the United States, their prey's population grow. Then when their population grow, there isn't enough food for them to all eat enough and begin to starve. Given enough time, how much I wouldn't know, either more vegitation will grow, a predator will be introduced or the prey will move on to a different area for more food. In the mean time, the prey wil begin to slowly starve. If the prey move on to another area, they will interfere with other wildlife, causing not enough vegitation, and so forth. This is what I would consider a broken ecosystem, one that cannot sustain the life within it so that some sort of change must occur so that a circle of life if you will may continue.
I guess I should change what I'm saying though. The more I think about it the more I realise that even though we aren't as direct a part of eco systems (very little prey on us, we don't need to live off wild animals for the most part, we grow a lot of our vegitation that we eat), I guess we are more of a part then I first thought. However, I still stand by the point that we are not directly a part of those ecosystems, but more of an intruder trying to push them aside and sort of getting caught with them. Such as farms who have animals preying on their live stock, all of the scavangers and stuff who live in and around cities, the massive amount of sea life that we eat. Does that make sense?
It makes sense, however it tends to lead to ideas like 'we need to live in harmony with nature' rather than accept that we are just as much a part of nature as any other species. We can either live in such a way where human life is sustainable or we can not. We can not survive without nature, but nature can easily survive without us(just like any other particular species). We are just another part of it, but we are the only part that has the foresight to understand the results of our actions and take steps to control those outcomes.
I don't really see it so much as protecting nature as protecting ourselves. If we fail to protect ourselves, nature will manage fine without us. It'll just look different, and their won't be anything around that will care about the difference.
Posts
What do you think we can actually do to this 4.5 billion year old, 25,000 mile wide, 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilogram rock with a core temperature that nearly equals that of the sun?
We're insignificant. We can do our worse and the Earth will continue and rebuild until the sun goes out.
Yah, I'm just saying, lots of people react with hostility to certain types of arguments and since you started off defining a key term wrongly they're all going to treat what you say within the relative framework of "the first thing this guy said sounds really stupid".
Instead of trying to react to everybody all at once, which is impossible since they're all roused up, sit down and think about what you want to say.
Then you would be wrong.
Any of the first three, by themselves, have been, can, and will wipe out several species by themselves.
Any of the last three, which could over a long enough time-frame be considered inevitable rather than unlikely, would wipe out the entire planet. Making it actually unable to sustain any life at all.
Firstly I sincerely apologize for any confusion I made by not clearly defining my point from the get go.
Secondly I'm going to bed in a few minutes...I am just too beat. So what I think you should do is write up your entire argument in a nice tidy post, and then PM it to me. Tomorrow I will take whatever you post, quote it, and respond to it. (Is this allowed? It just seems like the easiest way to do things).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Bangladesh_cyclone
one event.
and some statutes in pompei would like a word with you OP.
Don't worry. We'll be here when you get back.
I didn't abandon it at all. While I admit some things are not clear, I think that it all is on the same page and that I've stayed with my views throughout.
I'm going to say part of this is that you started off saying that true knowldge, being it through scientific or religious understanding is unattainable due to the belief that reality is entirely relative to the perceiver and no one single objective truth does exist. Or if it does it is unknowable as we all perceive it different. You cannot claim to know anything past this point, for you have previously stated that knowledge of the world around us does not exist, at best the knowledge of what we perceive to be the world around us exists and thusly we cannot truly gain knowledge as it is relative and not objective.
Then you tell us that we should live harmoniously with the earth so as to fall back into a realistic check and balances scenario with the rest of nature which we, at this point, are far above. Due to science and the furthering of our understandings we have been able to better the lives of humans, and a select number of animals while also hindering/destroying more species then have been helped. This is just an example of how we are above the current check and balance system, as other species can cause extinction. We just do it on a much larger scale.
How do you know that it is not our place to be above this natural system that all the other animals are in, and that this is our natural order? What if it's time the ecosystems started progressing and this is nature's way of saying "get on it or you're extinct!"?
Just frame your argument well and reply to the thread when you think you have a clear handle on things. As you can see it's a hot topic and if you can frame your argument well and defend it, it would be a good discussion. Until then good night.
Yeah I know. It'd be easier for me to respond if it was in my inbox though, to be honest I'm not going to go through pages and pages to try to get your complete point.
If you want me to respond with thought, like I said, PM me and I'll quote it and respond in this thread.
Fine I'll do that tomorrow. Now its time for bed.
I feel you assume too much. We, as Penny Arcade forum goers do not have one complete point that all of us stand by. We have too broad a spectrum to get one single view on... are we discussing if we should go to a hunter-gathering society to better everything on the planet besides us... or are we discussing if all knowledge is relative?
It's much easier if you post yours and then let us respond, because you're defending yours and not the other way around.
I think every war in human history, cancer, genocide, deformities, wildfires, deforestation, polution, desertification, animal extinction, dead zones in the ocean, etc, might just write a strongly worded letter to you.
I don't know if humans cause more harm to life on Earth than natural disasters, but I'm pretty sure that 1) the Earth can recover far more easily from a hurricane than an oil spill and 2) it doesn't really matter since we're still fucking shit up. And, I don't blame science or technology... just the way humans use it.
Edit: Sorry if I messed up the quoting.
Does it count if other humans are the only victims?
In the face of these - especially the latter - humanity isn't doing scratch.
I dunno. I hardly even know what this thread is about.
Edit:
I would say on a big scale from Planet remains the same to Planet is dead... I would rate this a pretty big planet stays the same. People tend to live outside of most ecosystems, and then kind of reach in and take what we need. Very little eats humans, and at most our positive interference is generally keeping populations in check (which doesn't count for much since in some instances it's because we took out the predators of the region to begin with).
Almost.
Depends on your definition of recover. A hurricane changing water temperatures and balances can completely destroy something delicate like a reef ecosystem. Our 60 years or so of advanced technology has nothing on the planets volatile ability to change in the last few millenia or so.
We're just not that important. I'm not saying we should treat the environment like shit but we really don't matter too much in the grand scheme of the planet. As it stands we're a prosperous blip.
Scenario: you are a hunter. You come across an area with a large depression in the ground, surrounded by lots of animal footprints. It almost looks like they were at a watering hole, but there's no water there. You guess that, when it rains, the depressions fills with water. You come back the next time it rains and are happy to find animals drinking at a new pond. You kill a rabbit, bring it back to your tribe, and tell them about it.
Observation, hypothesis, experimentation/observation, confirmation of your hypothesis, communication of new knowledge. That's science. So it was when the first clever person figured out that he dropped some seeds on the way back to the village, and plants grew where the seeds fell, and he tried planting seeds, and now we have agriculture. That's science too. Science is merely confirming ideas with evidence, it's not just lab coats and beakers.
Now, technology is where we start pumping oil and making CFC's (along with all the wonderful stuff like this computer).
I also find it interesting (though not at all surprising, given the nature of this board) that nobody has really discussed his rejection of religion.
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
You are pretty much mistaken. Very little things eat people. We are as much a part of the ecosystem as anything else.
a worm eat a king. a fish eats a worm. I eat a fish. I don't use Iambic pentameter though.
I agree, but being a short-lived, short-sighted creature I don't really care too much what happens in the next few millenia. But, I do care that I can't eat the fish from the river by my house and that I have to be careful when I go swimming in Lake Erie (I don't go swimming in Lake Erie) cuz I might cut my feet on some invasive snails (introduced by man) with titanium bladed shells.
And, when I said nature can recover, I meant that life returns... perhaps just not the exact same life forms (and I'm not talking about evolution).
Cancer, what? Genocide of... what, human races? What do you mean by deformities? Wildfires like the ones set off in dry areas by lightning strikes? Desertification like that caused by frickin' goats of all things? Animal extinction happens, but yes, we do cause a great deal more of it than other species.
Yes, humanity, namely the industrialized nations that have a (relative to humanity's perspective) major impact on the environment, need to modify their behavior to ensure that the earth can sustain a sizeable human population. But thats it, survival. That is the one motivator. Ascribing some strange spirituality to the planet, assigning any kind of responsibility to maintain the welfare of species other than ourselves beyond the degree to which they must be maintained to encourage our own survival is making an argument based on something other than rationality.
Saying that it would be 'better for the world' if humanity had never progressed beyond a primitive tribal collective of hooting apes just takes it to a whole other level.
Worms don't just eat kings, because otherwise there would be very few worms. And with how we treat most of our dead, such as caskets and such, how many people that die become food for small scavanger animals?
At this point, most cultures don't live in a ecological system which relies on other animals/plants other then what we grow/raise. We rarely go hunting or scavanging for our food do to our ability to farm and herd for our needs. We prey on few wild animals, and are hunted by even fewer. As far as I'm aware only abnormal incidents with animals lead to humans being preferred prey, as most of the animals that eat humans tend to be things that eat anything made of meat (i.e. crocodiles, some sharks and the like) and they tend to not go out hunting for just people.
As far as I'm aware, there aren't any ecosystems that rely on people as a necessary piece to sustain a balance. That is, aside from instances where we have gone in and altered the ecosystem by taking out predators or introducing other species and have to keep things in balance due to this. And even these will eventually fix themselves given enough time.
Everyone. Everyone gets eaten by bacteria and fungi.
the animals and plants we raise are just as much a part of the ecosystem as anything else. If you choose to look at small enough parts of the ecosystem, you can eliminate people from them. That doesn't really matter when you are talking about the world as a whole.
If you remove something from the ecosystem, it will adjust. Fix implies one state is superior to the other. I don't believe this is a particularly good position to argue from as it appeals to nature and runs afoul of the naturalistic fallacy.
This thread is slowly building up a large body of awesome.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Yes, human activity is a cause of many cases of cancer and, my apologies, developmental disorders.
Some of the wildfires that rage across California are caused by humans. Not all of them, but enough to be significant.
Goats overgrazing is a cause of desertification. But, who raises those goats?
I think we've created our own ecosystems called cities (edit: I just realized that sentence might sound patronizing. Didn't mean it that way.). There are animals who do rely on us, perhaps in a very abstract way, for survival... mostly birds, insects, small mammals and parasites though.
My point in regards to desertification is it can happen due to a large number of different factors. Some of those are due to humans, overfarming, overgrazing, others, such as changes in weather raising the salt level in the soil of an area, or even a change in sea level for a short time, entirely divorced from humans.
I assume you mean cancer and developmental disorders in humans? Those things we have plenty of?
Fire is a helpful enough invention that I think the benefits outweigh the dangers.
When I talk about fix, I mean that life is able to sustain itself through predation keeping prey in check, prey keeping plant life in check, and so forth. When you take out a predator, such as wolves in parts of the United States, their prey's population grow. Then when their population grow, there isn't enough food for them to all eat enough and begin to starve. Given enough time, how much I wouldn't know, either more vegitation will grow, a predator will be introduced or the prey will move on to a different area for more food. In the mean time, the prey wil begin to slowly starve. If the prey move on to another area, they will interfere with other wildlife, causing not enough vegitation, and so forth. This is what I would consider a broken ecosystem, one that cannot sustain the life within it so that some sort of change must occur so that a circle of life if you will may continue.
I guess I should change what I'm saying though. The more I think about it the more I realise that even though we aren't as direct a part of eco systems (very little prey on us, we don't need to live off wild animals for the most part, we grow a lot of our vegitation that we eat), I guess we are more of a part then I first thought. However, I still stand by the point that we are not directly a part of those ecosystems, but more of an intruder trying to push them aside and sort of getting caught with them. Such as farms who have animals preying on their live stock, all of the scavangers and stuff who live in and around cities, the massive amount of sea life that we eat. Does that make sense?
I mean cancer and developmental disorders in humans and other animals. And, it doesn't quite matter that we have plenty of cases caused by more natural factors, we could have far fewer cases were we to use technology more responsibly.
And... really... I'm not implying that fire isn't useful. I'm implying that human irresponsibility and maliciousness causes a hell of a lot of destruction with it.
I don't agree with the OP since I'm not quite sure what he was saying, but I can get behind the fact that technology and certain flaws in human nature has had a more immediate, detrimental effect on the life on this planet.
No offense to Darwin but I was half expecting that last attempt at diplomacy to blow up all over the thread. Nice to know my intuition was right about him.
(he talks like my thought processes....has an idea but can't work out the words)
Course its probably just the 4amness whereas for me its you know, all day erreday hyundai.
I don't know, I'm having fun... even if I'm not fully sure where I'm going any more. I guess it's all relative though.
I think it's funny how many atheists look down on nihilism.
It's like, they're willing to accept that there is no larger purpose for the worse, but they still refuse to follow that through to its logical conclusion.
It makes sense, however it tends to lead to ideas like 'we need to live in harmony with nature' rather than accept that we are just as much a part of nature as any other species. We can either live in such a way where human life is sustainable or we can not. We can not survive without nature, but nature can easily survive without us(just like any other particular species). We are just another part of it, but we are the only part that has the foresight to understand the results of our actions and take steps to control those outcomes.
I don't really see it so much as protecting nature as protecting ourselves. If we fail to protect ourselves, nature will manage fine without us. It'll just look different, and their won't be anything around that will care about the difference.