| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
On January 25 2013 03:52 derpface wrote: No species has gone more further than us at destroying the planet we live on. Destroying the planet? The planet is fine, and it will continue to be fine for another 5 billion years, until the sun uses up its fuel and starts to burn helium, which will make it grow into a red giant that will inevitably consume the nearest planets and stir fry the earth. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
Can't do anything to the planet edit: y'all think the ecosystem doesn't matter because you don't interact with nature on a daily basis, but this is a major problem of perspective. | ||
|
derpface
Sweden925 Posts
On January 25 2013 04:05 farvacola wrote: "natural" and "unnatural" are simply words; we have no actual basis in declaring human advancement and technology definitively unnatural, for they are mere products of humanity. Ofcourse we cant since we havent been there yet and its just hard to understand what will happen in the future. But we can clearly see that all this stuff we have done that is either natural or unnatural is damaging the life here on earth. So from my own defenition its quite unnatural as its destroying nature in a kind of way. | ||
|
CrtBalorda
Slovenia704 Posts
^^ | ||
|
imBLIND
United States2626 Posts
The worst part about that is the fact that humanity will never think as a collective whole because we value the individual way too much. And then as a result, no one cares about the future if the individual is the center of attention. | ||
|
Daniri
387 Posts
On January 24 2013 23:42 sorrowptoss wrote: What does he expect us to do once we realize this? Start killing ourselves? What solutions does he propose to "cure" this "plague" that apparently is us? So... what is the problem? We're a plague. Okay, that's cool. I had a tuna sandwich and an apple for lunch yesterday. And about the spoiler, yeah, it's blistering cold in Montreal. It's so cold it hurts my face when I walk outside. You should have cut the apple up and put it in the sandwich. | ||
|
A Wet Shamwow
United States1590 Posts
| ||
|
derpface
Sweden925 Posts
On January 25 2013 04:00 Shival wrote: Sure, and yet we're the first species ever with the capability to avert cataclysms such as an asteroid impact, soon to have the capability of colonizing other planets. I believe our tech is advancing at a faster pace than we are hurting the planet, in every area there's either already a solution or soon to realize solution to our environmental problems. Environmental concern is not the most problematic of cataclysms we should be worried about. Also, you evaded my question. Yes and this tech is rather tech than evolution, this tech is our own kind of evolution really and its hurting the world that we live in, kind of a counter-evolution if you strictly look on how it impact nature and life on earth. It makes us bigger, faster, harder, stronger but shuts other things aside. Its kind of shitty if you ask me, we just think about ourselves to tech higher and look down on everything else. And that question, you are right, there is no species that has done better at gaining TECH since its ofcourse only us that have the brainpower to "evolve" through teching, but that doesnt mean that we dont destoy nature and the planet we live in. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
On January 25 2013 04:16 imBLIND wrote: There is no limit on what humans can or cannot do within the boundaries of the natural world because we exist in our own fantasy world. And while we're living in a fantasy, the real world is crumbling by the weight of the problems we leave behind, and we do almost nothing to fix it. Humanity has no moral center; some people just want to survive, some want to make money off the misery of others, some want to carry out their religious war, and some just don't give a shit about anything else other than whats important to them. The worst part about that is the fact that humanity will never think as a collective whole because we value the individual way too much. And then as a result, no one cares about the future if the individual is the center of attention. If humanity has no moral center than the world in which we live in most certain does not either. I definitely agree with you in terms of how negative "the cult of the individual" has become, but you cannot fault a person or people for simply wanting to survive. What they need to made aware of, however, is that their survival and the survival of those around them are incontrovertibly linked. | ||
|
Tokimaster
United States4 Posts
Many people may not agree with me here, but I do believe that the rise of feminism has been steering men away from women, and just "doing without", or going their own way. Sweden, one of the most progressive countries (also known for feminazis) actually has the HIGHEST percentage of Thai wifes(Source). This seems like a pretty logical correlation to my point. Overall i'm not worried because it WILL be fixed. And yes it's extremely cold. Yesterday I had a pipe burst because someone left a window open in the basement and the water in the pipes froze! Luckily it wasn't a hard fix. | ||
|
Harmonious
179 Posts
On January 25 2013 00:06 r.Evo wrote: That's equivalent to saying Earth would be better off without lions because they kill zebras. Are humans a disaster for a lot of specific ecosystems? Yes. In the end it will balance itself out though. Earth as a planet or a global ecosystem doesn't care much for humans unless we literally blow the entire planet to pieces. Life always finds a way. No, life does not always find a way or balance itself out, at least not on the level of a species. We don't know the future of the human race, but saying that it will survive because "life will find a way" is naive. The whole argument that the global ecosystem doesn't care much for a single species is simply wrong. There have been two mass extinction events (out of 5) that have been caused by life itself. And these two dwarf the event that killed the dinosaurs. One was an organism that was wildly successful starting to produce methane as waste. This killed almost all other life on the planet and ultimately itself. The other was an organism starting to produce oxygen which was toxic to most other life at that time. In both instance "life found a way", but not the life that was already there. In excess of 99% of all species went extinct in both cases. So humans may find a way, but not because we cannot affect the global ecosystem in a major way, we most certainly can and it most certainly has the potential to be a major disaster if we do. | ||
|
Luepert
United States1933 Posts
On January 25 2013 00:08 Dreamer.T wrote: I did notice this winter is ridiculously cold compared to the previous ones. Hm, In Michigan it's the warmest in like the last 60 years. | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
| ||
|
sunglasseson
United States145 Posts
On January 24 2013 23:39 maybenexttime wrote: My opinion? He watched too much of The Matrix. Edit: From -5 to -10 C, so pretty OK. What's the temperature in the UK? so because a movie took an idea as part of its story it automatically makes what this guy says crazy? ive long agreed with him on this subject. we bring nothing to the table for the environment but take away. there is gonna be a time when there isnt anything left to take and what then | ||
|
KurtistheTurtle
United States1966 Posts
Obviously, that's not the case. There are problems now, yes, but we have the intelligence and means to approach them in ways we can't even imagine. So while he's right -- we do need to get our act together -- I also think he's missing the point. | ||
|
Maxd11
United States680 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On January 25 2013 04:42 KurtistheTurtle wrote: In the 1800's, smart men were gathered to predict the future of new york city in 100 years. They thought the population couldn't get much higher than it already was since people needed horses to get around and the amount of horses required was so large the city would buried in horse crap. Obviously, that's not the case. There are problems now, yes, but we have the intelligence and means to approach them in ways we can't even imagine. So while he's right -- we do need to get our act together -- I also think he's missing the point. In the 2100's, smart men were gathered to predict the future of the world in 100 years. They thought the population could keep getting higher, because every time before they thought it couldn't get higher they'd ended up being wrong. Obviously, that's not the case. There are things we can do, yes, but we have the intelligence and means to face up to the truth that we are mortal, and subject to the limitations of mortals. So while he's right -- there is a lot we can do -- I also think he's missing the point. | ||
|
Shival
Netherlands643 Posts
On January 25 2013 04:26 Harmonious wrote: No, life does not always find a way or balance itself out, at least not on the level of a species. We don't know the future of the human race, but saying that it will survive because "life will find a way" is naive. The whole argument that the global ecosystem doesn't care much for a single species is simply wrong. There have been two mass extinction events (out of 5) that have been caused by life itself. And these two dwarf the event that killed the dinosaurs. One was an organism that was wildly successful starting to produce methane as waste. This killed almost all other life on the planet and ultimately itself. The other was an organism starting to produce oxygen which was toxic to most other life at that time. In both instance "life found a way", but not the life that was already there. In excess of 99% of all species went extinct in both cases. So humans may find a way, but not because we cannot affect the global ecosystem in a major way, we most certainly can and it most certainly has the potential to be a major disaster if we do. We're not even close to destabalizing the ecosystem as much as the examples you give. Not even by a long shot. On January 25 2013 04:17 derpface wrote: Yes and this tech is rather tech than evolution, this tech is our own kind of evolution really and its hurting the world that we live in, kind of a counter-evolution if you strictly look on how it impact nature and life on earth. It makes us bigger, faster, harder, stronger but shuts other things aside. Its kind of shitty if you ask me, we just think about ourselves to tech higher and look down on everything else. And that question, you are right, there is no species that has done better at gaining TECH since its ofcourse only us that have the brainpower to "evolve" through teching, but that doesnt mean that we dont destoy nature and the planet we live in. I do not see why teching is by itself a bad thing. Sure, so far we've teched on fossil fuels, but it also has given us the opportunity to find a solution to our fossil fuel problem in clean energy. So teching in itself is not bad, it's rather good for humanity and maybe even the planet as a whole eventually. What is so special about evolution compared to tech? Should we want the randomness of evolution or the structured advancement of science? If I look at your comments the sole thing I see is loathing at our current civilization and wishing to go back to the stone age. I won't disagree with you that our planet's nature is beautiful to behold, but tech is not it's antithetical. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4966 Posts
"the Earth has no feelings, the other life on this plants doesn't care and simply wants to adapt and the balance that it might eventually bring and let's not forget the sheer mass/volume of the planet we're on that we cannot ever, EVER deplete" While the other side advocates the exact opposite, blaming humans for the Earth becoming a more hostile place for us (and other oxygen using organisms; dem extremophiles be doin' there business 'till the end of times) Life is unique. I'm not saying it's unique on this planet in this universe, but it's a very specific set of molecules working together to interact with the physical environment around itself. Billions of years of trial and error have led to the excistence of extictions of many, many species. Many have adapted and evolved into more adapted and survived, others couldn't cope so well with fast environmental changes or an overpowering organism with many more beneficial traits and died off. We now have a planet, scourched with an incountable amount of species, all living in a complex web of subtle balance and we're taking it away for our own gain. I'm not specifically saying we have to feel responsible for species dying out because they can't handle our dominance, but I do believe we have to strive for some sort of equilibrium between the more trial and error part of the world (nature, if I may call it that, even though the entire universe is considered as nature) and the rational end of the spectrum, us. We do not need to do this, but a world without any form of green, or other life forms unless them being used for consumption would make me feel extremely depressed. There is a way to live in harmony with much of the world still, but we must be able to see that life isn't just something crawling outside of a womb or as something reproducing untill the means to run out; it's much more than that. It's about simple atoms really, combining in such a way to create something so diverse and unique (transcending non living matter), trying to combine more of this non life into life, creating a very competitive force for survival. It has gone from unicellular, to simple bicellular into more complex stuff that we'll probably never be able to fully comprehend because it's so god damn difficult to understand all the parameters that are into play. It's the constant struggle with going back to the cold, dead, not organizing, whatever you want to call it, that makes this competitive battle go on. No life doesn't have a specific goal (strictly speaking), no it doesn't have (again, strictly speaking) moral standards, yes only we are able to interact in such a way with the universe that we can become so dominant, but doesn't that mean we're in some sort of way responsible for preserving what cannot be? And if life and the diversity of it doesn't have to be so cherished like some of these people in this thread are saying, why has it flourished so well for so long? Just to see it fade out? Sorry for my blur of badly organized thoughts.. There's alot to come out and not enough time/words to completely describe it. | ||
|
Aelfric
Turkey1496 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  49997Rain 3630BeSt 1123Mini 711EffOrt  709Stork 683Larva 561Light  446firebathero 442actioN 353[ Show more ] League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games B2W.Neo1512 crisheroes448 hiko443 Lowko340 Fuzer  288Hui .177 ArmadaUGS156 QueenE55 djWHEAT38 Trikslyr34 ZerO(Twitch)17 Organizations Dota 2 StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Classic vs MaxPax
SHIN vs Reynor
herO vs Maru
WardiTV Korean Royale
SC Evo League
IPSL
Julia vs Artosis
JDConan vs DragOn
OSC
BSL 21
TerrOr vs Aeternum
HBO vs Kyrie
RSL Revival
Wardi Open
IPSL
StRyKeR vs OldBoy
Sziky vs Tarson
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
