I heard an interesting comparison of what humans are on the earth a while back.
Earth is a beautiful, green, blue, natural place, but upon closer inspection you see cities and human development. These are grey and smelly. Like cancer. We reproduce exponentially, show no signs of stopping.
Humans do not reproduce exponentially though. Once humans reach a certain level of wealth the population even tends to decline.
On January 25 2013 01:36 aseq wrote: Soon enough, we'll be able to produce every type of food (including meat) in a controlled environment, which will be operated by robots. Food problem = gone. Our Dyson sphere around the sun will provide plenty of energy until we reach the next solar systems. Energy problem = gone.
But seriously, say we're posing a threat here. On the other hand, without humanity, animals could have lived on forever without us. Doing what animals do, eat each other and plants and run around mindlessly, That's useful. As there is no current point to life already, isn' t it better to have one species at least trying to fathom the mystery of life itself?
I actually tend to agree with this view point and not just because of the mystery of life, but also the enjoyment of it. Without the intelligence and awareness humans have all these glories this world has to offer would never be appreciated. I do feel that because of this awareness we have a certain responsibility though.
Soon enough, we'll be able to produce every type of food (including meat) in a controlled environment, which will be operated by robots. Food problem = gone. Our Dyson sphere around the sun will provide plenty of energy until we reach the next solar systems. Energy problem = gone.
But seriously, say we're posing a threat here. On the other hand, without humanity, animals could have lived on forever without us. Doing what animals do, eat each other and plants and run around mindlessly, That's useful. As there is no current point to life already, isn' t it better to have one species at least trying to fathom the mystery of life itself?
On January 25 2013 01:34 2v2levels wrote: I heard an interesting comparison of what humans are on the earth a while back.
Earth is a beautiful, green, blue, natural place, but upon closer inspection you see cities and human development. These are grey and smelly. Like cancer. We reproduce exponentially, show no signs of stopping.
On January 25 2013 00:31 Aphasie wrote: To be honest I dont think the world has any meaning outside of human existence. The "pretty" and "beautiful" moments/parts are just constructs of the human mind and in my opinion hold little value outside the realm of consciousness. For instance the vast mountains and chasms the mountain goats traverse on a daily basis are mind boggling to us, but the goats simply act on instinct. Some things like fear, anxiety, curiosity and perhaps even love might exist outside the human realm, but the powers of abstraction and logic trumps any comparison.
We probably should work for a sustainable earth, but simply because its in our self interest. We dont owe "mother earth" jack shit. However saving species, landscapes, etc is like saving something pretty and unique. Its basically saving our own history.
Sustainability, yes. Plague of the earth, i can see your argument. Should human kill themselves to "save the planet"? No, stop being retarded. We are the planet - now piss off!
my 2 cents
About -10 btw.
So your 2 cents are a) we don't owe this world jack shit and b) we are the world.
=> we don't owe ourselves jack shit? Why don't we start jumping out of windows then? I'm pretty sure you got something wrong there. We wouldn't exist without this planet. You make it sound like it wouldn't exist without us.
I gave up arguing with people on TL, so Ill keep this short n sweet. We need to work towards sustainability purely to pass on to next generation(s) something good to work with (i.e. not leave them with our mess). I do make the argument that earth holds no meaningful existence outside the human realm. Dont get me wrong, the mass will still be there. If there is still ducks they will go quack quack and the pigs go oink oink. However it holds no meaninful value in and of it self. Humans create purpose and appreciation. Everything else is merely passings, chaos, absurdities or randomness - without anyone to attribue any meaning to them..
I do see where you're coming from, but that meaningfulness is still a human creation from a human perspective. We cannot simply dismiss other lifeforms that might evolve into higher intelligence and create their own meanings and views of this planet and universe. There are already many species that show intelligence and empathetic behaviours that are usually associated exclusively with humans - such as love/affection, grief....etc. I do value humanity existence on this planet, but I do not think we're EVERYTHING - and that without us - there is no meaning to everything else.
On January 25 2013 01:36 aseq wrote: Soon enough, we'll be able to produce every type of food (including meat) in a controlled environment, which will be operated by robots. Food problem = gone. Our Dyson sphere around the sun will provide plenty of energy until we reach the next solar systems. Energy problem = gone.
But seriously, say we're posing a threat here. On the other hand, without humanity, animals could have lived on forever without us. Doing what animals do, eat each other and plants and run around mindlessly, That's useful. As there is no current point to life already, isn' t it better to have one species at least trying to fathom the mystery of life itself?
The point of life is an atom trying to understand itself. Though, I'd rather phrase it as the universe trying to understand itself.
On January 25 2013 01:36 Ysellian wrote: Humans do not reproduce exponentially though. Once humans reach a certain level of wealth the population even tends to decline.
I guess the real point is that our population is burning through natural resources at a rate that can't be sustainable. The bigger the population, the greater the demand we put on the earth.
On January 25 2013 01:19 coverpunch wrote: IMO this is just the ranting of a crazy old man who got really excited in the 70s that he was probably going to see the end of the world but now every day is just a reminder that he's going to die and the world will just go on without him.
Of all the things you could possibly say about the wonderful Sir David Attenborough, calling him a crazy old man is a very, very disrespectful thing to say.
Maybe as an American you didn't grow up watching his documentaries or programmes about our beautiful planet, but he's a pretty big deal and in terms of nature, one of the smartest men alive. He, alone has gotten countless amounts of people to enjoy and want to look after the world around us. Nearly everything I ever learnt about biology outside of human biology came from his documentaries. The man is a national trasure.
It is disrespectful, but calling the human race a plague is pretty disrespectful too. Using Ethiopia as an example is laughable.
And having a huge body of work doesn't contradict the idea that he might be making crazy rants because of his fear of death.
1. Nature is stupid, its "out there", existing, and it will continue to be so, human abuse or not, in one way or another, one form or another, as a forest covered planet, as a planet of water, an ice planet, or a barren rock floating in space.
2. Yet, nothing stops us, humans, bestowed with intelligence, to ensure that an "ideal" sustainable system is met, anthropocentric or natura-centric, as long as there is balance in the interaction of all existing life forms and other variable necessary to sustain life.
3. Yes, humans are responsible far more that mere natural survival and the pleasure-pain mechanics. We are consciously doing unsustainable practices that damages the very nature where we habitate and get our food from and we are devouring it of resources in ways that do not consider future generation (sustainability). And if you ask me, this is I think what everyone means when they say "good" or "ideal" - an ecosystem where everything can flourish/exist/coexist sustainably.
4. Alongside intelligence, we have technology. Let's use it for good for a change.
5. (And I will not skirt on this point) No one mentions it, except the OP, but the real problem here is not phychological or cognitive or even behavioral. They are merely implements of a bigger structure. The core of this man vs. nature problem is the economic model. Capital economy is designed to devour resources. It will simply move on to the next green pasteur (outer space). The real solution is to shift to a more sustainable economic system that will support and enable sustanable practice. Communism, Socialism, Social welfare, Hippieism, Treehuggerism, Sustainable Development, Smart Growth? It's not important how we call it, let's just do it.
On January 25 2013 01:36 Ysellian wrote: Humans do not reproduce exponentially though. Once humans reach a certain level of wealth the population even tends to decline.
I guess the real point is that our population is burning through natural resources at a rate that can't be sustainable. The bigger the population, the greater the demand we put on the earth.
Replacements are already available, there's just not enough pressure yet to change our ways. It'll come when we're getting closer to having absolutely no fossil fuel.
On January 25 2013 01:40 AUFKLARUNG wrote: 1. Nature is stupid, its "out there", existing, and it will continue to be so, human abuse or not, in one way or another, one form or another, as a forest covered planet, as a planet of water, an ice planet, or a barren rock floating in space.
2. Yet, nothing stops us, humans, bestowed with intelligence, to ensure that an "ideal" sustainable system is met, anthropocentric or natura-centric, as long as there is balance in the interaction of all existing life forms and other variable necessary to sustain life.
3. Yes, humans are responsible far more that mere natural survival and the pleasure-pain mechanics. We are consciously doing unsustainable practices that damages the very nature where we habitate and get our food from and we are devouring it of resources in ways that do not consider future generation (sustainability). And if you ask me, this is I think what everyone means when they say "good" or "ideal" - an ecosystem where everything can flourish/exist/coexist sustainably.
4. Alongside intelligence, we have technology. Let's use it for good for a change.
5. (And I will not skirt on this point) No one mentions it, except the OP, but the real problem here is not phychological or cognitive or even behavioral. They are merely implements of a bigger structure. The core of this man vs. nature problem is the economic model. Capital economy is designed to devour resources. It will simply move on to the next green pasteur (outer space). The real solution is to shift to a more sustainable economic system that will support and enable sustanable practice. Communism, Socialism, Social welfare, Hippieism, Treehuggerism, Sustainable Development, Smart Growth? It's not important how we call it, let's just do it.
On January 25 2013 00:00 KNICK wrote: He is right about the plague part. I mean, this is kind of a no-brainer, isn't it? If we were not here, the Earth would be much better off healthwise than it is right now. I don't think anyone can deny that, no matter how many organisations and campaigns to preserve nature we might start. Limiting population growth would be a good first step to the only relevant thing that we as a species could ultimately achieve: our own extinction. Of course, that will never happen of our own volition. But I am confident that, in time, we will either destroy this planet and go down with it or it will destroy us.
I just hope space travel won't make progress fast enough for us to infest other worlds as well. That would be a shame.
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.
Lions do not crap thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year and neither do they reshape the face of nature in such a devastating way as we do. Lions kill zebras, yes. They do not, however, cut down entire forests and thereby rob already endangered species of their natural habitats. They do not poison entire swaths of land in an effort of "agricultural pest control and/or fertilization" and inadvertently kill everything in and around the area. They do not hunt whales, birds, deer, zebras, tuna, seals etc. all at the same time to the point of driving some of these animals to the brink of extinction and beyond.
Lions and zebras are part of a natural food chain. Humans have taken a step outside that food chain and are taking whatever the hell they want from wherever the hell they want. And they don't do it in moderation, oh no. Just google "exctinct by humans" or something of the sort and then examine your comparison of the havoc we cause to lions killing zebras again. It might not hold up so well.
Humans are part of the exact same "natural food chain" as any other living organism on this planet. Pretending they're anything but probably makes the whole situation much more terrifying than it actually is, that's where your initial point already fails.
Assuming we don't blow up the planet, what's the actual super worst case? Humans die with 99% of life on earth. That in itself is not a problem for the planet itself or life in general, it's just going to boil down to a question of time. A much more likely scenario however is that our population eventually starts regulating itself, just like the way we interact with the ecosystem in general regulates itself. Why does it do that? Because it's all part of the same system.
S:klogW pretty much nailed it in his post above somewhere. We are not a part of any natural order. We are an accident, a freak of evolution. Because we are born with a consciousness. To keep with the theme here, I'll refer to the lions and zebras again. They don't know that they're alive and they don't know that they will die. They just are. They hunt, eat, fuck, sleep, tend to their young, rinse and repeat. We, on the other hand, are plagued (the plague is plagued, imagine that, how much more pathogenic can we get?) with consciousness. We do know that we are alive, and we are very aware of the fact that we will die one day. And somehow, some way, in our toxic little brains, this fact translates to an uncontrollable desire to expand and gather and amass. Wealth, experience, relationships and all that good stuff. And it doesn't matter what is standing in our way of achieving all these things. We'll cut it up, down, whatever direction, it'll have to go.
To your question about the worst case: 99% of life dying might not be a huge problem for the planet. It certainly is a problem for all the other mammals, invertebrates, fish, reptiles etc. that are forced to share this world with us. Are we really so bleeding arrogant that we hypothesize near total annihilation of all life forms on this planet and our comment is "it's not a problem for the planet itself, so who cares?".
Animals don't know that they're alive? Animals don't know that they will die? Animals aren't afraid of death? That's some thin ice you're on.
There is no "freak of evolution", just like cancer or AIDS aren't unnatural. The biological goal of a human is precisely the same as that of an animal, again the only difference is scale. Animals seek pleasure and try to avoid pain, just like humans.
Fun sidenote: The plain fact that you're trying to tell me how horrible "humans in general" are is just proving my point. 100 years ago no one would have given a damn - not sure how you're unable to understand that precisely this is part of humans adopting to their surrounding for the "better" of other species involved.
On January 25 2013 00:58 NightOfTheDead wrote:
On January 25 2013 00:54 r.Evo wrote: Birth rates are going down. .
Are you kidding me? Compared to what? To last year, or last 5 years? How about last 100 or 1000 years?
Funny that we are all Germans here (including Hryul) debating this thing.
I will focus on your reply. You underestimate the "scale" that you are talking about. We are manipulating and changing the balance of the food chain in irreversible ways. Agricultural, oil mining, mineral mining, fishing, etc. practices today are not designed to leave something for the generation of the future, maybe as soon as the next 20 years.
so the worst thing about "the plague" is that it's limiting it's own growth opportunities? That's a good thing right?
the overall growth in world's wealth has led to a higher amount of meat consumed. To produce a meat product, it takes up a lot of extra resources to grow and prepare and cook, compared to vegetables.
In China and Japan, KFC and another famous chain restaurant have fast grown chicken that had been injected with growth hormones that make the chicken fully grown in around 45 days. We will have to rely on chemicals and technology to support our huge growing high cost human population. Some of the chemicals will not have a chance to fully understood on the impact on human bodies.
I don't know how he did the maths but he said we can all fit into texas. But what if every single family requires more meat, more cars, which in turns lead to more pollutions, more tension etc. Sure maybe we will have lots of space and rooms, but is it realistic? Is it sustainable?
On January 25 2013 00:31 Aphasie wrote: To be honest I dont think the world has any meaning outside of human existence. The "pretty" and "beautiful" moments/parts are just constructs of the human mind and in my opinion hold little value outside the realm of consciousness. For instance the vast mountains and chasms the mountain goats traverse on a daily basis are mind boggling to us, but the goats simply act on instinct. Some things like fear, anxiety, curiosity and perhaps even love might exist outside the human realm, but the powers of abstraction and logic trumps any comparison.
We probably should work for a sustainable earth, but simply because its in our self interest. We dont owe "mother earth" jack shit. However saving species, landscapes, etc is like saving something pretty and unique. Its basically saving our own history.
Sustainability, yes. Plague of the earth, i can see your argument. Should human kill themselves to "save the planet"? No, stop being retarded. We are the planet - now piss off!
my 2 cents
About -10 btw.
So your 2 cents are a) we don't owe this world jack shit and b) we are the world.
=> we don't owe ourselves jack shit? Why don't we start jumping out of windows then? I'm pretty sure you got something wrong there. We wouldn't exist without this planet. You make it sound like it wouldn't exist without us.
I gave up arguing with people on TL, so Ill keep this short n sweet. We need to work towards sustainability purely to pass on to next generation(s) something good to work with (i.e. not leave them with our mess). I do make the argument that earth holds no meaningful existence outside the human realm. Dont get me wrong, the mass will still be there. If there is still ducks they will go quack quack and the pigs go oink oink. However it holds no meaninful value in and of it self. Humans create purpose and appreciation. Everything else is merely passings, chaos, absurdities or randomness - without anyone to attribue any meaning to them..
I do see where you're coming from, but that meaningfulness is still a human creation from a human perspective. We cannot simply dismiss other lifeforms that might evolve into higher intelligence and create their own meanings and views of this planet and universe. There are already many species that show intelligence and empathetic behaviours that are usually associated exclusively with humans - such as love/affection, grief....etc. I do value humanity existence on this planet, but I do not think we're EVERYTHING - and that without us - there is no meaning to everything else.
True. Earth existed without us for so so so long and didn't care whether it had meaning or not. If it were consciuos, it will laugh at our self-importance.
On January 25 2013 00:00 KNICK wrote: He is right about the plague part. I mean, this is kind of a no-brainer, isn't it? If we were not here, the Earth would be much better off healthwise than it is right now. I don't think anyone can deny that, no matter how many organisations and campaigns to preserve nature we might start. Limiting population growth would be a good first step to the only relevant thing that we as a species could ultimately achieve: our own extinction. Of course, that will never happen of our own volition. But I am confident that, in time, we will either destroy this planet and go down with it or it will destroy us.
I just hope space travel won't make progress fast enough for us to infest other worlds as well. That would be a shame.
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.
Lions do not crap thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year and neither do they reshape the face of nature in such a devastating way as we do. Lions kill zebras, yes. They do not, however, cut down entire forests and thereby rob already endangered species of their natural habitats. They do not poison entire swaths of land in an effort of "agricultural pest control and/or fertilization" and inadvertently kill everything in and around the area. They do not hunt whales, birds, deer, zebras, tuna, seals etc. all at the same time to the point of driving some of these animals to the brink of extinction and beyond.
Lions and zebras are part of a natural food chain. Humans have taken a step outside that food chain and are taking whatever the hell they want from wherever the hell they want. And they don't do it in moderation, oh no. Just google "exctinct by humans" or something of the sort and then examine your comparison of the havoc we cause to lions killing zebras again. It might not hold up so well.
Humans are part of the exact same "natural food chain" as any other living organism on this planet. Pretending they're anything but probably makes the whole situation much more terrifying than it actually is, that's where your initial point already fails.
Assuming we don't blow up the planet, what's the actual super worst case? Humans die with 99% of life on earth. That in itself is not a problem for the planet itself or life in general, it's just going to boil down to a question of time. A much more likely scenario however is that our population eventually starts regulating itself, just like the way we interact with the ecosystem in general regulates itself. Why does it do that? Because it's all part of the same system.
S:klogW pretty much nailed it in his post above somewhere. We are not a part of any natural order. We are an accident, a freak of evolution. Because we are born with a consciousness. To keep with the theme here, I'll refer to the lions and zebras again. They don't know that they're alive and they don't know that they will die. They just are. They hunt, eat, fuck, sleep, tend to their young, rinse and repeat. We, on the other hand, are plagued (the plague is plagued, imagine that, how much more pathogenic can we get?) with consciousness. We do know that we are alive, and we are very aware of the fact that we will die one day. And somehow, some way, in our toxic little brains, this fact translates to an uncontrollable desire to expand and gather and amass. Wealth, experience, relationships and all that good stuff. And it doesn't matter what is standing in our way of achieving all these things. We'll cut it up, down, whatever direction, it'll have to go.
To your question about the worst case: 99% of life dying might not be a huge problem for the planet. It certainly is a problem for all the other mammals, invertebrates, fish, reptiles etc. that are forced to share this world with us. Are we really so bleeding arrogant that we hypothesize near total annihilation of all life forms on this planet and our comment is "it's not a problem for the planet itself, so who cares?".
Animals don't know that they're alive? Animals don't know that they will die? Animals aren't afraid of death? That's some thin ice you're on.
There is no "freak of evolution", just like cancer or AIDS aren't unnatural. The biological goal of a human is precisely the same as that of an animal, again the only difference is scale. Animals seek pleasure and try to avoid pain, just like humans.
Fun sidenote: The plain fact that you're trying to tell me how horrible "humans in general" are is just proving my point. 100 years ago no one would have given a damn - not sure how you're unable to understand that precisely this is part of humans adopting to their surrounding for the "better" of other species involved.
On January 25 2013 00:58 NightOfTheDead wrote:
On January 25 2013 00:54 r.Evo wrote: Birth rates are going down. .
Are you kidding me? Compared to what? To last year, or last 5 years? How about last 100 or 1000 years?
Funny that we are all Germans here (including Hryul) debating this thing.
I will focus on your reply. You underestimate the "scale" that you are talking about. We are manipulating and changing the balance of the food chain in irreversible ways. Agricultural, oil mining, mineral mining, fishing, etc. practices today are not designed to leave something for the generation of the future, maybe as soon as the next 20 years.
so the worst thing about "the plague" is that it's limiting it's own growth opportunities? That's a good thing right?
Because this plague is us. And we can actually be a sustainable and healthy part of the whole equation.
On January 25 2013 00:00 KNICK wrote: He is right about the plague part. I mean, this is kind of a no-brainer, isn't it? If we were not here, the Earth would be much better off healthwise than it is right now. I don't think anyone can deny that, no matter how many organisations and campaigns to preserve nature we might start. Limiting population growth would be a good first step to the only relevant thing that we as a species could ultimately achieve: our own extinction. Of course, that will never happen of our own volition. But I am confident that, in time, we will either destroy this planet and go down with it or it will destroy us.
I just hope space travel won't make progress fast enough for us to infest other worlds as well. That would be a shame.
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.
Lions do not crap thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year and neither do they reshape the face of nature in such a devastating way as we do. Lions kill zebras, yes. They do not, however, cut down entire forests and thereby rob already endangered species of their natural habitats. They do not poison entire swaths of land in an effort of "agricultural pest control and/or fertilization" and inadvertently kill everything in and around the area. They do not hunt whales, birds, deer, zebras, tuna, seals etc. all at the same time to the point of driving some of these animals to the brink of extinction and beyond.
Lions and zebras are part of a natural food chain. Humans have taken a step outside that food chain and are taking whatever the hell they want from wherever the hell they want. And they don't do it in moderation, oh no. Just google "exctinct by humans" or something of the sort and then examine your comparison of the havoc we cause to lions killing zebras again. It might not hold up so well.
Humans are part of the exact same "natural food chain" as any other living organism on this planet. Pretending they're anything but probably makes the whole situation much more terrifying than it actually is, that's where your initial point already fails.
Assuming we don't blow up the planet, what's the actual super worst case? Humans die with 99% of life on earth. That in itself is not a problem for the planet itself or life in general, it's just going to boil down to a question of time. A much more likely scenario however is that our population eventually starts regulating itself, just like the way we interact with the ecosystem in general regulates itself. Why does it do that? Because it's all part of the same system.
S:klogW pretty much nailed it in his post above somewhere. We are not a part of any natural order. We are an accident, a freak of evolution. Because we are born with a consciousness. To keep with the theme here, I'll refer to the lions and zebras again. They don't know that they're alive and they don't know that they will die. They just are. They hunt, eat, fuck, sleep, tend to their young, rinse and repeat. We, on the other hand, are plagued (the plague is plagued, imagine that, how much more pathogenic can we get?) with consciousness. We do know that we are alive, and we are very aware of the fact that we will die one day. And somehow, some way, in our toxic little brains, this fact translates to an uncontrollable desire to expand and gather and amass. Wealth, experience, relationships and all that good stuff. And it doesn't matter what is standing in our way of achieving all these things. We'll cut it up, down, whatever direction, it'll have to go.
To your question about the worst case: 99% of life dying might not be a huge problem for the planet. It certainly is a problem for all the other mammals, invertebrates, fish, reptiles etc. that are forced to share this world with us. Are we really so bleeding arrogant that we hypothesize near total annihilation of all life forms on this planet and our comment is "it's not a problem for the planet itself, so who cares?".
Animals don't know that they're alive? Animals don't know that they will die? Animals aren't afraid of death? That's some thin ice you're on.
There is no "freak of evolution", just like cancer or AIDS aren't unnatural. The biological goal of a human is precisely the same as that of an animal, again the only difference is scale. Animals seek pleasure and try to avoid pain, just like humans.
Fun sidenote: The plain fact that you're trying to tell me how horrible "humans in general" are is just proving my point. 100 years ago no one would have given a damn - not sure how you're unable to understand that precisely this is part of humans adopting to their surrounding for the "better" of other species involved.
On January 25 2013 00:58 NightOfTheDead wrote:
On January 25 2013 00:54 r.Evo wrote: Birth rates are going down. .
Are you kidding me? Compared to what? To last year, or last 5 years? How about last 100 or 1000 years?
Animals don't know that they're alive? No, not in the way we do. They are not consciously aware of their place in the world, or that they're in their youth/old age or what the limitations of their lifespan are.
Animals don't know that they will die? Certainly not. Animals do not understand the concept of death. Hell, humans barely understand the concept of death, and we're supposed to be oh so superior in almost every way. I admit though, some animals have been observed to split from their herd or group when they feel the end coming. What I meant by they don't know that they will die is answered in the paragraph below.
Animals aren't afraid of death? Yes, they are. Which is why I never wrote that they are not. They possess instinctual reactions which will help them keep out of harm's way. The emphasis being on instinctual. They are not known to sit around somewhere, with no imminent danger and undisturbed and think about death and how scary it all is. Humans are.
I also agree with your assertion that the biological goals of humans and other animals are generally the same. They have to be, because they are inherent to all animals. The difference is, again, consciousness. It deforms and mutilates these goals to the point of them not being recognizable as such.
Debating? So far I don't see much more than petty insults and fancy sounding words from your side.
Well then, I'm sorry for being insulting (I'm just assuming you included me in that statement), I certainly didn't mean to be. I actually thought this was quite an interesting exchange.
I specifically didn't say that you're wrong, just that you're on thin ice. Why? Because we don't know how or if animals think or feel in those ways. We all know stories of cats or dogs refusing to eat after their caretaker died. What we don't know is whether it's because the conditions they're used to changed dramatically or if they actually don't want to live without a person they enjoyed sharing their life with.
We have the exact same instinctual reactions to keep us out of harms way. Do we have something on top of that? Most likely. We "hunt, eat, fuck, sleep, tend to our young, rinse and repeat" - do we do unnecessary things on top of that? Yeah. However it's again not that huge of a difference compared to animals. Whether a cat is grooming another cat or whether we go and get massaged is not inherently different based on it both being just plain pleasure. (Yes, I'm aware that there is a biological need for grooming. However, anything we do for pleasure is based in some form on a basic need that is getting fulfilled.)
Let's get personal. Would you say that you, personally, "amass wealth, relationships" and that you "cut down everything you have to to get to it"? No? Yes? If yes, are you aware of when you're doing it or are you capable of reflecting on what you did and changing your behaviour in the future? We as humans, specifically because of our consciousness are able to learn from the past and prepare ourselves for the future. Part of that is, well, slowing down with all the evil destruction of the entire planet.
(The insult part was directed at the guy who kept calling every post of mine stupid bullshit, from your side I'm just annoyed with the overly dramatic freaks of natures and toxic little brains. All good.)
On January 25 2013 01:34 2v2levels wrote: I heard an interesting comparison of what humans are on the earth a while back.
Earth is a beautiful, green, blue, natural place, but upon closer inspection you see cities and human development. These are grey and smelly. Like cancer. We reproduce exponentially, show no signs of stopping.
Humans are cancer of the earth.
Fair comparison, I suppose.
Simply, factually wrong.
It's an over-simplified, hyperbolic, and general observation that I found interesting. Nobody is claiming to be a scientist here.
From that little quotation that you posted in the OP I would align myself with the critics of Attenborough. Population growth I do not believe is an issue as of now, the country listed within the OP was not representative of a majority of our population. I do agree with the fact that we don't utilize our resources to their maximum potential. Edit: Not trying to be contentious if it is seen that way, just stating my opinion.
EPT
