 |
| |
|
|
PeteH
|
|
quote:
I attach no moral weight to other species - we might as well f*ck with them as long as it's in our self-interest |
Not our *your*.
If you had an interest in OUR well being, you would realize that systematically destroying OUR landbase is suicidal. It is not about any one species, it is about a whole culture which is literally killing itself and much of the community around it.
When wolves returned to Yellowstone, they started feeding on the greatly expanded elk population. This reduction in elk numbers allowed certain species of pusywillow to return, which led to many other bird and small mammal species returning, and bird species who could return to habitats they had been pushed out of.
This was only possible because the wolves had managed to maintain enough population to rejuvenate their genetic potential. The same cannot be said for many other species.
Phytoplankton levels have been dropping, coral reefs are dying, topsoil is washing away by the ton every day. These are some of the basic building blocks of the food chain, and this culture is dismantling them like a demented game of Jenga, where the only question really is whose children get to try and clean up the mess
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
[QUOTE] Originally posted by PeteH
Not our *your*.
If you had an interest in OUR well being, you would realize that systematically destroying OUR landbase is suicidal. It is not about any one species, it is about a whole culture which is literally killing itself and much of the community around it.[/q]
Damaging the environment to the point where we can't sustain ourselves is a good example of f*cking with them that ISN'T in our self-interest  try again
quote:
When wolves returned to Yellowstone, they started feeding on the greatly expanded elk population. This reduction in elk numbers allowed certain species of pusywillow to return, which led to many other bird and small mammal species returning, and bird species who could return to habitats they had been pushed out of.
This was only possible because the wolves had managed to maintain enough population to rejuvenate their genetic potential. The same cannot be said for many other species.
Phytoplankton levels have been dropping, coral reefs are dying, topsoil is washing away by the ton every day. These are some of the basic building blocks of the food chain, and this culture is dismantling them like a demented game of Jenga, where the only question really is whose children get to try and clean up the mess |
What's the problem? Unless the Earth can't sustain agriculture anymore, and sea levels don't rise, sharply, we won't be affected.
Obviously, I support protecting the environment, but only inasmuch as it is beneficial to us. Anything else is pointless.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
PeteH
|
|
quote:
Unless the Earth can't sustain agriculture anymore, and sea levels don't rise, sharply, we won't be affected. |
Agriculture of the manner practiced by this culture has never been sustainable, and the earth *can't* sustain it like it is now. We are living off energy that will not be replaced on any sort of human scale. We *are* affected, every day, by the results of this lifestyle. The diseases that kill people today are mostly diseases of civilization.
I also wonder where people are finding their evidence that somehow civilized people are smarter. The idea that one day we figured out how to live in a way that would destroy us and this is our great accomplishment, as opposed to living in a way that ensured our survival in the long run, like the rest of the world, strikes me as 'odd' to say the least. In all the research I have done, I have never seen anything which points to some biological change which allowed civilization to occur.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PeteH
Agriculture of the manner practiced by this culture has never been sustainable, and the earth *can't* sustain it like it is now. We are living off energy that will not be replaced on any sort of human scale. We *are* affected, every day, by the results of this lifestyle. The diseases that kill people today are mostly diseases of civilization. |
You haven't contradicted my point yet... if it is detrimental to us, we shouldn't do it, otherwise it's an a-OK. I'm not arguing that certain things are and certain things aren't detrimental.
quote:
I also wonder where people are finding their evidence that somehow civilized people are smarter. The idea that one day we figured out how to live in a way that would destroy us and this is our great accomplishment, as opposed to living in a way that ensured our survival in the long run, like the rest of the world, strikes me as 'odd' to say the least. In all the research I have done, I have never seen anything which points to some biological change which allowed civilization to occur. |
They aren't inherently more intelligent, but they happen to have used that intelligence to create some pretty, well, intelligent devices.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
 |
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
You raised an interesting point though Ogie. You could also assume that people are primarily concerned with equality as opposed to individual economic benefit, however I think that whether or not you prefer inequality to equality depends on how much economic benefit the individual will get from any particular system with inequality. Poor people in a system with inequality will be more inclined to prefer equality, and rich people in a system with inequality will be more inclined to prefer inequality. However, in a system with equality I'm certain that the vast majority of people will prefer equality, because when you seperate equality from economics it is in itself desirable where inequality is not. |
Your beginning to understand the conservative morality here. When you describe equality it is a philosophy we agree to. But where we part ways is how that equality is defined/approtioned etc.
Equality to us means an equal chance. No one is due anything except for that equal chance. (Now you may argue, appropriately so, that under capitalism and through its failings that equal chances are impossible). Further a conservative thinks the best means to be fair is to give as much opportunity as possible and not restrict those chances to win. So by luck, shear determination, sweat and tears one can win and deserves to do so. It is largely a matter of individual responsibility to make it happen.
So we do have our notions of equality and do agree that is is a mandate it is our perceptions of what equality is tho' that differs.
In as much as we ascribe to this view, anything that prevents indivudal opportunities or removes the individual from his freedom to make those decisions is in our minds the largest infringment on equality of choices as those who have the potential to do more are prevented from doing so in the name of equality for the whole.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PeteH
|
|
quote:
You haven't contradicted my point yet... if it is detrimental to us, we shouldn't do it, otherwise it's an a-OK. |
Earlier, you said:
quote:
Us becoming this way is a predictable result of the evolution of intelligence! In fact, it's probably one of the biggest reason intelligence was so evolutionarily successful! |
The point I have been trying to make is that 'this way' is *not* successful. In fact, it is as near a total failure as I can imagine. In an evolutionary time frame, civilization is an experiment (or mutation if you prefer)by one group which will collapse like other failed mutations.
The fact that there have been thousands of groups of equally bright humans who did not take this path (and were exterminated because they dared stand in our way) seems to me to be a good indicator that this was in no way an 'inevitable path' and if you are really concerned about the well being of other humans, you would do well to learn how to improve your landbase instead of destroying it for your short-term benefit
|
|
| |
|
|
|
General Ludd
|
 |
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Remember what you were saying about the African bushmen? |
I didn't say anything about the bushmen. I was just asking why they haven't followed the human destiny.
I was worried that maybe they'd been left behind and where still proto-humans.
Last edited by General Ludd on 23-03-2004 at 08:01
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PeteH
|
|
quote:
HUnter Gatherers had little time for socio-political heirarchies as they were bent on survival and following game. |
Actually, they spent far less energy acquiring food than a farmer ever did, and had much in the way of leisure time. this has been known in anthropological circles since at least the 50's. There is a collection of essays that escapes me right now, published in the last few years, which contains "The original Affluent Society" and other more recent work relating to it
quote:
Lots of good stuff in the mid-east and in south america prehistory. Man always had the urge when time permitted to dominate the neighboring tribes steal possession and the like. |
This again is a mischaracterization of what was the more common general practice. The raiding and warfare of pre-civlized groups has very little resemblence to the warfare of settled agrarian society.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-03-2004 06:07
.
|