Interesting book
-
fat_boy wrote:
Name those ways.
Nuclear weapons are the obvious one.
fat_boy wrote:
And the proof that we are near that limit is what?
Acceleration of extinctions, signs that we're at peak oil, when oil is fundamental to the ways we generate our food, depleted supplies of many foods from the ocean, etc.
fat_boy wrote:
This is patently untrue. Humans are the ONLY species that will care for another.
OK, I guess we're nice to dogs and cats when it suits us.
fat_boy wrote:
Resource stress is the one thing most likely to cause a speciers to seek new habitats. It is precisely because man will become too big for the planet thwt we will search out new ones.
That is kind of true, except there's no options for us to move to.
fat_boy wrote:
In fact western populations are stable, and have been for decades. The only increases are due to immigraiton. The third world will go the same way as it industrialises, loosing the cultural traditions and ignorance that lead to population excesses.
That is very possible, but not guarenteed. In the meantime, a lot of Chinese and Indians are demanding first world lifestyles, which the planet is unlikely to easily support.
fat_boy wrote:
Basicaly, its a rosy future for man and the planet. Always was, always will be. The only dark cloud is mans fear. Always was. Always will be.
I can see your ass, but your head appears to be below the sand.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
OK, I guess we're nice to dogs and cats when it suits us.
Oh, and this is not true. Man will spontaneously care for amlost any species of animal that needs it. We raised a could of collared doves last year. I cut the branch off their nest was in. The parent doves wouldnt go near the nest after I had selotaped it to a neighbouring branch (really, doves are thick). Se we habd reared them till the y left one day. They were quite tame. When I was working in the office they would fly from the kitchen, down te corridor, to come and sit and peck at my keyboard as I was trying to work. They used to com and sit with us as we ate in the dining room too. Many many people are like this to animals. OK, more so the birds and mamals, caring for insects and reptiles isnt so well pracrticed, but Man does genuinely care for other species.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
Right, so thats not gojng to wipe out all life is it, Not by a very very long way.
You're claiming that nukes are incapable of killing life on this planet ? Based on that, and a scan to confirm that the rest of the post is based on similar ignorance, I'm stopping there.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
You're claiming that nukes are incapable of killing life on this planet ?
*all life* was what you said. What was that volcano, the one that gave rise to the 'summer that bever was' arond 1812? It was in Java or somewhere like that. It went up with a force of thousands of hiroshima bombs, and produced a winter just like a nuclear winter would. Yet within a few years life returns to normal. But in any case, sea life is of course unaffected by nukes. In fact pretty much the southern hemisphere wil be unaffected by nukes since there isnt much worth nuking down there. And thers a lot of ocean, with a lot of life in it.
Christian Graus wrote:
the rest of the post is based on similar ignorance
You see, this is where I dont get it with you. You are incapable of either debating, or accepting a valid counter point. The only thing you can do is insult your oponent. Why is that Christian? Why is my statement; 'Careers for women, better education, later marriage, and chemical stress (oestrogenic) causes less children per couple' ignorant? How is your intelligence so much higher that you can dismiss oestrogenic like plastics in food containers as ignorant talk? I think its time you had a good hard look at what makes you tick Christian.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Christian Graus wrote:
OK, I guess we're nice to dogs and cats when it suits us.
Oh, and this is not true. Man will spontaneously care for amlost any species of animal that needs it. We raised a could of collared doves last year. I cut the branch off their nest was in. The parent doves wouldnt go near the nest after I had selotaped it to a neighbouring branch (really, doves are thick). Se we habd reared them till the y left one day. They were quite tame. When I was working in the office they would fly from the kitchen, down te corridor, to come and sit and peck at my keyboard as I was trying to work. They used to com and sit with us as we ate in the dining room too. Many many people are like this to animals. OK, more so the birds and mamals, caring for insects and reptiles isnt so well pracrticed, but Man does genuinely care for other species.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Man will spontaneously care for amlost any species of animal that needs it.
If he is comfortable and it doesn't suit him to mistreat them, then yes. If it's to his advantage to destroy their habitat, hunt them to extinction, do medical experiments on them, etc., then they are screwed.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
If there were aliens and they had vehicles capable of getting here and were belligerent we'd already be dead. They're not waiting for us to catch up to make it a fair fight. Which means that either there are no aliens capable of getting here, they are here and we're kinda interesting and that's it, they haven't found us yet, they have found us and don't care or they have found us but there is nothing here for them. I'm sure there are others.
digital man wrote:
If there were aliens and they had vehicles capable of getting here and were belligerent we'd already be dead.
Yes, agreed. There are plainly no aliens. I have a different theory as to why that is, but the end result is the same.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Man will spontaneously care for amlost any species of animal that needs it.
If he is comfortable and it doesn't suit him to mistreat them, then yes. If it's to his advantage to destroy their habitat, hunt them to extinction, do medical experiments on them, etc., then they are screwed.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
True, ad yet many people object to experimentation on animals and will try their hardest to protect their environments. There are many organisatins that do this.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
It's fascinating to me how deliberately obtuse you can be. Some of your responses above beggar belief ( which is why I didn't bother answering them ). My point is that AS A SPECIES we tend to make things extinct, or manipulate them for our own benefit. I was repeating a point made by someone else, a point that I don't think needs defending. Yet, you're trying to split hairs to find an argument with me. What's the problem ? In answer to your 'reply', which I assume you regard to be logical and to have proven me wrong, somehow, despite all logic and common sense, the fact is that as a species, we do more harm than good, and the actions of a few animal welfare groups acting to save animals whose suffering does not benefit them directly, only proves that such action is needed because humans, as a rule, will harm animals if it helps them.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
You're claiming that nukes are incapable of killing life on this planet ?
*all life* was what you said. What was that volcano, the one that gave rise to the 'summer that bever was' arond 1812? It was in Java or somewhere like that. It went up with a force of thousands of hiroshima bombs, and produced a winter just like a nuclear winter would. Yet within a few years life returns to normal. But in any case, sea life is of course unaffected by nukes. In fact pretty much the southern hemisphere wil be unaffected by nukes since there isnt much worth nuking down there. And thers a lot of ocean, with a lot of life in it.
Christian Graus wrote:
the rest of the post is based on similar ignorance
You see, this is where I dont get it with you. You are incapable of either debating, or accepting a valid counter point. The only thing you can do is insult your oponent. Why is that Christian? Why is my statement; 'Careers for women, better education, later marriage, and chemical stress (oestrogenic) causes less children per couple' ignorant? How is your intelligence so much higher that you can dismiss oestrogenic like plastics in food containers as ignorant talk? I think its time you had a good hard look at what makes you tick Christian.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
*all life* was what you said.
I apologise, I forgot that you're wanting to be obtuse and argue for hte sake of it.
fat_boy wrote:
You are incapable of either debating, or accepting a valid counter point
I have no time for people who just want to fight for the sake of it. I get sick of that quickly. That you even wanted to pick a fight in response to this, beggars belief.
fat_boy wrote:
The only thing you can do is insult your oponent.
I was not looking for an opponent. It's not true that 'all I can do is insult my opponent'. It is true that sometimes past history affects how I respond to someone. Just like when CSS talks to me, when you talk to me, I already know where it's heading, and if I respond at all, if I try to give you some benefit of the doubt, it doesn't take much for me to decide that you're back to your old tricks.
fat_boy wrote:
Why is my statement; 'Careers for women, better education, later marriage, and chemical stress (oestrogenic) causes less children per couple' ignorant?
It is true. But it ignores the fact that they first have to reach first world status, with the populations they have now, and then take the time for those changes to make a difference, and THEN population will start to drop. There is no reason to believe we have the resources for that to take place. The wealth of the first world is BUILT on the fact that people in the third world make our goods for a cost that is negligible. Without anyone to expliot, there's not really any way that China and India can rise to our level, we will just drop as we have to pay the person who makes our Nikes a living wage.
fat_boy wrote:
How is your intelligence so much higher that you can dismiss oestrogenic like plastics in food containers as ignorant talk?
The issue is two fold: 1 - where does the plastic come from ? Do you think that our oil reserves cannot be depleted ? 2 - the simple fact that you're being deliberately obtuse, and I'm just trying to fob you off rather than waste my time with the games you play. You're just deliberately argumentative, and I've learned it's not worth trying to have a serious talk to you. All that says about me, is that I am a good judge of character.
-
digital man wrote:
If there were aliens and they had vehicles capable of getting here and were belligerent we'd already be dead.
Yes, agreed. There are plainly no aliens. I have a different theory as to why that is, but the end result is the same.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I have a different theory as to why that is
Can you say what that is?
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I have a different theory as to why that is
Can you say what that is?
I believe God created life, it cannot happen on it's own. So, that's why there are no aliens.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I believe God created life, it cannot happen on it's own. So, that's why there are no aliens.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Thanks. a) Why couldn't your god have also created aliens? b) Givern your statement, how would it affect your beliefs if aliens did turn up? (I'm not trying to troll you: I'm interested in your responses).
-
Thanks. a) Why couldn't your god have also created aliens? b) Givern your statement, how would it affect your beliefs if aliens did turn up? (I'm not trying to troll you: I'm interested in your responses).
digital man wrote:
Why couldn't your god have also created aliens?
He could, but I doubt that He did. If I met an alien, I'd still believe in God, and I'd wonder why He made them. But, it's a little different from 'life just happens by itself, so it must be out there', which is the general proposition as I read it, and certainly what the book argued.
digital man wrote:
Givern your statement, how would it affect your beliefs if aliens did turn up?
No, I don't believe in aliens for the same reason I don't believe in ghosts. They seem unlikely to me and I've never seen any proof of them. And yes, I do contend there is proof of God, if you wanted to ask that :-) But, if I saw a ghost, or an alien, I would believe in them, just like experiencing God means I believe in Him. I expect the same standard of proof from all things, before I will believe them. Aliens and ghosts have failed so far.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
fat_boy wrote:
*all life* was what you said.
I apologise, I forgot that you're wanting to be obtuse and argue for hte sake of it.
fat_boy wrote:
You are incapable of either debating, or accepting a valid counter point
I have no time for people who just want to fight for the sake of it. I get sick of that quickly. That you even wanted to pick a fight in response to this, beggars belief.
fat_boy wrote:
The only thing you can do is insult your oponent.
I was not looking for an opponent. It's not true that 'all I can do is insult my opponent'. It is true that sometimes past history affects how I respond to someone. Just like when CSS talks to me, when you talk to me, I already know where it's heading, and if I respond at all, if I try to give you some benefit of the doubt, it doesn't take much for me to decide that you're back to your old tricks.
fat_boy wrote:
Why is my statement; 'Careers for women, better education, later marriage, and chemical stress (oestrogenic) causes less children per couple' ignorant?
It is true. But it ignores the fact that they first have to reach first world status, with the populations they have now, and then take the time for those changes to make a difference, and THEN population will start to drop. There is no reason to believe we have the resources for that to take place. The wealth of the first world is BUILT on the fact that people in the third world make our goods for a cost that is negligible. Without anyone to expliot, there's not really any way that China and India can rise to our level, we will just drop as we have to pay the person who makes our Nikes a living wage.
fat_boy wrote:
How is your intelligence so much higher that you can dismiss oestrogenic like plastics in food containers as ignorant talk?
The issue is two fold: 1 - where does the plastic come from ? Do you think that our oil reserves cannot be depleted ? 2 - the simple fact that you're being deliberately obtuse, and I'm just trying to fob you off rather than waste my time with the games you play. You're just deliberately argumentative, and I've learned it's not worth trying to have a serious talk to you. All that says about me, is that I am a good judge of character.
If you are going to write obvious untruths, or at best questionable statements online then you had beter expect a challenge. The fact is that alot of your negativity towards man (from this thread: population is at max, doesnt care for other species, can destroy all life on the planet) is as I said something I have often seen in religious people. So, the real debate here is why? Taking me for example I have no religion. I have no ideology. I see man as part of nature, not seperate. I see man as inherently good and I see no original sin to be pardoned for. You see Abrahamic religions are just guilt ridden and unhealthy. It is far better to be a pagan and just live life naturally. Fuck, drink, work, eat, laugh and die. And along the way show the natural compassion we all have in our hearts for those in need, regardless of their species.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
If you are going to write obvious untruths, or at best questionable statements online then you had beter expect a challenge. The fact is that alot of your negativity towards man (from this thread: population is at max, doesnt care for other species, can destroy all life on the planet) is as I said something I have often seen in religious people. So, the real debate here is why? Taking me for example I have no religion. I have no ideology. I see man as part of nature, not seperate. I see man as inherently good and I see no original sin to be pardoned for. You see Abrahamic religions are just guilt ridden and unhealthy. It is far better to be a pagan and just live life naturally. Fuck, drink, work, eat, laugh and die. And along the way show the natural compassion we all have in our hearts for those in need, regardless of their species.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
The fact is that alot of your negativity towards man (from this thread: population is at max, doesnt care for other species, can destroy all life on the planet) is as I said something I have often seen in religious people.
The person who wrote the book that I just reported on, is an athiest as far as I can tell from the book. So, your point falls over at the first hurdle.
fat_boy wrote:
Taking me for example I have no religion. I have no ideology. I see man as part of nature, not seperate. I see man as inherently good and I see no original sin to be pardoned for.
You misjudge my beliefs, and fail to recognise that I was reporting on a book I read, written by someone whose beliefs are probably similar to yours. Your whole point is moot.
fat_boy wrote:
And along the way show the natural compassion we all have in our hearts for those in need, regardless of their species.
And if man tended to show that sort of compassion when it cost him, you may have half a point.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
digital man wrote:
Why couldn't your god have also created aliens?
He could, but I doubt that He did. If I met an alien, I'd still believe in God, and I'd wonder why He made them. But, it's a little different from 'life just happens by itself, so it must be out there', which is the general proposition as I read it, and certainly what the book argued.
digital man wrote:
Givern your statement, how would it affect your beliefs if aliens did turn up?
No, I don't believe in aliens for the same reason I don't believe in ghosts. They seem unlikely to me and I've never seen any proof of them. And yes, I do contend there is proof of God, if you wanted to ask that :-) But, if I saw a ghost, or an alien, I would believe in them, just like experiencing God means I believe in Him. I expect the same standard of proof from all things, before I will believe them. Aliens and ghosts have failed so far.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I'd wonder why He made them
Extending that, what if they turned up and were so far advanced as to appear to us as gods?
Christian Graus wrote:
I do contend there is proof of God, if you wanted to ask that
Very much: that would be interesting. ps maybe start a new thread as this will drop off the page very quickly.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I'd wonder why He made them
Extending that, what if they turned up and were so far advanced as to appear to us as gods?
Christian Graus wrote:
I do contend there is proof of God, if you wanted to ask that
Very much: that would be interesting. ps maybe start a new thread as this will drop off the page very quickly.
digital man wrote:
Extending that, what if they turned up and were so far advanced as to appear to us as gods?
Well, if you extend the hypothetical to try to cause them to challenge my beliefs, I guess you can eventually do that. Any hypothetical can be used to try to potentially prove anything. I'm not sure how that would work tho. My boss thinks I am a magician because he can't tell how code is written, from black magic, that doesn't mean I am.
digital man wrote:
ps maybe start a new thread as this will drop off the page very quickly.
You will, or I will ? I am close to bed right now, so perhaps we should agree that we'll discuss it at a later date. I stayed up mostly to see how this guy abusing me in the quick questions panned out, but I am about to drop.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
It's fascinating to me how deliberately obtuse you can be. Some of your responses above beggar belief ( which is why I didn't bother answering them ). My point is that AS A SPECIES we tend to make things extinct, or manipulate them for our own benefit. I was repeating a point made by someone else, a point that I don't think needs defending. Yet, you're trying to split hairs to find an argument with me. What's the problem ? In answer to your 'reply', which I assume you regard to be logical and to have proven me wrong, somehow, despite all logic and common sense, the fact is that as a species, we do more harm than good, and the actions of a few animal welfare groups acting to save animals whose suffering does not benefit them directly, only proves that such action is needed because humans, as a rule, will harm animals if it helps them.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
So how many species have we actually wiped out? The dodo and tasmanian tiger I know of for sure. OK 70 years ago man acted often with little thought but that is very different today. As for 'as a species we do more harm than good' how does 'as a species' select only the destructive actions of man? I would also say that how are mans actions more harmful than beneficial? (Excepting the obvious unleashing of chemicals on the earth poisioning plants and animals, including ourselves (Bhophal for example) which I am sure we all counciously disagree with). If you mean actions as part of our lifestyle then I can only say that houses provide massive benefit to other species. Motorways too. Mans wastefullness of food is appreciated by many also. I think like many you fall into the 'man is evil by default' belief and thus his actions are destructive and negative.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
The fact is that alot of your negativity towards man (from this thread: population is at max, doesnt care for other species, can destroy all life on the planet) is as I said something I have often seen in religious people.
The person who wrote the book that I just reported on, is an athiest as far as I can tell from the book. So, your point falls over at the first hurdle.
fat_boy wrote:
Taking me for example I have no religion. I have no ideology. I see man as part of nature, not seperate. I see man as inherently good and I see no original sin to be pardoned for.
You misjudge my beliefs, and fail to recognise that I was reporting on a book I read, written by someone whose beliefs are probably similar to yours. Your whole point is moot.
fat_boy wrote:
And along the way show the natural compassion we all have in our hearts for those in need, regardless of their species.
And if man tended to show that sort of compassion when it cost him, you may have half a point.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
OK. In that case I think the author of the book is wrong. At any time in mans past it could be said that we are headng for destruction but it has never happened. I dont hold with doommongery and it seems this book is little more that that.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
I think there's some truth to the idea that you can get a handle on how enlightened a society/civilization is by the way it treats other creatures and the environment. If we take that as a given, then if this alien civilization is more advanced then we are, we may have some hope of beng treated a little better than cattle. If not, well... what goes around comes around, know what I mean? :^)
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
digital man wrote:
Extending that, what if they turned up and were so far advanced as to appear to us as gods?
Well, if you extend the hypothetical to try to cause them to challenge my beliefs, I guess you can eventually do that. Any hypothetical can be used to try to potentially prove anything. I'm not sure how that would work tho. My boss thinks I am a magician because he can't tell how code is written, from black magic, that doesn't mean I am.
digital man wrote:
ps maybe start a new thread as this will drop off the page very quickly.
You will, or I will ? I am close to bed right now, so perhaps we should agree that we'll discuss it at a later date. I stayed up mostly to see how this guy abusing me in the quick questions panned out, but I am about to drop.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
My boss thinks I am a magician because he can't tell how code is written, from black magic, that doesn't mean I am
:-)
Christian Graus wrote:
You will, or I will ?
I thought you might post an answer as a new thread forgetting that you're a humble colonist in the antipodes and are probably tired from chasing roos all day. Perhaps Monday...
-
If there were aliens and they had vehicles capable of getting here and were belligerent we'd already be dead. They're not waiting for us to catch up to make it a fair fight. Which means that either there are no aliens capable of getting here, they are here and we're kinda interesting and that's it, they haven't found us yet, they have found us and don't care or they have found us but there is nothing here for them. I'm sure there are others.
I would find it staggeringly unlikely if this were the only planet in the universe that ended up with life on it. If that were the case I think I might start to believe that it was created by God! There cold be almost no other explanation. Ever read Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy? Its got some funny concepts. Planets being infinite means life forms are infinite. Thus, every possibly imaginably usefull thing grows naturally somewhere. So the mattress industry died because on planet X grows the comfiest mattress you ever slept om Just pick it and dry it!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription