Interesting book
-
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
-
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: 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. I'll field this one since it is actually worth talking about. That volcano would not amount to a 2 digit percentage of what the US had stockpiled at the peak of the cold war. We could hit pretty much all of Eastern Europe and most of Asia in a blanket of fire when the cold war was at its peak. Russia had very similar firepower. The Volcano analogy you used is similar to hitting a man with a 1cm thick cylinder of balsa wood and saying "Well, that didn't hurt you, so obviously wood can't hurt a man" and then having Barry Bonds take a swing with a Louisville Slugger at their head. Yes, it created a winter of sorts. But it also didn't have radioactive dust falling on things. The amount of dust would not be as small either. It probably wouldn't kill ALL life, but it isn't as if we'd care, we's pretty much all be dead from rioting, the nukes, and the lack of resources in some places.
-
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:
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.Passenger Pigeon, Quagga, Golden Toad, Carribean Sea Monk, Bubal Hartebeest, Javan Tiger, Tecopa Pupfish, Syrian Wild Ass, Baiji River Dolphin, Aurochs Cattle, Atlas Bear (Africa had bears?), Cape Lion, Great Auk, Carolina Parakeet, Labrador Duck, Dusky Seaside Sparrow, Eskimo Curlew, Heath Hen, Tasmanian Wolf. At least 4 of these have been declared extinct in the last 30 years and were so as a direct action of people. I am also including the Pyrenean Ibex, since it was extinct in 2000, not extinct, and then extinct again 7 minutes later. It holds the distinction of being extinct twice due to people. That's in addition to the 2 you listed. I could probably find a few dozen more easily, but I think I got my point across.
-
fat_boy wrote:
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.Passenger Pigeon, Quagga, Golden Toad, Carribean Sea Monk, Bubal Hartebeest, Javan Tiger, Tecopa Pupfish, Syrian Wild Ass, Baiji River Dolphin, Aurochs Cattle, Atlas Bear (Africa had bears?), Cape Lion, Great Auk, Carolina Parakeet, Labrador Duck, Dusky Seaside Sparrow, Eskimo Curlew, Heath Hen, Tasmanian Wolf. At least 4 of these have been declared extinct in the last 30 years and were so as a direct action of people. I am also including the Pyrenean Ibex, since it was extinct in 2000, not extinct, and then extinct again 7 minutes later. It holds the distinction of being extinct twice due to people. That's in addition to the 2 you listed. I could probably find a few dozen more easily, but I think I got my point across.
I heard somewhere about 60 species a day die out and that 90% or so of known species have died out already. So I wonder with the species that man has wiped out, and the species that man has actively maintianed, whether we are increasing or lowering the average rate of natural species extinction?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote: 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. I'll field this one since it is actually worth talking about. That volcano would not amount to a 2 digit percentage of what the US had stockpiled at the peak of the cold war. We could hit pretty much all of Eastern Europe and most of Asia in a blanket of fire when the cold war was at its peak. Russia had very similar firepower. The Volcano analogy you used is similar to hitting a man with a 1cm thick cylinder of balsa wood and saying "Well, that didn't hurt you, so obviously wood can't hurt a man" and then having Barry Bonds take a swing with a Louisville Slugger at their head. Yes, it created a winter of sorts. But it also didn't have radioactive dust falling on things. The amount of dust would not be as small either. It probably wouldn't kill ALL life, but it isn't as if we'd care, we's pretty much all be dead from rioting, the nukes, and the lack of resources in some places.
In fact a lot of life would survive. Insects, plants, animals, all sorts. So quite clearly the author of the book, or Christian, whoever was responsible for stating that we have developed ways to wipe out life is being alarmist.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
I heard somewhere about 60 species a day die out and that 90% or so of known species have died out already. So I wonder with the species that man has wiped out, and the species that man has actively maintianed, whether we are increasing or lowering the average rate of natural species extinction?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
species that man has actively maintianed
Perhaps it's just the perspective that I've gained from the UK media, but I've noticed that a lot of the species man has maintained have been species which would have survived anyway had man not got involved with them (i.e. Pandas, elephants, white tigers)
OSDev :)
-
In fact a lot of life would survive. Insects, plants, animals, all sorts. So quite clearly the author of the book, or Christian, whoever was responsible for stating that we have developed ways to wipe out life is being alarmist.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
So quite clearly the author of the book, or Christian, whoever was responsible for stating that we have developed ways to wipe out life is being alarmist.
We could probably take out anything that doesn't favor deep sea vents if we really tried. I'd figure that's a good time to start ringing the alarm. Nature will survive us most likely, but frankly I'm more concerned that we can kill ourselves off fairly easily.
-
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
fat_boy wrote:
Ever read Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy? Its got some funny concepts.
It's a while since I read it, but I got into the radio play in primary school, bought the books in grade 5, watched the TV series, hated the movie, and nearly didn't marry my wife when I urged her to read it and she said it was 'stupid'.
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
All the larger animals in Australia, North and South America, New Zealand, etc, for a start.
fat_boy wrote:
OK 70 years ago man acted often with little thought but that is very different today.
Yes, the old 'we know better now' story. Only, it's only true if the right people apply the right pressure. If an oil company, for example, finds oil but realises the only way to get it is to wipe out a few species, it's a toss of the dice, and overall, I'd say without outside pressure, the odds for those species are not good. In fact, the book I read documents several species that were found just before their only known habitat on earth was destroyed by developers. The point would be that it's impossible to measure how many species we wipe out. Of course, not all of these are unavoidable, or the result of modern man, the examples I gave above were all done by 'primate' people, the sort we like to build up as being 'in touch with nature'. And that's the issue, it's not a modern problem, it's an issue with our nature. Man has not fundamentally changed in the last 70 years, just people who are not directly benefitted by killing animals, have found ways to protest those who do.
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.
-
All the larger animals in Australia, North and South America, New Zealand, etc, for a start.
fat_boy wrote:
OK 70 years ago man acted often with little thought but that is very different today.
Yes, the old 'we know better now' story. Only, it's only true if the right people apply the right pressure. If an oil company, for example, finds oil but realises the only way to get it is to wipe out a few species, it's a toss of the dice, and overall, I'd say without outside pressure, the odds for those species are not good. In fact, the book I read documents several species that were found just before their only known habitat on earth was destroyed by developers. The point would be that it's impossible to measure how many species we wipe out. Of course, not all of these are unavoidable, or the result of modern man, the examples I gave above were all done by 'primate' people, the sort we like to build up as being 'in touch with nature'. And that's the issue, it's not a modern problem, it's an issue with our nature. Man has not fundamentally changed in the last 70 years, just people who are not directly benefitted by killing animals, have found ways to protest those who do.
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.
Well, at least there is progress. We arent perfect by a long way but we do try to get better. Perhaps all opening up of new land for industrial use should be made to undergo by law an environmental impact study before hand. Perhaps in a similar way to building work say in London going hand in hand with archeology. Of course such a stufy needs to be balanced and cooperation with the business involved must have the aim of permitting that business to go ahead, rather than just endlessly blocking it. Of course this would have to be case by case; No one is going to allow an oil drilling rig on the barrier reef for example! Just plain no. But if elsewhere habitat can be maintained alongside industrial works, after all, plants and animals dont care if they live alongside a load of steel pipe or not, just provided they have their resources they are happy. The big thing forme is controlling chemical pollution. Its nasty, pervasive, and the effects potentialy long reaching. This has to have absoloute laws, harshly applied, to stop industry from poluting.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription