Interesting book
-
I guess the lesson of history is that the more warlike ones are far more likely to benefit from natural selection than ones who like to give away their resources.
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.
Sad but true; but doesn't that lesson of history contradict the ideals that we would, in our better moments, aspire to? I mean turning the other cheek is a great concept, but what if history indicates that this is little short of suicide? Maybe this is best pondered with a stiff belt of Scotch. :-D
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
Sad but true; but doesn't that lesson of history contradict the ideals that we would, in our better moments, aspire to? I mean turning the other cheek is a great concept, but what if history indicates that this is little short of suicide? Maybe this is best pondered with a stiff belt of Scotch. :-D
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
LunaticFringe wrote:
Sad but true; but doesn't that lesson of history contradict the ideals that we would, in our better moments, aspire to?
I suspect we've started to aspire to them since we've moved beyond having to rely on our competitive advantage to survive, and we still only aspire to them when it suits us.
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.
-
LunaticFringe wrote:
Sad but true; but doesn't that lesson of history contradict the ideals that we would, in our better moments, aspire to?
I suspect we've started to aspire to them since we've moved beyond having to rely on our competitive advantage to survive, and we still only aspire to them when it suits us.
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.
-
What!?! Surely you don't mean to say that beneath the veneer of civilization, we are, at heart, just another animal? ;) :-D
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
Well, I don't necessarily believe that, insofar as I don't believe we just accidentally evolved, because I am a Christian, but that's the core of the book, yes.
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, I don't necessarily believe that, insofar as I don't believe we just accidentally evolved, because I am a Christian, but that's the core of the book, yes.
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:
Well, I don't necessarily believe that, insofar as I don't believe we just accidentally evolved, because I am a Christian, but that's the core of the book, yes.
I know. I was just seeing how far down that road you'd go. :)
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, I don't necessarily believe that, insofar as I don't believe we just accidentally evolved, because I am a Christian, but that's the core of the book, yes.
I know. I was just seeing how far down that road you'd go. :)
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
*grin* well, I am still interested in the point of view, and some of the things he talks about, like natural selection, just obviously do happen. As for the rest, I am still interested in the theory, even if I don't agree with it 100%.
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 haven't read the book, so maybe I'm not giving it the credit it deserves, but from your description it sounds like his concept of "aliens" is like something out of Star Trek where the "alien civilization" is looks rather suspiciously like the Roman Empire or Chicago circa 1920. I think the one thing we could be fairly certain about with any alien civilization is that it would be "alien".
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 just finished 'the third chimpanzee' by Jared Diamond. One interesting point he raises, is that we're not likely to see a flying saucer any time soon. Why ? Because we don't have them yet, but we have the ability to send radio signals into space, which we managed to invent pretty much at the same time that we invented ways to kill all life on the planet, as well as pushing towards the limit of our planet to support us as a species. So, aliens who became intelligent, probably wiped themselves out before they got flying saucers. He also pointed out that this is a good thing - humans never act as kindly benefactors to lesser species, which is how we'd have to appear to aliens. He also talks about overpopulation, apparently we use 40% of the sun's energy already. Which leaves little room for population growth, obviously.
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:
we invented ways to kill all life on the planet
Name those ways.
Christian Graus wrote:
the limit of our planet to support us as a species
And the proof that we are near that limit is what?
Christian Graus wrote:
humans never act as kindly benefactors to lesser species
This is patently untrue. Humans are the ONLY species that will care for another. Sounds like a load of crap to me. 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. As for the population scare, this is so old its first version was probably written in Aramaic. 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. 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.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Christian Graus wrote:
we invented ways to kill all life on the planet
Name those ways.
Christian Graus wrote:
the limit of our planet to support us as a species
And the proof that we are near that limit is what?
Christian Graus wrote:
humans never act as kindly benefactors to lesser species
This is patently untrue. Humans are the ONLY species that will care for another. Sounds like a load of crap to me. 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. As for the population scare, this is so old its first version was probably written in Aramaic. 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. 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.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
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.
-
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:
Nuclear weapons are the obvious one.
Right, so thats not gojng to wipe out all life is it, Not by a very very long way.
Christian Graus wrote:
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
Energy wise, man will get it elsewhere as soon as oil becomes too scarce. As for food there is plenty of scope yet. Even in Europe we have vasyt areas set aside. Food production is so effcient we can manage on less land than we ever used to. There is a lot of the world still producing food in medieval ways. When industrialised we could probably produce anough food for 10 times the earths current population. Especially f we put more plant food (CO2) on the air.
Christian Graus wrote:
That is kind of true, except there's no options for us to move to.
Thats what some said when Columbus went west. Man is cinventive. We just dont know whats out there yet. Could we terra form Mars? I bet we will give it a go some time.
Christian Graus wrote:
lot of Chinese and Indians are demanding first world lifestyles, which the planet is unlikely to easily support.
The funny thing about industrialised life styles is that they seeme to automatically reduce the population. Women with carees, better education, more freedom. exposure to oestrogenic compounds found in plastics. All of these seem to end up at 2.2 kids per couple. Make a reduction for accidents and unmarieds and you get a natural stability. Its very interesting.
Christian Graus wrote:
I can see your ass, but your head appears to be below the sand.
I have often noted that religious people take the point of view that man is inherently bad. I on the other hand think man is inherently good. As I stated. There is only one species that wil care for another, and that is man. There is only one place on earth the cat and dog will sleep together, and that is in the house of man. Man really is the best of life you know. We really do acchieve incredible things. We will acchieve even more amazing things in the future. Things that today we call impossible fiction.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Nuclear weapons are the obvious one.
Right, so thats not gojng to wipe out all life is it, Not by a very very long way.
Christian Graus wrote:
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
Energy wise, man will get it elsewhere as soon as oil becomes too scarce. As for food there is plenty of scope yet. Even in Europe we have vasyt areas set aside. Food production is so effcient we can manage on less land than we ever used to. There is a lot of the world still producing food in medieval ways. When industrialised we could probably produce anough food for 10 times the earths current population. Especially f we put more plant food (CO2) on the air.
Christian Graus wrote:
That is kind of true, except there's no options for us to move to.
Thats what some said when Columbus went west. Man is cinventive. We just dont know whats out there yet. Could we terra form Mars? I bet we will give it a go some time.
Christian Graus wrote:
lot of Chinese and Indians are demanding first world lifestyles, which the planet is unlikely to easily support.
The funny thing about industrialised life styles is that they seeme to automatically reduce the population. Women with carees, better education, more freedom. exposure to oestrogenic compounds found in plastics. All of these seem to end up at 2.2 kids per couple. Make a reduction for accidents and unmarieds and you get a natural stability. Its very interesting.
Christian Graus wrote:
I can see your ass, but your head appears to be below the sand.
I have often noted that religious people take the point of view that man is inherently bad. I on the other hand think man is inherently good. As I stated. There is only one species that wil care for another, and that is man. There is only one place on earth the cat and dog will sleep together, and that is in the house of man. Man really is the best of life you know. We really do acchieve incredible things. We will acchieve even more amazing things in the future. Things that today we call impossible fiction.
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.
-
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.