dimreepr

Good point I guess subjectivity does have a lot to do with it, though, given the propensity for psychological manipulation within a lot of cults; it does muddy the waters somewhat. Further to the OP, a lot of religions can be said to have started as a cult, so at what point do they become a religion? Good joke btw Greg.

Sounds very Catholic to me, history shows they have engaged in many of your definitions.

What is the difference between religion and a cult? Is it simply numbers, or is the difference more fundamental? I.e. is brainwashing a factor?

There are approximately 38,000 Christian denominations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations) ranging from the mainstream Catholic, Anglican etc to the outright lunatics at the other end of the scale. Can you really tell me none of the more extreme denominations, or even mid table, don’t actively promote anti-societal ideas? Now back to topic; I take it from your reply you would welcome your version of societies demise?

With this, I couldn’t agree more, having found my way through my own depression. The reasons for unhappiness are many and varied and your family only wants to help (seriously), but naturally, you only consider the situation from your own point of view, they don’t see it the way you think they do. People in general are much more empathic and caring than any of us give ourselves credit for. There are happier days to come my friend, please seek the help 'phi for all' suggests. This is the thinking that motivated the OP. It is the dark side of humanity, and ill considered, because however bad things seem today, a true doomsday scenario is one in which most of us (humans) would die. Do these people think they are going to be the exception? Or are they just a bit peeved that existence didn’t give them the ideal lifestyle?

The doomsayers are growing in number (seemingly) and spreading the doom to all who will listen. My question is; are they warning us or do they, secretly, welcome the devastating scenarios they describe?

LOL yep I did... doh

sammy7, There are plenty of examples where science holds up its hands and says “I don’t know” because, as you say, it happened in the past or is unobserved. This, however, doesn’t mean inference can’t be employed as a very real and compelling answer to whatever the question may be. In astrology the observation that a star wobbles, given our clearly understood knowledge of the physics involved, it is perfectly reasonable to assume such wobbling is the result of a planet orbiting. Science has provided a myriad of evidence to support evolution (just google it), what exactly is your counter proposal to explain everyday observations of our planets flora and fauna.

So, your idea of scientific scrutiny is to listen to a biased video and blindly accept its conclusion. That’s probably why you can’t believe this is a science forum.

The ancients were just being clever, at least the elders were, they were just establishing well known everyday phenomena with a spiritual aspect and thus creating a God like figure to fear. Therefore creating a mental police force, that has no physical reality, but has a very real presence in the mind of the average citizen.

My original position saw telepathy as the only viable way for this to work, but having thought this through I see the idea has more legs. Most of what influences our daily decisions is unknown to us at the conscious level. The way our culture is all pervading in the way we think and interact with the world. The way our food and, everyday drugs, changes the chemical balance of our body and how that changes our decision making. Plants change their chemical composition when attacked and communicates this to the local, similar, plants. Who’s to say this isn’t also a global communication, and if so how this might influence us.

I have a feeling I’m going to regret this, but I’m genuinely interested in your answer. Would you care to provide some evidence to back up your assertion?

In fairness the gaia hypothesis is much more likely than your invisible cloud talking fire hazard.

I knew I shouldn’t respond to posts after my fourth glass of wine, your reply isn’t, in the cold light of day, quite so twisted, my apologies. Whilst morals have a lot to do with emotion and subjectivity, logic does have its part to play. In the scenario of the OP this statement “You wouldn't ever attack something because there's some logic that says it should die.” is false, if the negative consequences are known. I doubt anyone could logically or emotionally argue in the mosquitoes defence; we humans are the ones dying after all.

That is quite twisted logic; if something attacks you then emotion is much more likely to inform your response than any objective reasoning.

Pure gainsay isn’t very conducive to a reasonable discussion. Pure or objective logic has little to do with ethics, as ethics is based upon a moral stance and morals has more to do with emotion and subjectivity than it has to do with logic.

The reason I think its wrong is the unknown consequences outweigh the potential good. When weighing an ethical question one has to consider the consequences both positive and negative and balance the good verses the bad. This is fundamentally true of any ethical question. The lack of either negates the question, as there is nothing to balance. Ethics is a human construct; ethical questions are raised by humans and evaluated by humans. If the human race had a threat, such as you describe in post #29. The question then becomes instinctive and one of self preservation, anyone in that situation trying to advocate we not defend ourselves in the manner you suggest, would be shot or dragged away by the men in white coats. In a kill or be killed situation and you’re the innocent party there is no ethical question to answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event Between 5 and 20 mass extinction events has occurred in the planets history, none of which resulted in the total extinction of all species. edit/ sorry cross posted

I’m not surprised this sentence "It cannot happen therefore if we did it, it would be ethically wrong" makes no sense to you (me either) for a start it’s an oxymoron. No, I’m not saying that and I’m really not sure how you can come to this conclusion from my post #26. I alluded to our inability to completely eradicate mosquitoes in post #7 but even then I didn’t, actually, state it couldn’t be done. I tried to take the ambiguity out of the OP and answer it and your post #25 as directly as I could, as previously stated a rephrasing of the original question is in order. There is no ethical question to be answered if the choice is based on the survival of the human race. As to why malaria deserves being killed off, zapatos answers this quite succinctly in post #5. Greg no correction is necessary.

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Swarm_intelligence#Taxonomy_of_Swarm_Intelligence Wildebeest as well as naked mole rats fall into this definition. In the wiki link you provide the term eusocial is used to describe the naked mole rat. The same term is also used for ants, termites bees and wasps. "Stigmergy is a form of self-organization. It produces complex, seemingly intelligent structures, without need for any planning, control, or even direct communication between the agents. As such it supports efficient collaboration between extremely simple agents, who lack any memory, intelligence or even individual awareness of each other." /edit quote from wikipedia I see no reason why humans would be; perhaps you could provide some evidence. That is pheromones produced by non human entities.

OK, if we assume no negative consequences then of course killing the species of mosquito responsible for carrying malaria can only be good for the human race. The question of an ethical choice is somewhat moot as I doubt, if proof of no negative consequences were available, anyone could reasonably argue against it. However as so often pointed out in this thread there is no way of ascertaining what the consequences would be and given this basic fact I can only conclude that, ethically, it’s wrong.

I do get this and have, to my mind, answered the OP in post #7 all subsequent posts on my part have been directly answering your statements or questions. As you are the originator of this thread I didn’t feel I was moving the thread off topic by answering you. In post #11 I directly answer both your post #10 and the OP with this statement “trying to play god in this way is, ethically, wrong.” At this point I think a re-phrasing of the OP may be in order, if you want the discussion to continue.

Any point? You may be right, but without the ability to predict the future it’s impossible to knowing which species that is.

The ant/termite colony uses, as you say, chemical messages and pheromones to co-ordinate responses to external stimuli. Group or herd intelligence is a well known phenomenon and depends on the individuals, within the herd/colony being essentially, stupid; the individual has a limited capability of deciding a response for itself. This however doesn't translate to animals with a higher consciousness; the groups therein rely on co-operation rather than chemically induced or automatic reactions. For your idea to work, without telepathy, would require the flora and fauna of the planet to communicate directly in some way, I would at some level be influenced by, let's say, ants in my decision process. Instead what we have is a kind of balance in that each organism has found a way to live in the environment in which they find themselves. Even inorganic material can display emergent qualities that can appear to have a consciousness.

He's one of my favourite authors, the foundation series is, IMO, a must read.