bascule Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Yeah, we really kind of jacked up the whole planet didn't we. Oh well, me likey. How about you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 methane would still exist in the atmosphere if we died out. its not only produced by us humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Who cares if there isn't any intelligent life to appreciate it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Dalek Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 The whole : Immediatly Most endangered species start recovering don't make sense. They arn't going to start multiplying the second we are gone. Oh look the last human just died, and now there are hundreds of condors that weren't here before! There is a step missing here I think. Whats your source on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
padren Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 The whole : Immediatly Most endangered species start recovering don't make sense. They arn't going to start multiplying the second we are gone. Oh look the last human just died, and now there are hundreds of condors that weren't here before! There is a step missing here I think. Whats your source on this? Most endangered species are such because we continue to expand into their habitats or like to kill them and use their stuff. We go, they stop being killed faster than they breed. They still have to worry about wolves of course...there's always wolves... methane would still exist in the atmosphere if we died out. its not only produced by us humans. I am pretty sure the high methane levels are a result of domestic livestock, which would die off without humans. Its not that methane would cease to exist but become extremely negilible by comparison to current levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Who cares if there isn't any intelligent life to appreciate it... He never said dolphins or ravens or parrots or the apes and monkeys or others went extinct too did he? And even if they don't fit your idea of intelligent, hey look, a whole new niche to be filled by prospective sapients! Whoo for possibilities offered by evolution! Besides, if what humans do around "here" is appreciating existence on this world, I think the earth could do without appreciation for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 He never said dolphins or ravens or parrots or the apes and monkeys or others went extinct too did he? And even if they don't fit your idea of intelligent, hey look, a whole new niche to be filled by prospective sapients! Whoo for possibilities offered by evolution! Besides, if what humans do around "here" is appreciating existence on this world, I think the earth could do without appreciation for a while. I figured that would rattle somebody's cage. Look, I'm not a misanthrope - that's a little too obvious and presumptuous for my world view. And since I likely don't subscribe to your ideas of morality, I doubt there's any advantage to arguing it all out. But...I will say the "earth" could give a crap less what we do with it, it is a rock. Albeit a complex complicated rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Dalek Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 I figured that would rattle somebody's cage. Look, I'm not a misanthrope - that's a little too obvious and presumptuous for my world view. And since I likely don't subscribe to your ideas of morality, I doubt there's any advantage to arguing it all out. But...I will say the "earth" could give a crap less what we do with it, it is a rock. Albeit a complex complicated rock. Of course we have been (somewhat misguidedly) been useing "The Earth" as a synonim for the Biosphere. The "Rock" is the Geosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesuBungle Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 We are meant to be on Earth. We are meant to do what we do on Earth. Everything is as it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 I figured that would rattle somebody's cage. Look, I'm not a misanthrope - that's a little too obvious and presumptuous for my world view. And since I likely don't subscribe to your ideas of morality, I doubt there's any advantage to arguing it all out. I was more amused actually, and I need that, cuz these forums have offered me NOTHING to be interested in for a few weeks, but anyway, it's not a matter of morality pointing out that we aren't the sole intelligent creature on the planet. It's also simple common sense to point out that the state of the planet, as in the world as a whole, which as Dalek pointed out in this case primarily refers to the BIOSPHERE (which itself is closely bound and influencing/influenced of/by the state of the hydrosphere, atmosphere, and geosphere), would be better off without our influence (granted, without humans to percieve them (unless dolphins and chimps are complex enough to have developed some equivalent to our moral values) no morality would exist so what would it matter if he planet was well off or not?). I wouldn't be surprised if I got a court order to rewrite that whole thing there.... We are meant to be on Earth. We are meant to do what we do on Earth. Everything is as it should be. Nothing is "meant to be" anything. What is is and what will be will be, and it could shift any which way in the future, probably completely, meaninglessly randomly without active choice to guide it somewhere. Any deeper "meaning" is a purely human concept that doesn't exist beyond our perceptions. From the universal standpoint, what humans have done to this world is negligable, but within our own grasp is our own ability to create our own values and, most importantly, make our own choices best suited to those values. The only thing that confuses me is that, while we're very eager to create these values and yammer on and on about them, when it actually comes down to practicing them, we avert our eyes and shuffle onward and backtrack and try to rewrite new values if directly confronted with the truth of the matter. (the opinions stated here not reflecting the beliefs or facts of any organization blah blah blah etc etc etc ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesuBungle Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Nothing is "meant to be" anything. What is is and what will be will be, and it could shift any which way in the future, probably completely, meaninglessly randomly without active choice to guide it somewhere. Any deeper "meaning" is a purely human concept that doesn't exist beyond our perceptions. That's exactly what I meant. I'm not saying that humans are being guided by some unknown force, but that it is only a natural process for us to be doing what we're doing. If we choose to be a little kinder to the planet, ok. That's natural and might affect things a tiny bit. But saying that mankind is destroying the planet is a little extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 But saying that mankind is destroying the planet is a little extreme. I myself would never say "destroy" unless nuclear war comes up, but I've got to say you're severely underestimating the negative influence humanity has on the planet. Global warming isn't even an issue anymore, it's escalating into a damn matter of total climatic shift, influencing entire damn hurricanes, melting down the arctic, drying up something like 10,000 Alaskan lakes. Species are dying off at an unnatural rate, much quicker than new ones can evolve (allegedly equivalent to the six or seven famed mass extinctions of earth's history), and having a tiny plot of forest no more than 500 acres set aside to save a newly discovered bird species from deforestation is considered a generous victory (that's only of note when you consider the sheer size of any decent sized forest in comparison to 500 acres). Now, if it was a question of a species here and there, I'd agree with you, but it's not. The whole damn planet is rumbling and until some new evidence pops up to suggest otherwise, it seems clear that we're driving force behind the rumbling. Whether that's right or wrong moral or immoral isn't the point I'm trying to make, just the sheer observable extent of the notably negative human influence in the first place. It's certainly more than a tiny bit, and if Bascule's chart is even remotely right, it shows that things could start to patch up pretty quickly if what we were doing to exacerbate the damage would stop. Not that I expect we're capable of pulling back on the onslaught any more than that tiny bit you suggested. So I guess I rambled my way back to square one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woelen Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Whether that's right or wrong moral or immoral isn't the point I'm trying to make, just the sheer observable extent of the human notably negative influence in the first place. Here you contradict yourself in one sentence. Apparently there is a moral point to it, you regard it as a negative influence. I agree with you, it is very negative, and we are destroying important ecosystems at a very high rate. One day it will come back to us in a nasty way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Here you contradict yourself in one sentence. Apparently there is a moral point to it, you regard it as a negative influence. Eh, I think I more meant "negative" from the simple perspective of the "victim" in question rather than the outright all-encompassing (as set by people) moral value of what's going on (I have a problematic obsession with splitting hairs and forming complex and often convoluted concepts impossible to cleanly define in my state of mind, please forgive me). Not totally contradictory I think, but definately misplaced considering the nature of the specific ramble it was in the middle of. And here I am rambling again for no real reason . Though I certainly otherwise do think all that earthy stuff is negative too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 We are meant to be on Earth. We are meant to do what we do on Earth. Everything is as it should be. I agree wholeheartedly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Since mankind is the most beautiful thing on Earth, if man (and presumably woman) became extinct, the Earth would be an infinitely less beautiful place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcol Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 We are meant to be on Earth. We are meant to do what we do on Earth. Everything is as it should be. I see Religion has crept back in again, can't teach old dogs new tricks. More than one statement recently I could have quoted as examples. Got any evidence for these preachy assertions? Not exactly scientific, are they. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesuBungle Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 I'm anything but religious gcol, sorry you got that impression. Just more of a believer in fate, and just kinda letting what is alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 I see Religion has crept back in again, can't teach old dogs new tricks. More than one statement recently I could have quoted as examples. Got any evidence for these preachy assertions? Not exactly scientific, are they. This has been a problem for me as well. The idea that somehow we must be religious in order to not hate humankind or to not apply our silly ideas of morality on nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcol Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Paranoia & JesuBungle: Apologies if I jumped to a hasty conclusion, perhaps I am becoming paranoid. Please forgive. Severian: If your Avatar reflects your vision of a "beautiful mankind", then beauty is definitely not in the eye of this beholder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Paranoia & JesuBungle: Apologies if I jumped to a hasty conclusion, perhaps I am becoming paranoid. Please forgive. No worries... Severian: If your Avatar reflects your vision of a "beautiful mankind", then beauty is definitely not in the eye of this beholder. Yeah, but it's cool lookin' though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 Saw this when I was putzing around and thought it was relevant and amusing -> Bad Case of the Humans Since mankind is the most beautiful thing on Earth, if man (and presumably woman) became extinct, the Earth would be an infinitely less beautiful place. Not criticizing your personal opinion or anything, but mind if I ask why it is you think that? (pertaining to humans being prettiful) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 Yeah. Humans are a funny looking bunch of hairless apes who need to wear stuff like £200 trainers just to feel adequate. Many of them still feel the need to wear the skins of other animals to feel good about themselves. Surely that shows that those individuals at least, consider other animals more purty than them? Seriously though, I really can't see how anybody who lives on this planet and has eyes and understanding can consider man(kind) the most beautiful thing on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 Not criticizing your personal opinion or anything, but mind if I ask why it is you think that? (pertaining to humans being prettiful) I am not saying that they are physically beautiful (although many are in my opinion, especially the females) but the presence of mankind has led to some of the most beautiful things on the planet. Look at the thread by bacule on Suerat's painting for example. The world would be a much much poorer place without mankind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Dalek Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 I myself would never say "destroy" unless nuclear war comes up, but I've got to say you're severely underestimating the negative influence humanity has on the planet. Global warming isn't even an issue anymore, it's escalating into a damn matter of total climatic shift, influencing entire damn hurricanes, melting down the arctic, drying up something like 10,000 Alaskan lakes. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! he he ho ho ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! Oh wait your serious? Sorry. . . . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now