What a terrifying notion.
Ever take a look at mammals? When one is about to go extinct it splits it self and becomes two different species. Same is true for insects. Humans did the split quite along time back. Take a look at monkeys, you think there was that many types of monkeys in the beginning? Every year I see new and different bugs in my woods. I see snakes that learn, Life is doing what it is supposed to do. We will not be humans in the future…not like we are now. Our version of humanity will be extinct. That is life my friend. We are being a part of this world
It is funny that those people who most staunchly believe in evolution (fit survive, unfit die out) are also those who most staunchly believe that animals becoming extinct is a bad thing.
Once again, scientific dogma rears its most ugly and hypocritical head.
I think there is a huge difference between animals becoming extinct through the course of natural means, and a mass extinction caused directly by human activity…wouldn’t you agree? Being killed by the effects of deforestation and global warming is hardly “survival of the fittest.”
And Kris, I expect more from you…
Pray, do tell, how is a mammal supposed to “split” when it is extinct before it gets the chance to evolve? We’re talking about mass extinction on a global level due to the reasons I mentioned above. This isn’t the same as a natural process you’re talking about.
True, on a long enough timeline, we are all extinct. Some might take a nihilistic outlook, then, and say who cares, it’s all worthless anyways. And frankly, I don’t care, as long as it doesn’t happen in my lifetime, but I at least want to take preventative measures to ensure I’m not starving to death when I’m 70.
It is funny that those who most staunchly believe in science do not see humans as natural, despite them being produced by the evolutionary process.
Once again, the ugly and hypocritical head.
No, I wouldn’t agree. Crocodile kills fish that wandered into wrong part of river. Man kills tree by chopping it down, kills chipmunk by accident when the tree falls.
It’s all the same. Adapt, or die.
Actually, that’s exactly what it is. When a stronger, better adapted animal moves into a new spaces and competes with the locals for resources, weaker animals die. Besides, no one lives in the Antarctic (the area where global warming is arguably most evident, and where CO2 is lowest).
Ahh, but it is in a way. The emmisions we put out are really no different then what happens when volcanoes , earthquakes and meteors hit the earth. what wiped out the critturs before? what brought on ice ages before? A change.
If these toxic emmisions we put out are unnatural then how could they exist? they exist because they are needed to change the earth. The ice age must happen. this earth has far too many unanswered questions and too many unknown questions. to presume that what civilization is doing is unnatural is wrong. When a Volcano explodes what kind of toxins does it spew out and does it change weather patterns? the same toxins as burning coal and gas and yes it does change weather patterns. do species die after a volcano errupts? No, breeds of species die.
No one is not saying to not clean up, we are just saying its not exactly new stuff here. The earth has been through this before. Each species of crittur has breeds. From humans on down. Each species has breeds across the four corners of the earth. A breed may die out but, the species probably won’t, in time the surviving breeds or breed will breed up and repopulate the earth again. And in doing so the breeds change to fit their new environment. Yes, humans have breeds. Its not about skin color either. I would explain further but, I have no time right now, I did have it put much more clear but, I had a puter glitch and my original reply was lost, so if you want me to clear it up a bit more than i will later OK?
This is a straw man. I do see them as natural. How absurd of you.
Man chops down millions of trees, leaving hundreds of millions of animals without a habitat to survive. A little different than a crocodile killing a fish.
No, that’s not what it is. Deforestation isn’t survival of the fittest, sorry. There’s no point in arguing this any further. Feel free to call me dogmatic, but I work with popular definitions, not the ones you skew to fit whatever argument you’re making.
No different? Can we control volcanoes? Can we control emissions?
That depends strongly on how you define natural. Volcanoes are natural, car emissions are not. I define natural as anything that occurs in nature. A car doesn’t occur naturally, neither do the emissions. I think your definition of natural is very loose.
Not new stuff? The industrial revolution has happened before in human history? C’mon, this is uncharted territory for sure.
Ok , controlled emmisions. Now of course we can’t control volcanoes or earthquakes or meteors etc. It is beyond any doubt in any reasonable educated mind that the ice age is brought about by the earth warming. Weather patterns change due to catastrophes of enormous proportions. We can’t control that. We can control our emmisions but it seems that the earth is determined to do that for us. We can clean up and delay the cycle, maybe. But its obviously already started so its not going to stop so easy, if it can stop. When emmisions get too great in the atmosphere, the earth cleans herself. Warming, then ice age then what we see as normal. During these cycles things die and change to adapt to the new environments.
Industrial emmisions are new, but its the same emmisions that occur naturally through major catastrophes… Look the earth has had an increase in earthquakes volcanoes and violent weather. Its all been on the rise. You want to explain how earthquakes are caused by pollutants??? Dude if you can , hands down, I would vote you a nobel prize winner. 
The cycle is beginning, it has been. To delay it is all that we can hope to do. But on the other hand, we can prepare for the inevitable, something that has not ever been done on this earth. We can save species and breeds. I believe that several storage facilities are already being built. Arks. Now, what happens when the earth cleans herself? A fresh new world is born. If any ark survives then all knowledge will not have been lost. That is something new. Scientists are saving as many species right now through genetics, cryogenics is being developed quickly. We already can freeze zygotes and genetic material. Breeds will be lost but, species will survive.
Is this such a bad thing??? the world has done this before. She has been cleansed and knows how to do it very well. Life won’t cease. Freezing can actually protect life. Primal creatures may rise to fill niches opened up by the cleansing. WE don’t know, we do know that its inevitable, she will clean herself and creatures will survive.
Perhaps its because i have seen so much death that i am pragmatic about it, and that can offend some that have yet to experience it to any extent… If this is so then I apologize. I love life and because I love life I have no fear of or hatred of death, since one cannot be without the other. I grieve for losses but that is more out of loss than death.
Then why did you write the above?
Further evidence of dogma - people blindly accepting a given line of reasoning that they do not understand.
One animal kills another. Where’s the distinction?
Reasoning?
No need for an apologist. Not being a dogmatist, I can accept people thinking otherwise without the need for some sort of emotional wrangling.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
Reasoning?
The dark side of the force is strong in this one…
d0rky here is another thought, this world can be considered biomechanical well the universe could really. Example; When a vitamin or a pollutant is suddenly removed a body the body becomes ill. If you have your car in drive and suddenly drop it into reverse you damage your car.
What happens if we remove pollutants quickly? Will the cycle stop safely and healthily? Or will something unexpected happen? We pretty much know what to expect if the cycle continues. But, we sure do not know what happens if we try to stop it. Things could get real hairy.
I think the hangup here is on the definition of natural.
Are you being intellectually honest? Do you really see no distinction? Alligator eats and kills one fish. Man chops down millions of trees, removing habitat for hundreds of millions of different species, interrupting and disturbing entire ecosystems. You can equate the two?
You’ve proven to be a “dogmatist” on more than one occasion, on more than one subject. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone…
You drew a distinction between natural processes and human activity. I find that ludicrous. No hang up.
Dunno.
I’m asking you for your distinction.
No. One is a single fish, and a single croc. The other is many humans and a massive forest. But the principle is the same.
Where have I insisted you agree with me? Where have I trivialised your opinion because it didn’t flatter my preconceptions? Where have I just repeated the same crap I’ve heard elsewhere without thinking about it? Where have I conformed to a given line of thinking because a given number of other people also thinking like that? Where have I tried to make out my views were better than other peoples?
Amen motherfucker. And if you’re going to cast a stone, you’d better have something to back it up. Particularly when you claim to believe in science. Now, the burden of proof is on you. Be careful what you choose as your next move.
I am using this definition of natural:
- existing in or formed by nature
As cars and factories, tractors, bulldozers, etc. don’t exist in nature, and aren’t formed by nature, I don’t consider them natural.
What principal is that? In nature, in most cases, ecosystems are balanced so that animals get just enough to survive. We have, for better or worse, distorted this process in our favor to be able to spread our species population.
I’m pretty sure nothing you mentioned is part of the definition of dogmatism, although it might be an offspring resulting from dogmatism.
dogmatism: unfounded positiveness in matters of opinion; arrogant assertion of opinions as truths.
You’ll have to be more specific…claim to believe in science? In what regard?
By that reckoning nor are rabbits’ burrows, birds’ nests and so on. So are they, like humans, evil colonisers of nature?
Balanced? No ecosystem is balanced. That’s an utterly unscientific manner of thinking.
However, it is one put forth by some scientists.
Yeah, it’s called a stronger animal having dominion over a weaker one.
Dictionaries are shit resources in a philosophical discussion. But again, it’s an appeal to authority, and utterly in keeping with your fallacious manner of approaching this.
In the social sciences forum and here you’ve dressed up scientific expertise as indisputable proof.
No.
?
Fair enough, although I’d replace “stronger” with “smarter.”
I find it useful to define terms in philosophical discussions.
Science is, by nature, disputable and often disputed (gladly). That’s the beauty of it.
No they aren’t natural or no you disagree?
Basically, you’re saying that humans are produced by natural means, but anything humans (natural beings) produce is not natural, without ever explaining why.
It’s an argument I’ve heard (literally) thousands of times. None of its followers have ever been able to explain it.
All scientific observation confirms Heraclitus’ assertion that the world is in a constant state of flux. If you have flux, you cannot have balance.
That’s because you’re obsessed with intelligence as a determining factor. Like most liberals who want to feel smart and enlightened and therefore superior to others.
I don’t. And dictionaries are rarely if ever written by philosophical experts.
Strange then that its adherents (less so the scientists themselves, though some are just as guilty of this) use it as an absolute, a taken for granted, which they then try to beat other beliefs with as though misguided faith is some sort of trump card.
Well, not strange at all. Every major belief system throughout history has declared that it is the best of all possible belief systems and that the world is the best possible world because of this belief system. You’re following in a long line that includes many religious disciples. That you’re so painfully unaware of this, and would claim these opinions as your own, arrived at by choice, only goes to show how dangerous this human habit has become.
As are you.
Your belief system is one that is apparently made up of conspiracy theories and skepticism. 9/11 was a conspiracy. Global warming is a conspiracy. Liberals are conspirators. Science is a conspiracy. You claim liberals are the ones who want to feel smart and enlightened, and yet continue to dispute science in its entirety with little reason.
Sure, I dogmatically believe that science, although imperfect, leads to furthering our knowledge of the world around us, and paves the way for technology, biotechnology, etc., and fully accept that it is self correcting and often times wrong as a reflection of our imperfect knowledge. But don’t put on the holier than thou act, when you use the same dogma in regards to your beliefs.
Where have I claimed my beliefs advance the human race or are the best possible beliefs?
And a lot of other stuff besides. You wouldn’t be the first to try to label it in a simple and derogatory way though.
Regardless of who you believe, 9/11 was a conspiracy. Either Osama and 19 Arab muslims conspired with KSM to hijack airliners and crash them into buildings, or some other people conspired to do something else. A conspiracy is just a bunch of people planning in secret to do something wrong or illegal. Happens all the time, unless you believe that Eastern Liberal ‘history is just random accident’ philosophy where no one ever plans to do anything bad, ever.
The way it is portrayed in the media is a conspiracy. The fact that the coverage is so very one dimensional and cataclysmic in tone betrays that. And this would be the case if the science were sound, which I don’t think it is.
Where did I say that? As someone who doesn’t have to identify as a liberal or a conservative I have no problem using such terms in a derogatory way. But sure, large state socialists masquerading as liberals are conspiring to build up state power through taxation and ultimately surrender national sovereignty to a structure that’ll make the UN seem like a school project.
It is? Better alert the press.
I don’t dispute science in its entirety. And you’ve never really asked for my reasons - just labelled and shouted and jumped up and down and said ‘how could you?!?!?!!’. Funnily enough, the people who’ve bothered to open a dialogue about this (and ironically, they are the qualified scientists rather than the adherents) have generally been able to put forth some kind of common ground I’m happy with despite my scepticism. The unreasonable jerks, the most dogmatic and unimaginative, are usually people who feel like they are rebelling against their parents’/school’s religiousity by waving the science flag.
And nothing bothers you about the prospects of biotechnology? You’d happily have nanobots running around monitoring your medical condition and a chip planted into your hand for ID purposes?
Do you see no risk at all in dogmatically believing such a thing?
Something you keep accusing me of yet have completely failed to prove. But please, carry on proving my argument for me if you feel that it is necessary. I’m easy either way.
By “best” I thought you meant most correct. My bad.
I’m confident you’re clever enough to know what I meant.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve heard some of the counter-arguments, and I know that the scientific community isn’t in complete agreement. Penn & Teller’s Bullshit! episode on the subject raised some doubts for me.
Which, I can’t say for sure would be a bad thing. I can’t say it’d be a good thing, either.
I don’t trust stereotypes.
It does bother me, and it doesn’t. It all depends on how it’s used. Would I want a chip implanted in my head for ID purposes? I don’t think I’d be opposed to it, but I wouldn’t want to see a law that forces everybody to have one.
And no, I don’t see a risk in believing dogmatically that science furthers our understanding of the world. I would see a risk in believing dogmatically that science always works for the bettering of society. I think the H-bomb blows that theory out of the water, pun intended.
Species often-times split and produces ‘daughter’ species or whatever you want to call it, like chimp/humans from a common ancestor. (or concestor) but they don’t do it in response to extinction, but regular old environmental/selective forces. species often-times go extinct without ever producing another species.
humans have a common ancestor with chimps, but we haven’t had a species descend from us yet. Successfully, anyway.