PDA

View Full Version : One thing that humanity has done to benefit earth



BillCosby
03-20-2007, 08:22 PM
Ever since Humans have grazed the earth, i feel that we haven't done a single thing to improve our planet, Now i was contemplating today, on what humans have done so far in benefits of the earth.

B-Mental
03-20-2007, 08:30 PM
Hmm, what do you mean by benefit? I guess that all living things create a change in one manner or another. Our atmosphere and oceans have been changed several times. These changes completely altered the Earth. How do we define if its for the benefit of our terrestial home.

subterranean
03-20-2007, 10:05 PM
Ever since Humans have grazed the earth, i feel that we haven't done a single thing to improve our planet, Now i was contemplating today, on what humans have done so far in benefits of the earth.

Well, I think that's a pretty unclear statement. Do you mean earth as, for example air, water, soil? I don't know whether, as time goes by, earth condition can be improved, meaning it'll better than its previous condition. Not with the increase population rate, higher demand of energy, etc. And yes, I do think that we contribute to a faster degradation of this earth. Recent Greenpeace report said that Indonesia (my country) has lost 72% of its tropical rain forests and pretty soon, if the destructive pattern continued, we won’t have anymore rain forest left.

Virgil
03-20-2007, 11:13 PM
Ever since Humans have grazed the earth, i feel that we haven't done a single thing to improve our planet, Now i was contemplating today, on what humans have done so far in benefits of the earth.

:lol: :lol: Are you serious? First of all, I don't graze the earth. I eat meat, not grass. :lol:

Second, the earth is here for mankind, not mankind here for the earth. If you want to help the earth, why don't you live in a cave and eat berries and insects and tell me if that's life?

Adudaewen
03-20-2007, 11:48 PM
It is a point that many people don't really contemplate in their day to day grind, but every single thing that we do directly affects every other creature on this planet. I guess I would say to you that if you feel that humans haven't done anything good, where does that leave us? I hear people say things like this all the time, and it leaves me frustrated because there really isn't any alternative unless you start talking about killing off all of the humans in the world. And hopefully that won't become an option. One has to wonder, however, if the world really would be better off without human involvement. Is it possible that the world would be in an even worse state of affairs without human beings? I think there's a chance.

Matrim Cuathon
03-21-2007, 06:21 AM
i can see how you could possibly think that... of course it would be better off without us.
what we need to do is control birthrate. otherwise we WILL over populate. and thats where nature takes care of itself. even if we all die, rather than just enough to make us get the message, the planet will go on.

Virgil
03-21-2007, 08:39 AM
Didn't I say somewhere else that there are environmental extremist who don't think that people should be on the earth? :lol: :lol: Yes I did and here they are. :p We could all committ mass suicide if it bothers you that much. I for one love little children so I intend to have as many as possible, 50 if I can, so I by my lonesome can increase the world's birthrate.

Adudaewen
03-21-2007, 02:23 PM
what we need to do is control birthrate. otherwise we WILL over populate. and thats where nature takes care of itself.


That can be a very dangerous premise though Matrim. How many children are you willing to let someone else tell you that you can have? 1 or 2. What about all of those parents who are desperate to have big families? How would you enforce it? Would you kill babies born past quota? Birthcontrol is only so effective, what if a woman accidentally gets pregnant after she's had her 2 children? It's a little scary to think what would happen if we took that route. I do agree that we should be careful with our environment and try everything we can to help out, but I don't want some government or group telling me how many kids I can have. Especially considering I have a genetic predisposition to multipule births.

Asa Adams
03-21-2007, 04:42 PM
Second, the earth is here for mankind, not mankind here for the earth. If you want to help the earth, why don't you live in a cave and eat berries and insects and tell me if that's life?

Seriously? We have the ability to cultivate it, take from it, and eventually give back to it both positively and negatively. To say that it is ours, and to fight for its soil and to claim it, is a horrifying prospect if you think about it. *(Oiy, This is my tree! Get your own shade!) :lol:

I do beileve that we all deserve a spot under the sun and to eat and drink of the fruits that accompany this world, but to say that its "ours" is kinda foolish I think.

:p Lets all dump our industrial waste into the lakes, so that Virgils 50 children will have a nice clean place to play hopscotch...even if their cancer catches them early, those little bald kids sure can hop and cough at an intermediate level! ;) Still...The NewYork "Greenspace" will thrive, and thats all that matters to me!:thumbs_up Long live North American gorgers! Keep pumpin out the Fumes! After all its Ours anyhow! :lol:

Asa Adams
03-21-2007, 04:58 PM
Recent Greenpeace report said that Indonesia (my country) has lost 72% of its tropical rain forests and pretty soon, if the destructive pattern continued, we won’t have anymore rain forest left.


Is it Human made distruction? I can understand in that case to it being our fault, But I just read an article in the Walrus Magazine (Canada) That the Mountain Pine Beetle has killed 50 billion dollars worth of British Columbian forest in less than a decade. Economically devestating, aswell as environmentally. To this end we can agree that not only man is at fault, and that it is in this case an organisms world, Eh Virg? :lol:

Riesa
03-21-2007, 05:07 PM
I say we all move to caves, live a solitary existence, no wars then, or at least same gender for company, again, no wars then. and no chance of reproducing. and for breakfast, lunch and dinner eat Mountain Pine Beetle Stew.

hockeychick8792
03-21-2007, 05:40 PM
Now you all can talk about grazing and natural stuff, but humanity has created multiply substance that benifit all.
An example


CHOCOLATE

subterranean
03-21-2007, 08:10 PM
Is it Human made distruction? I can understand in that case to it being our fault, But I just read an article in the Walrus Magazine (Canada) That the Mountain Pine Beetle has killed 50 billion dollars worth of British Columbian forest in less than a decade. Economically devestating, aswell as environmentally. To this end we can agree that not only man is at fault, and that it is in this case an organisms world, Eh Virg? :lol:

Err; do you happen to have any figure how much the illegal loggers have contributed to the destruction of rain forests world wide? And do you, by any chance, know how quick they did that?

That beetle thingy is, I think, a part of nature's mechanism, which already existed since your great great great grandparents. Now, if you got stroked by the 50 billions figure, maybe then you should check whether it is always been that big, or something happened along the way that eventually contributed to such situation.

subterranean
03-21-2007, 08:23 PM
:lol: :lol: Are you serious? First of all, I don't graze the earth. I eat meat, not grass. :lol:

Second, the earth is here for mankind, not mankind here for the earth. If you want to help the earth, why don't you live in a cave and eat berries and insects and tell me if that's life?

Hi, Virg! How are you doing? :wave:

What's with the extreme remark?

*Classic*Charm*
03-21-2007, 08:28 PM
I say we all move to caves, live a solitary existence, no wars then, or at least same gender for company, again, no wars then. and no chance of reproducing. and for breakfast, lunch and dinner eat Mountain Pine Beetle Stew.

Haha. IF ONLY!! Knowing humans and how rediculous we are, we'd end up fighting over whose cave was whose...and live with only the same gender? Have you ever experienced 6 girls living in one house? That's a warzone in itself...and then you'd still have people who protest killing the pine beetles for the stew. It's cruel, ya know!! :smash: :smash: Who are we kidding: Humans are hopeless.

A very agreeable notion, though!!

Asa Adams
03-21-2007, 09:55 PM
Err; do you happen to have any figure how much the illegal loggers have contributed to the destruction of rain forests world wide? And do you, by any chance, know how quick they did that?

That beetle thingy is, I think, a part of nature's mechanism, which already existed since your great great great grandparents. Now, if you got stroked by the 50 billions figure, maybe then you should check whether it is always been that big, or something happened along the way that eventually contributed to such situation.

I simple asked you what the devestation was, Subterranean! No need to get your nickers in a knot! "Err;" I gave you a figure of what An insect could do to 1000 year old trees in 9 years. Thousands of acres. Loggers have been devestation much more, on a larger scale for centuries.
"That beetle thingy is, I think, is a part of nature's mechanism."
Well, I think, Logging hazardous amounts of lumber is also nature's mechanism. Survival of the fittest. Economy; It is what has corrupted humankind.

ejarg7
03-22-2007, 12:16 AM
I don't think humanity has done any real benefit to earth. Sorry if I sound cynical, but in my opinion, we normally do things that benefit ourselves first. So, even if we try to save the world now, it's probably because we need it to save ourselves.

Adudaewen
03-22-2007, 02:37 AM
Haha. IF ONLY!! Knowing humans and how rediculous we are, we'd end up fighting over whose cave was whose...and live with only the same gender? Have you ever experienced 6 girls living in one house? That's a warzone in itself...and then you'd still have people who protest killing the pine beetles for the stew. It's cruel, ya know!! :smash: :smash: Who are we kidding: Humans are hopeless.

A very agreeable notion, though!!

True story, you want to see a hostile zone, check out an all-girl community bathroom 1/2 an hour before classes start. believe me, not a place you want to be unless you can withstand heavy fire.

billyjack
03-22-2007, 08:27 PM
its not our job to benefit the earth. we think it is, and that is why we've ended up doing the exact opposite. our job is to live, and truely living is living without the ideal of a "need to benefit or impove" anything. living is being content, affirming life, loving fate.

EitherOr
03-22-2007, 09:18 PM
its not our job to benefit the earth. we think it is, and that is why we've ended up doing the exact opposite. our job is to live, and truely living is living without the ideal of a "need to benefit or impove" anything. living is being content, affirming life, loving fate.

I assume you mean this from a purely evolutionary perspective - i.e the purpose of humanity is to live and nothing else?

I disagree with your notion of contentment through fate. Using fate in this manner would imply there is no use in seeking improvement (whether it be on a personal scale, a social scale or a worldly one). It also fails to include the people throughout the world who are unable to be content due to poverty, war, disease etc.

Virgil
03-22-2007, 10:09 PM
:p Lets all dump our industrial waste into the lakes, so that Virgils 50 children will have a nice clean place to play hopscotch...even if their cancer catches them early, those little bald kids sure can hop and cough at an intermediate level! ;)

Well, that would be counter productive. We would be harming humanity if we did that. The point is that we do what helps humanity first, not what helps the earth first or keeps it pristine. I assume Asa you walk or bike to everything and don't have a car? I take it you heat your home with firewood and not gas or oil? I take it you don't have electricity? :p :p Shame shame if you do. You're harming the earth at your human expense. :D

Asa Adams
03-22-2007, 11:36 PM
Well, that would be counter productive. We would be harming humanity if we did that. The point is that we do what helps humanity first, not what helps the earth first or keeps it pristine. I assume Asa you walk or bike to everything and don't have a car? I take it you heat your home with firewood and not gas or oil? I take it you don't have electricity? :p :p Shame shame if you do. You're harming the earth at your human expense. :D

:lol: Ha...Once again, your joking judgmental assumption suits someone else, other than my life style:p :lol: ! I do not own a car, nor do I have a license to pilot a car. Yes, Virg, I bike to school. It is easier, and my students get a kick out of passing me in their pick-ups, blowing smoke up my nose! :lol:
The most common way to produce electricity is by coal. Hydroelectric dams Work well too; But when I toast my bagle, I pollute not. If I conserve my wasteful habits, I can prolong the happy existence of fossil fuels in the ground :p :lol: I'm from Canada. There is no heat like a wood burning heat, eh? lol. So to justify my electrical usage, Dear Virgil, a modern consumer, who may be conscious of waste, certainly consumes less than are Target Mall, Or a large server that keeps Pornography sites active so that young and old can use up good ol' internet energy so that two ol goofs like you and I can nolonger positively bicker like much older Gits! :lol: At least I can say we all should not waste, thats the key, Eh? :thumbs_up

Cheers dear friend!
(Hows the weather in Newyork? Heard it got alittle nasty there with the ice recently, right?)

Virgil
03-22-2007, 11:44 PM
:lol: Ha...Once again, your joking judgmental assumption suits someone else, other than my life style:p :lol: ! I do not own a car, nor do I have a license to pilot a car. Yes, Virg, I bike to school. It is easier, and my students get a kick out of passing me in their pick-ups, blowing smoke up my nose! :lol:
The most common way to produce electricity is by coal. Hydroelectric dams Work well too; But when I toast my bagle, I pollute not. If I conserve my wasteful habits, I can prolong the happy existence of fossil fuels in the ground :p :lol: I'm from Canada. There is no heat like a wood burning heat, eh? lol. So to justify my electrical usage, Dear Virgil, a modern consumer, who may be conscious of waste, certainly consumes less than are Target Mall, Or a large server that keeps Pornography sites active so that young and old can use up good ol' internet energy so that two ol goofs like you and I can nolonger positively bicker like much older Gits! :lol: At least I can say we all should not waste, thats the key, Eh? :thumbs_up

:lol: I figured you would find a way to trump my playful assumptions. :p Well, you can't believe the earth is more important than humanity, can you?


Cheers dear friend!
(Hows the weather in Newyork? Heard it got alittle nasty there with the ice recently, right?)
That was last week. It was nasty and I didn't make it in to work on Friday. But very spring like right now. I hope it stays, but it is March and March is crazy.

Asa Adams
03-23-2007, 01:15 AM
Oh, Humanity is my main game, just keeping the field open!
March is crazy, definately.

Basil
03-23-2007, 02:38 AM
I for one love little children so I intend to have as many as possible, 50 if I can, so I by my lonesome can increase the world's birthrate.
You're off to a slow start.

Taliesin
03-23-2007, 04:02 AM
:lol: :lol: Are you serious? First of all, I don't graze the earth. I eat meat, not grass. :lol:

Second, the earth is here for mankind, not mankind here for the earth. If you want to help the earth, why don't you live in a cave and eat berries and insects and tell me if that's life?

That sounds like a religious statement to us, actually.
Suggesting that something is here for us indicates reasonable planning, possibly divine, and since we believe that there is no reason in arguing about religion we won't.

billyjack
03-23-2007, 01:48 PM
it was said:

I disagree with your notion of contentment through fate. Using fate in this manner would imply there is no use in seeking improvement (whether it be on a personal scale, a social scale or a worldly one). It also fails to include the people throughout the world who are unable to be content due to poverty, war, disease etc.[/QUOTE]

however, your ideal of a need to seek improvement is just where the problem lies. think of it like this, we felt that the industrial revolution was a major improvement for man kind, yet now that we look back on it, it turns out it might be the bane of mankind. you see, this idea of trying to control the fate of man and the earth isnt leading to a neccessarily better fate. its just preoccupying our time with neurotic worrying till we die. that is what i mean about the cure of mankind and earth being founded in living. who's to say if what we do is going to be the right thing done in the long run? its this circular line of line of reasoning on the part of the "herd," to use a term of someone who might disagree with me, that never gets us out of the cirlce of destruction and worrying... maybe if we stop worry and start living things will take care of themselves...am i fatalistic, yes...but not in the sense that its typically used.

Orionsbelt
03-27-2007, 12:35 PM
I don’t think it is a fair premise to be asked to name one thing humans have done to benefit the earth. In my view, we are the child of that planet. A product if you prefer to think that way. Along with animals, plants, bacteria, and all of the other life that is carried on this blue gem. Therefore I think we are neither a benefit nor a burden. In a sense, we are the earth and the earth is us. I know of know place were you can make a distinction that one life force drives differing forms. I think it is generally agreed that a single “force” (substitute will, energy, or any other metaphor that you like) drives all life. I am not inclined to believe that some outside “super natural” or un-natural something set us up in party house to trash it and it will all be good later. As a part of this living condition (symbiotic) we have an effect and a responsibility. Even living in a cave precludes other critters from occupying the same cave. The problem that I have is that we do not recognize the fact that we are all, all of us, animals, plants, bees, etc. on a great blue big arc with multiple sets of him and her sailing through black space with no mountain to find. This is it folks. So I ask… quoting Bill Cosby… Have you seen the bottom of that arc? Who is going to clean that up? It seems to me that we as a whole are managing trash the house. Like teenagers, I think we need to learn how to look after ourselves. When we have abused the resource to the point of exhaustion in the name of economic development, individual rights, personal ambition, etc etc. etc. I think there will be consequences. I am not advocating aggressive environmentalism. I find those things are tools used to achieve political momentum in order to serve other purposes. I am hoping to advocate foresight. It is a simple matter. Hey, I live here. Clean up after yourself.:thumbs_up

.shuu.
03-31-2007, 11:15 PM
Orionsbelt, agreed. Human arrogance made us believe we're above nature, totally not the right mindset. For what it's worth, and I know it's not much, but I plant at least 50 trees a year.

hyperborean
04-01-2007, 12:15 AM
I have a friend who has encountered "visitors" or "extraterrestrials". Call him crazy, but the guy has been through hypnosis and he thinks they are real. These visitors told him that "earth is a school". Very interesting if you ask me. I'm not one to believe in aliens, but the things my friend speaks of are beyond what he could have alone imagined.

hyperinsomnia
04-01-2007, 12:39 AM
Hahaha I didn't think the topic would be as comical as this.

We're obviously not above the earth, if we need it to live; but who said that we need to live anyway? We're not important, nothing bad will happen if we die out, we wouldn't even care because we would be dead.

Anyway that's my 'morbid' oppinion, as I'm told... I think... Whatever happens happens, if we kill the earth then... cool :thumbs_up

We're never going to stop being selfish, we're not capable.

ennison
04-01-2007, 05:28 AM
I'm good to the earth every day

Countess
04-01-2007, 10:32 AM
Er, well if you're a creationist, you believe the earth was made for our use. Of course, it also says creation groans like a woman in childbirth, undoubtedly because she has to support billiions of "cockroaches in the kitchen of the lord" (my phrase to define humanity) throughout time.

BUT, as George Carlin says, the earth will go on without us just fine. Once we've poisoned it, we've poisoned ourselves and will become extinct. Nature will, through her thousands of years, incorporate that waste, cleans herself and be as good as new.

billyjack
04-01-2007, 10:40 AM
We're obviously not above the earth, if we need it to live; but who said that we need to live anyway? We're not important, nothing bad will happen if we die out, we wouldn't even care because we would be dead.

Anyway that's my 'morbid' oppinion, as I'm told... I think... Whatever happens happens, if we kill the earth then... cool :thumbs_up

We're never going to stop being selfish, we're not capable.

i'm going to disagree on the point saying, "we're not important." i think you mean that we could all die, and kill the earth as well, and this wouldnt be a "big deal" because there would be no humans around to say, "its a big deal." yeah, that's a human take on it, but its not the only take on it. i wouldn't call this statement of yours morbid, i'd call it anthropocentric.

being selfish and not being selfish depend on what the "self" is. our common misconception of the self being trapped inside a bag of skin might be completely wrong. maybe the "self" is just the opposite of this--- it's the universe (which is what eastern philosophy subscribes to).

hyperinsomnia
04-02-2007, 01:51 AM
I suppose you're right, I'll leave it as I don't personally think it matters.

Neo_Sephiroth
04-06-2007, 03:28 PM
I think that the damage to the earth cause by humans far outweighs the benefits that we have given the earth.

Dante Wodehouse
04-06-2007, 03:46 PM
Seriously? We have the ability to cultivate it, take from it, and eventually give back to it both positively and negatively. To say that it is ours, and to fight for its soil and to claim it, is a horrifying prospect if you think about it. *(Oiy, This is my tree! Get your own shade!) :lol:

I do beileve that we all deserve a spot under the sun and to eat and drink of the fruits that accompany this world, but to say that its "ours" is kinda foolish I think.

:p Lets all dump our industrial waste into the lakes, so that Virgils 50 children will have a nice clean place to play hopscotch...even if their cancer catches them early, those little bald kids sure can hop and cough at an intermediate level! ;) Still...The NewYork "Greenspace" will thrive, and thats all that matters to me!:thumbs_up Long live North American gorgers! Keep pumpin out the Fumes! After all its Ours anyhow! :lol:

What? The Earth is crying at the neglect? Do you feel sorry for the birds being killed by DDT (which has saved the lives of millions and has never had any scientifically viable side effects)? Why is it that humans are the only animal that care more about other animals than their own species? We've done benefit to ourselves on the Earth, just like Plasmodium Falciparum, rats, mildew, dogs, and ravens have done. None of these things are interested in benefitting the Earth unless it benefits them. That's what we are doing. And anyway, who's to say what's beneficial to the Earth anyway? We always call anything that we change in the Earth as bad, but if we are to say what is good by comparing how other animals react, than oil pipelines in the Arctic are good for the Earth, but we don't consider it as such. We are not in all that great positions to say what is good for the Earth because our emotions take over our practical selves.

Neo_Sephiroth
04-06-2007, 03:59 PM
The earth have been butcher little by little by us. It wasn't until now that the masses is starting to realize the effects cause by our doing.

We continue to look ahead and move forward but if we would just stop and turn around to look behind us we'll see the earth breaking down.

Dante Wodehouse
04-06-2007, 05:19 PM
Again, how can we tell what is good and bad for the Earth? The majority of people consider the worst possible offense to the environment is carbon dioxide, when (if the ice caps melt) fish will flourish. Warm-climated creatures will do likewise in a warmer world, and will thereby replace all organisms that have been killed. I say again, what constitutes butchering of the Earth? Animals, Protists, Plants, Fungi, Archaea, Rocks and Bacteria will always survive, no matter what we throw at them.

billyjack
04-06-2007, 10:05 PM
Again, how can we tell what is good and bad for the Earth? The majority of people consider the worst possible offense to the environment is carbon dioxide, when (if the ice caps melt) fish will flourish. Warm-climated creatures will do likewise in a warmer world, and will thereby replace all organisms that have been killed. I say again, what constitutes butchering of the Earth? Animals, Protists, Plants, Fungi, Archaea, Rocks and Bacteria will always survive, no matter what we throw at them.

i like that point. people tend to think that the earth's changing must be a bad thing--(because change is bad, we fear change). of course, changes are completely necessary and natural

the thing is though, i dont think that our ignorance of being able to take an earth-centric view means we should just do what we please. appeals to ignorance are dodges--they only help with arguing, not with solving problems. we tend to think we were put on earth, rather than the truth that we are of earth. our fate as humans and the earths fate are not mutually exclusive. so understanding this earthcentric point of view isof the utmost importance.

BillCosby
04-07-2007, 12:17 AM
I have a friend who has encountered "visitors" or "extraterrestrials". Call him crazy, but the guy has been through hypnosis and he thinks they are real. These visitors told him that "earth is a school". Very interesting if you ask me. I'm not one to believe in aliens, but the things my friend speaks of are beyond what he could have alone imagined.

sorry my english isn't very good, can you please elaborate, on your friends claims? thanks, im very interested to hear it

Dante Wodehouse
04-07-2007, 01:20 PM
i like that point. people tend to think that the earth's changing must be a bad thing--(because change is bad, we fear change). of course, changes are completely necessary and natural

the thing is though, i dont think that our ignorance of being able to take an earth-centric view means we should just do what we please. appeals to ignorance are dodges--they only help with arguing, not with solving problems. we tend to think we were put on earth, rather than the truth that we are of earth. our fate as humans and the earths fate are not mutually exclusive. so understanding this earthcentric point of view isof the utmost importance.

I agree. We need to keep the Earth livable until we find another planet that we can live on or we find aliens, in which case real estate would be too expensive for us to consider trashing our house until we can sell it. However, we do have a weird view of what is bad for the Earth (and our attempts to fix it historically screw up ecosystems), but we should remember to keep humans on a higher priority that trees.

billyjack
04-07-2007, 02:19 PM
I agree. We need to keep the Earth livable until we find another planet that we can live on or we find aliens, in which case real estate would be too expensive for us to consider trashing our house until we can sell it. However, we do have a weird view of what is bad for the Earth (and our attempts to fix it historically screw up ecosystems), but we should remember to keep humans on a higher priority that trees.

till we find another planet? come on, that is a cop out. maybe we will someday, but we need to act like we wont.

keeping humans on a higher priority than trees makes sense, at least it keeps things in perspectives. but at the same time, our fate and the fate of trees is intertwined. so we need a middle ground here.

hyperborean
04-07-2007, 04:56 PM
The majority of people consider the worst possible offense to the environment is carbon dioxide, when (if the ice caps melt) fish will flourish. Warm-climated creatures will do likewise in a warmer world, and will thereby replace all organisms that have been killed. I say again, what constitutes butchering of the Earth? Animals, Protists, Plants, Fungi, Archaea, Rocks and Bacteria will always survive, no matter what we throw at them.

Technically carbon dioxide emissions are not causing global warming. It's the increased amount of sunspots and decreased amount of water vapor in the atmosphere that's causing the global warming. The earth goes through changes and cycles...it's completely natural. If anything, CO2 is good for the environment. More trees get the food they need, therefore, we have more oxygen to breath.

We do cause harm to the earth by means of overpopulation and industrialization. I can't even count how many trees that have been cut down by new neighbors in my town.

RobinHood3000
04-07-2007, 05:08 PM
Technically carbon dioxide emissions are not causing global warming. It's the increased amount of sunspots and decreased amount of water vapor in the atmosphere that's causing the global warming. The earth goes through changes and cycles...it's completely natural. If anything, CO2 is good for the environment. More trees get the food they need, therefore, we have more oxygen to breathe. Earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, and asteroid impacts are also completely natural. That does not make them beneficial, at least for us. So long as we agree that global warming exists, then we agree that we have a problem on our hands. Trees aren't the ones that are starving, we are. When was the last time you saw a tree suffocate?

EDIT: By the way, sunspots occur on an eleven-year cycle (to my knowledge - I will happily read any credible source saying otherwise). The Earth has been steadily getting warmer for far longer, if memory serves. And how on earth (no pun intended) does DECREASED water vapor cause global warming? Water vapor is a greenhouse gas several times more powerful than carbon dioxide.

George Carlin and Ian Malcolm (from Jurassic Park) have the right idea. The Earth doesn't care in the slightest what we do. The Earth will still be here long after humans have either moved away or gone extinct, whichever the case may be. We are not HARMING the Earth, we are making it less HABITABLE, primarily for other species but also for ourselves. If all humanity on Earth were violently extinguished by nuclear armageddon, life would continue just fine. As it is, the only question is not whether we have done anything to benefit the Earth, as the Earth certainly doesn't need our help. The question is whether humanity can continue to survive despite continued environmental suicide.

Dante Wodehouse
04-07-2007, 06:25 PM
We aren't even harming the habitability for other species, because no matter what we do, there is some bacteria, carrion, or other form of organism that loves pollution will take up what other organisms hate.

billyjack
04-07-2007, 08:40 PM
As it is, the only question is not whether we have done anything to benefit the Earth, as the Earth certainly doesn't need our help. The question is whether humanity can continue to survive despite continued environmental suicide.

i disagree. appeals to the past and praising the all powerfulness of mother earth will not wish away the devastating and possibly eternal affects man is having on this planet. the technology and homogenization going on nowadays is unlike anything ever seen, so you can-t really say that the earth will recover and be just fine if humanity becomes extinct due to environmental suicide, because the circumstances now are different than what they were when say, an asteroid hit earth and destroyed the dinosaurs. the sun has changed, the atmosphere is different, yada yada yada. its not the same earth and milky way.

hyperborean
04-08-2007, 01:19 AM
The Earth has been steadily getting warmer for far longer, if memory serves. And how on earth (no pun intended) does DECREASED water vapor cause global warming? Water vapor is a greenhouse gas several times more powerful than carbon dioxide.

I typed that wrong in my last post. There is an increase of water vapor (the most abundant greenhouse gas of them all). http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

There is another theory that proves otherwise, but you can read that on your own: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49329

Also, global climate hasn't changed in the last eight years. You can look this up if you want. It comes straight out of Richard S. Lindzen, a MIT professor of atmospheric science.

I love when we see the media calls us the "bad guys". There isn't one piece of evidence that proves that CO2 emissions are causing global warming. The IPCC tries to persuade the public into believing that they have hundreds of credible scientists that have proved this. That list of scientists includes scientists that have left the organization because of their complete disagreement on the causes of global warming.

It's highly enjoyable when I see representatives from the IPCC go on TV and try to blame us for melting of the glaciers. They are speechless when they are asked what caused drastic climate change before CO2 emissions. They even try to change the subject when they are asked why global climate was warmer in the 1200s.

I'm not saying that world isn't warming...I'm saying that we aren't causing it

Also: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

RobinHood3000
04-08-2007, 08:48 AM
i disagree. appeals to the past and praising the all powerfulness of mother earth will not wish away the devastating and possibly eternal affects man is having on this planet. the technology and homogenization going on nowadays is unlike anything ever seen, so you can-t really say that the earth will recover and be just fine if humanity becomes extinct due to environmental suicide, because the circumstances now are different than what they were when say, an asteroid hit earth and destroyed the dinosaurs. the sun has changed, the atmosphere is different, yada yada yada. its not the same earth and milky way.Apologies, but I don't think you're getting my point. Earth doesn't need to recover from anything. Dante Wodehouse has the right idea - life will always exist regardless of what we do to the planet, short of imploding it. The atmosphere is different, yes, but that doesn't make Earth any less habitable for other forms of life - just for us. And how are changes in the sun caused by humans?

Hyper, thanks for the links. A minor correction to your post: water vapor is not the most PLENTIFUL greenhouse gas, but it does have the greatest contribution to the greenhouse effect. If you look at the charts carefully, none of them give the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere (although I might have missed it somewhere).

This is what frustrates me about the global warming debate - there's more debate about what's to blame for it (sunspots, cosmic rays, CO2 emissions, etc.) than about what to do about it. Everyone seems to agree that it is detrimental, or at least is reason for concern. How effectively would humanity as a whole be able to respond to an ice age (to pose an example of radical climate change)?

billyjack
04-08-2007, 09:14 AM
Apologies, but I don't think you're getting my point. Earth doesn't need to recover from anything. Dante Wodehouse has the right idea - life will always exist regardless of what we do to the planet, short of imploding it. The atmosphere is different, yes, but that doesn't make Earth any less habitable for other forms of life - just for us. And how are changes in the sun caused by humans?


i am not putting the blame on anybody for the sun changing, its natural--the aim of that remark was to show that this is not the exact same planet and solar system that has survived catastrophes before.

the earth is just as connected to the atmosphere as you and i are to the air we breath. so i fail to see how polluting it wouldnt effect life on earth. hypothesize with appeals to the past all you want, prove it. and if you cant, then maybe we ought to change our behavior and relation to the earth--anyways, it couldnt hurt anything.

basically, i dont like your postings or wodehouse-s opinions because your hole argument is based on past catastrophes and the earths surviving them as proof that earth will persevere through whatever we do to it. really, you are just supporting the myth that says we are separate from the earth. the seperation exist in textbooks, not in reality.

hyperborean
04-08-2007, 10:55 AM
This is what frustrates me about the global warming debate - there's more debate about what's to blame for it (sunspots, cosmic rays, CO2 emissions, etc.) than about what to do about it. Everyone seems to agree that it is detrimental, or at least is reason for concern. How effectively would humanity as a whole be able to respond to an ice age (to pose an example of radical climate change)?

very true. The only reason why I get mad at the IPCC is because they are creating hysteria. If we get a president that advocates the prevention of global warming (I live in the US)... he will tax us in order to "stop" global warming. Basically, he'll be taxing the air we breath. Once the general public understands the truth behind global warming then we could take steps forward in adapting for radical climate changes.

RobinHood3000
04-08-2007, 01:39 PM
i am not putting the blame on anybody for the sun changing, its natural--the aim of that remark was to show that this is not the exact same planet and solar system that has survived catastrophes before.

the earth is just as connected to the atmosphere as you and i are to the air we breath. so i fail to see how polluting it wouldnt effect life on earth. hypothesize with appeals to the past all you want, prove it. and if you cant, then maybe we ought to change our behavior and relation to the earth--anyways, it couldnt hurt anything.

basically, i dont like your postings or wodehouse-s opinions because your hole argument is based on past catastrophes and the earths surviving them as proof that earth will persevere through whatever we do to it. really, you are just supporting the myth that says we are separate from the earth. the seperation exist in textbooks, not in reality.I didn't say it wouldn't affect life on Earth. I said it would primarily affect US. We, relative to the Earth, are relatively insignificant. We're the ants that scamper across its skin, bothering it from time to time.

As Michael Crichton put it:


"Well, [Hammond] said, "at least disaster is averted."

"What disaster is that?" Malcolm said, sighing.

"Well," Hammond said, "they didn't get free and overrun the world."

Malcolm sat up on one elbow. "You were worried about that?"

"Surely that's what was at stake," Hammond said. "These animals, lacking predators, might get out and destroy the planet."

"You egomaniacal idiot," Malcolm said, in fury. "Do you have any idea what you are talking about? You think you can destroy the planet? My, what intoxicating power you must have." Malcolm sank back on the bed. "You can't destroy this planet. You can't even come close."

"Well, it's not," Malcolm said.

"All the experts agree that our planet is in trouble."

SPACE-SAVING TRIMMING BEGINS HERE

Malcolm sighed. "Let me tell you about our planet. Our planet is 4.5 billion years old. There has been life for nearly that long. Great dynasties of creatures arising, flourishing, dying away. All this happening aginst a background of continuous and violent upheaval, mountain ranges thrust up and eroded away, cometary impacts, volcanic eruptions, oceans rising and falling, (emphasis mine) whole continents moving...the planet has survived everything, in its time. It will certainly survive us."

Hammond frowned. "Just because it lasted a long time doesn't mean it is permanent. If there was a radiation accident..."

"Suppose there was. A bad one, and all the plants and animals died, and the earth was clicking hot for a hundred thousand years. Life would survive somewhere. And after all those years, when the planet was no longer inhopitable, life would again spread over the planet. The earth would survive our folly. Life would survive our folly. Only we think it wouldn't."

The full passage is from pages 367-369 (of the paperback) of Jurassic Park, if you're interested. One last thing...


"Let's be clear. The planet is not in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy. We haven't got the power the destroy the planet - or to save it. But we might have the power to save ourselves."

billyjack
04-08-2007, 06:46 PM
I didn't say it wouldn't affect life on Earth. I said it would primarily affect US. We, relative to the Earth, are relatively insignificant. We're the ants that scamper across its skin, bothering it from time to time.
...

i spose you have a point there, but i still think your claims are based in guesswork. fact is we dont know if the earth would survive the death of the human species, because no species has never been like us before. and comparing us to ants doesnt work for an analogy. ants work with their environment, we work against ours and therefore we cause much more destruction. not to mention, our numbers as a species are unlike anything ever evolved. every other species population is curbed by environments and ours is not---once again, this is a first in the earths history.

humans have a right to think themselves something special. to quote kurt vonnegut


Kilgore Trout's unwritten reply to the question "What is the purpose of life?"


To be
the eyes
and ears
and conscience
of the Creator of the Universe,
you fool.

RobinHood3000
04-08-2007, 07:39 PM
i spose you have a point there, but i still think your claims are based in guesswork. fact is we dont know if the earth would survive the death of the human species, because no species has never been like us before. Now who's guessing?

Why do we even care what happens to the Earth after we're gone? I realize that it's primarily a moral issue, but the fact is that at some point, life as we define it will cease to exist on Earth. When that happens is, for the most part, out of our control. I remain of the firm opinion that what we do can only change life on Earth, not exterminate it. We're not that big a deal.

billyjack
04-09-2007, 11:23 AM
Now who's guessing?

Why do we even care what happens to the Earth after we're gone? I realize that it's primarily a moral issue, but the fact is that at some point, life as we define it will cease to exist on Earth. When that happens is, for the most part, out of our control. I remain of the firm opinion that what we do can only change life on Earth, not exterminate it. We're not that big a deal.

life is not a moral issue. morality is an ideal, life is not, life is real.

how can you say we are not that big of a deal? we are the first self actualized beings ever known. the self is the universe, so this means that our existence coincides with the first time the universe has ever been able to look at itself.

Virgil
04-09-2007, 12:48 PM
life is not a moral issue. morality is an ideal, life is not, life is real.

how can you say we are not that big of a deal? we are the first self actualized beings ever known. the self is the universe, so this means that our existence coincides with the first time the universe has ever been able to look at itself.

Very good point billyjack. If there was no humanity, the universe would be meaningless and so would the planet earth.

Nightshade
04-09-2007, 01:09 PM
George Carlin and Ian Malcolm (from Jurassic Park) have the right idea. The Earth doesn't care in the slightest what we do. The Earth will still be here long after humans have either moved away or gone extinct, whichever the case may be. We are not HARMING the Earth, we are making it less HABITABLE, primarily for other species but also for ourselves. If all humanity on Earth were violently extinguished by nuclear armageddon, life would continue just fine. As it is, the only question is not whether we have done anything to benefit the Earth, as the Earth certainly doesn't need our help. The question is whether humanity can continue to survive despite continued environmental suicide.

nicley put:nod:

Very good point billyjack. If there was no humanity, the universe would be meaningless and so would the planet earth.
Only meaningless tto us as we wouldnt exsistt but whatever esle is out there might not think so.

I dont pretend to be an expert but my mum goes on about somthing but she starts talking physics and chemistry and maths and my eyes cross and I start phasing out... but as I gather it we should keep on flying airoplane and not clean up the atmospher more specifically the stratosphere until we have started reducing Co2 emmisions because whatever it is that airplanes emitt refelcs the rays of the sun so for the moment it acts as a conterbalance to the increase in global warming only obviously not a good enough counterbalnce as we had daffs in early march. But she says that and here is where it all gets technincal and my sister can follow it and I cant that the minute that goes we will start getting and retaing the full force of the sun in which case we are all toast.

RobinHood3000
04-09-2007, 01:18 PM
life is not a moral issue. morality is an ideal, life is not, life is real.But life and morality are both defined by humans. If there were no life on Earth, the universe would not be much different. Life may be real, but it has no meaning except for what we give it.


how can you say we are not that big of a deal? we are the first self actualized beings ever known. the self is the universe, so this means that our existence coincides with the first time the universe has ever been able to look at itself.Frankly, I think that is a little on the egocentric side. We are NOT the universe, save in our own minds. The universe doesn't feel the need to look at itself or search for meaning - the universe just IS. It exists, and has for long before humans arrived.

To me, an appropriate analogy for human existence would be that of a tree in a forest. It sprouts, it grows, and it eventually falls, and the tree's fall is only good, neutral, or bad on a case-by-case basis. For the birds who made their nest in the tree, it's bad. For the fungus that later grows on it, it's good. And for the trees on the other side of the globe, it doesn't mean a darn thing.

Human existence WILL one day end, and once it does, our impact on the universe will be restricted to Earth and whatever other astronomical bodies on which we find ourselves, and possibly whatever planet that Voyagers 1 and 2 crash land on. For the rest of the MASSIVE universe, we will have meant little or nothing in the grand scheme of existence.

billyjack
04-09-2007, 01:41 PM
But life and morality are both defined by humans. If there were no life on Earth, the universe would not be much different. Life may be real, but it has no meaning except for what we give it.

Frankly, I think that is a little on the egocentric side. We are NOT the universe, save in our own minds. The universe doesn't feel the need to look at itself or search for meaning - the universe just IS. It exists, and has for long before humans arrived.

To me, an appropriate analogy for human existence would be that of a tree in a forest. It sprouts, it grows, and it eventually falls, and the tree's fall is only good, neutral, or bad on a case-by-case basis. For the birds who made their nest in the tree, it's bad. For the fungus that later grows on it, it's good. And for the trees on the other side of the globe, it doesn't mean a darn thing.

Human existence WILL one day end, and once it does, our impact on the universe will be restricted to Earth and whatever other astronomical bodies on which we find ourselves, and possibly whatever planet that Voyagers 1 and 2 crash land on. For the rest of the MASSIVE universe, we will have meant little or nothing in the grand scheme of existence.

humans define morality and life, but this doesnt mean that life neccessarily coincides with our definition of it. our definition of life says things exist with or without our observing them, but i think our observing them is what gives them existence. its like a rainbow. for it to exist, there needs to be three things. a certain humidity, sunlight, and an observer. take any of these away, and no rainbow exist. sure, you could say that without an observer, there would still be a rainbow, but prove it. you would have to speculate. and i am not talking about speculation, i am talking about cold hard observable facts.

if there were no humans on earth--you would have to speculate about the universe and earth going on without us. maybe it would, maybe it wouldnt. maybe the earth needs an observer just like a tree falling in the woods needs one in order for it to make a sound when it falls.

the universe as we know it exist as a state in our minds. anything we perceive is a state in our central nervous system. so our minds being around and the universe being around is fundamental to this universe or self.

Nightshade
04-09-2007, 02:41 PM
Surley we only define morality for ourselves and we are only the first self catualised beings we Know of who is to say that on another planet in another solar system whatever it is that apparantly makes people people didnt eveolve thousands of years before us.

Actuallly here is a question what is the diffearnce between our World and the earth, or the universe for that matter.
:D
Look how is this we can and we should accpt that for the humans and humanity the exsinace of said humanity is the greatest thing of all importance we cannot contimplate a universe without us because we cannot have any inkling of what it would be like ( and Im not talking about the science of it) if You belive in the Big Bang you cant say that happend for humanity to exsist, thats a religion if you. and if you are religious well then you belive that there is somthing greater than humanity that exsists seperate and without us.
Either way in theory most people do actually belive that we are insignificant dots on the universe's carpet.


( apolgies for generalisation)

RobinHood3000
04-09-2007, 02:52 PM
humans define morality and life, but this doesnt mean that life neccessarily coincides with our definition of it. our definition of life says things exist with or without our observing them, but i think our observing them is what gives them existence. its like a rainbow. for it to exist, there needs to be three things. a certain humidity, sunlight, and an observer. take any of these away, and no rainbow exist. sure, you could say that without an observer, there would still be a rainbow, but prove it. you would have to speculate. and i am not talking about speculation, i am talking about cold hard observable facts.

if there were no humans on earth--you would have to speculate about the universe and earth going on without us. maybe it would, maybe it wouldnt. maybe the earth needs an observer just like a tree falling in the woods needs one in order for it to make a sound when it falls.

the universe as we know it exist as a state in our minds. anything we perceive is a state in our central nervous system. so our minds being around and the universe being around is fundamental to this universe or self.You would be hard-pressed to function in life if you took the laws of physics for granted by believing that they don't function when no one is looking.

I will put it this way: if a tree falls in the forest, there will be a transfer of kinetic energy from the tree to the air (and anything unfortunate enough to be in the way) that probably eventually becomes heat energy. But that doesn't mean a darn thing to the people too far away to care.

billyjack
04-09-2007, 03:02 PM
You would be hard-pressed to function in life if you took the laws of physics for granted by believing that they don't function when no one is looking.

I will put it this way: if a tree falls in the forest, there will be a transfer of kinetic energy from the tree to the air (and anything unfortunate enough to be in the way) that probably eventually becomes heat energy. But that doesn't mean a darn thing to the people too far away to care.

ah, but by my still being alive and not floating into the sun or whatnot, i can be sure that the laws we have devised for physics are still functioning. so really, by my existence, these laws are being observed and affirmed.

you can speculate about a tree falling. but the fact is, in order for a sound to be heard, something with the ability to pick up vibrations via ear organs or special instrument needs to be around. hearing or sound, just like anything else, is not an act of itself. the is no such thing as just sound. if there is sound, then there must be an observer to hear the sound, otherwise the existence of the sound is only speculation. sound needs an observer as heads needs tails to make it a coin.

Dante Wodehouse
04-09-2007, 03:20 PM
Surley we only define morality for ourselves and we are only the first self catualised beings we Know of who is to say that on another planet in another solar system whatever it is that apparantly makes people people didnt eveolve thousands of years before us.

Actuallly here is a question what is the diffearnce between our World and the earth, or the universe for that matter.
:D
Look how is this we can and we should accpt that for the humans and humanity the exsinace of said humanity is the greatest thing of all importance we cannot contimplate a universe without us because we cannot have any inkling of what it would be like ( and Im not talking about the science of it) if You belive in the Big Bang you cant say that happend for humanity to exsist, thats a religion if you. and if you are religious well then you belive that there is somthing greater than humanity that exsists seperate and without us.
Either way in theory most people do actually belive that we are insignificant dots on the universe's carpet.


( apolgies for generalisation)

Just because we think that there is something more (I'm speaking for religion) doesn't mean we think we are insignificant. I consider myself better than an insignificant dot (that might just be pride, or it might be true, but either way it comes from pride), but I don't believe that man is the ruler of all. I say that we are kings of what we can get our hands on, but we are still subservient to God.

RobinHood3000
04-09-2007, 03:28 PM
you can speculate about a tree falling. but the fact is, in order for a sound to be heard, something with the ability to pick up vibrations via ear organs or special instrument needs to be around. hearing or sound, just like anything else, is not an act of itself. the is no such thing as just sound. if there is sound, then there must be an observer to hear the sound, otherwise the existence of the sound is only speculation. sound needs an observer as heads needs tails to make it a coin.I didn't say there was a sound, I said there was a physical reaction. The distinction was deliberate.

billyjack
04-09-2007, 08:31 PM
I didn't say there was a sound, I said there was a physical reaction. The distinction was deliberate.

okay--fair eneogh. even still, your physical reaction guesses are speculations. in order to know for certain that a tree fell somehow or another, an observer would need to be in the equation.

so you see, without humans, nothing would be observed and therefore we cant be sure anything would exist after our extinction, we can only speculate.

you could look in the past at the fossils records and say that we werent around along time ago and everything still seemed to do allright, so why would we need to be around now?

well, now is not then.

Asa Adams
04-09-2007, 11:20 PM
[QUOTE=Dante Wodehouse;354865]anyway, who's to say what's beneficial to the Earth anyway? [\QOUTE]

What? You think its fine that we dump our economical "BIO"-hazardous waste into the water, our drinking water, so that it can seep into the soil where you grow your veggies for your din din? Come on, Make some sense here.

Nightshade
04-10-2007, 02:11 AM
okay--fair eneogh. even still, your physical reaction guesses are speculations. in order to know for certain that a tree fell somehow or another, an observer would need to be in the equation.

so you see, without humans, nothing would be observed and therefore we cant be sure anything would exist after our extinction, we can only speculate.

you could look in the past at the fossils records and say that we werent around along time ago and everything still seemed to do allright, so why would we need to be around now?

well, now is not then.

I may have completely lost the plot here , and if so I apologise but are you saying that basically the universe exsists because we precive it to exsist and without our perception it will cease to exsist even if it does carry on as normal.
:confused:

RobinHood3000
04-10-2007, 06:05 AM
okay--fair eneogh. even still, your physical reaction guesses are speculations. in order to know for certain that a tree fell somehow or another, an observer would need to be in the equation.

so you see, without humans, nothing would be observed and therefore we cant be sure anything would exist after our extinction, we can only speculate.

you could look in the past at the fossils records and say that we werent around along time ago and everything still seemed to do allright, so why would we need to be around now?

well, now is not then.You don't happen to own a cat, a hammer, a box, and a vial of poison, do you?

billyjack
04-10-2007, 11:07 AM
You don't happen to own a cat, a hammer, a box, and a vial of poison, do you?

so you give up?

billyjack
04-10-2007, 11:26 AM
I may have completely lost the plot here , and if so I apologise but are you saying that basically the universe exsists because we precive it to exsist and without our perception it will cease to exsist even if it does carry on as normal.
:confused:

basically yes--bishop berkely subjective idealism all over again. reason being, we cant be sure that ithe universe will continue on without us around to observe it. really what this comes down to is that what we know to be fact or law is dependent on our being around to observe it and deem it as fact or law--otherwise, its just heresay. without us around, we can guess and use the scientific method to show that the past behavior of the universe would suggest continued existence, but we cant be sure. you have to see it to know it. and by see i mean any means of detection we have handy today.

this is important because we are not just some highly evolved ants that dont matter. we have self actualized the universe--let it take a look at itself. in order for us to continue on, we need the earth to do so as well.

RobinHood3000
04-16-2007, 09:03 PM
so you give up?Pfft. Bah. I don't suppose you caught the allusion?

In my mind, the fallacy in your argument lies in the assumption that because my point of view isn't proven, yours is. It's as if I went up to a theist and said that, because his religion had no proof, it couldn't possibly be true, which I assure you he (and I) would immediately, forcefully, and rightfully protest.

It may be that the universe is pointless without an observer, but that does NOT mean that because we are here to observe it, we give the universe a point. You have yet to establish that the universe even has a point for us to give it. It is true, a la Berkeley, that we cannot say for sure if the universe would continue without us. But that doesn't mean that if we disappeared, so would the universe. Nor have you even tried to establish that we are the only observers in the universe, to begin with.

billyjack
04-16-2007, 09:38 PM
Pfft. Bah. I don't suppose you caught the allusion?

In my mind, the fallacy in your argument lies in the assumption that because my point of view isn't proven, yours is. It's as if I went up to a theist and said that, because his religion had no proof, it couldn't possibly be true, which I assure you he (and I) would immediately, forcefully, and rightfully protest.

It may be that the universe is pointless without an observer, but that does NOT mean that because we are here to observe it, we give the universe a point. You have yet to establish that the universe even has a point for us to give it. It is true, a la Berkeley, that we cannot say for sure if the universe would continue without us. But that doesn't mean that if we disappeared, so would the universe. Nor have you even tried to establish that we are the only observers in the universe, to begin with.


bah all you want, but it looks like you get what i've been trying to say.

what was the allsuion, dont know if i have heard it before?


i dont think reality points to some meaning other than itself, so maybe this is why i dont mind the lack of meaning in subjective idealism.

Hyacinth42
04-16-2007, 10:23 PM
oh, oh!! Random short story I read in... Middle School? Anyways, good short story about how nothing would care if we were gone... August 2026: There Will Come Soft Rains by Ray Bradbury ... Yes, There Will Come Soft Rains (by Sara Teasdale) is a poem, but I made the connection to the short story first ;) And I think it gives a believable scenario for our leaving of the Earth and it's reaction... On the same note, On the Beach by Nevil Shute talks about the world's end, and while this is based more on T.S. Elliot's Hollow Men, I think that it still shows how nothing would matter if we didn't exist...

I realize that listing random things I've read does nothing to support me philosophically, but they are rather good, and I felt like basing my arguement on them :P

RobinHood3000
04-16-2007, 10:27 PM
That I understand is no indication that I agree.

The allusion was to the Schrodinger's Cat experiment - I suggest you look it up. I think you might find quantum mechanics to be an intriguing philosophical thought experiment.

billyjack
04-17-2007, 11:53 AM
i checked out a synopsis of the cat experiment.

interesting. it clearly showed the superposition of conventionally accepted contraries: dead and alive. it seems like schrodinger might subscribe to subjective idealism.

to quote it, "quantum indeterminacy or the observer's paradox: the observation or measurement itself affects an outcome, so that the outcome as such does not exist unless the measurement is made. (That is, there is no single outcome unless it is observed.)"

now einstein on the otherhand, seemed to think that "reality (is) something independent of what is experimentally established."

i presume you fall in with einstein on this one--thinking that reality can exist seperate from our observing it?

RobinHood3000
04-17-2007, 07:09 PM
Well, as you point out, there's no way to say for sure, but for purposes of perspective, yes.

billyjack
04-18-2007, 01:29 AM
"to know" is twofold. in one sense there is theoretical knowing and in the other there is knowing not by theory but by observing. theoretical knowing is sound as long as it's consistent with the second kind of knowing, observations. how can a known world exist seperate from our observing it, being that both folds of knowing reality are dependent upon observations.

einstein had spinoza's theism to explain this. and you?

TurkeyBLT
04-18-2007, 03:10 AM
Death. The earth can take care of itself. Perhaps people repairing the earth for the damage WE've caused is beneficial to earth.

RobinHood3000
04-18-2007, 06:24 AM
"to know" is twofold. in one sense there is theoretical knowing and in the other there is knowing not by theory but by observing. theoretical knowing is sound as long as it's consistent with the second kind of knowing, observations. how can a known world exist seperate from our observing it, being that both folds of knowing reality are dependent upon observations.

einstein had spinoza's theism to explain this. and you?It doesn't have to be a known world to exist, at least not in pre-quantum thinking. But unlike Einstein, I feel no need to explain it. I may be wrong about what reality is without me there, but then again, if I'm not there, does it really matter to me? Humanity has bigger problems to worry about than what faces reality is making at us when our back is turned.

billyjack
04-18-2007, 11:37 AM
It doesn't have to be a known world to exist, at least not in pre-quantum thinking. .

prove it. the only proof must lie in theories or guesses, since observations are irrelevent. however, without observations, i fail to see where the proof would lie.

talking about a world that exist seperate from its being observed sounds similar to the ideal of God.

like i said, einstein fell back on this, i spose you must as well.

if you could observe this world that is seperate from observation, then i wouldnt ask for an explanation, because by observing it you would have already shown an understanding of it at an intuitive level. however, you havent observed it, your theorizing it. theories need evidence or explanations.

RobinHood3000
04-18-2007, 03:23 PM
Let me put it bluntly: I have neither need nor desire to PROVE it. Aside from the fact that it is literally UNPROVABLE, it is also IRRELEVANT for practical purposes. You liken the humanity-Earth relationship to that between a falling tree, and the listener to make the sound significant. I liken it to the relationship between a stage performer and a heckler. Whether there's an audience or not, the performer will speak his lines for his own sake - if he does it for the art of it, he doesn't need an audience for gratification. The audience can either applaud, or throw rotten fruit - the point of this thread is to determine which we have done for the Earth.

billyjack
04-18-2007, 10:00 PM
Let me put it bluntly: I have neither need nor desire to PROVE it. Aside from the fact that it is literally UNPROVABLE, it is also IRRELEVANT for practical purposes. You liken the humanity-Earth relationship to that between a falling tree, and the listener to make the sound significant. I liken it to the relationship between a stage performer and a heckler. Whether there's an audience or not, the performer will speak his lines for his own sake - if he does it for the art of it, he doesn't need an audience for gratification. The audience can either applaud, or throw rotten fruit - the point of this thread is to determine which we have done for the Earth.

to put it sharply:
i see it as entirely practical for this belief in a world outside of observation to be taken to its logical conclusion-which would be that its an idea, not a reality.

this would be practical because then people'll can stop appealing to god and start appealing to life. maybe this will help continue human existence?

RobinHood3000
04-19-2007, 06:11 AM
Ah, I see - a noble cause, but I'm too cynical for that. As you may find, humanity and logic have been somewhat disconnected for quite some time now.

billyjack
04-19-2007, 03:54 PM
Ah, I see - a noble cause, but I'm too cynical for that. As you may find, humanity and logic have been somewhat disconnected for quite some time now.

agreed. i wouldnt mistake humanity for human nature however. the way things are right now is the product of institutions and traditions and religions (ideals), not necessarily biological man.

but tell me this, it seems you think the split between humanity and reason is unnecessary, and i agree. but if your were to take your logic of a seprerate reality from observation to its logical end, you'd fail to find justification for it, in as far as knowing is experiencing or observing. if this logical endpoint was found and the ideal reality seen for what it is, an ideal, than i wonder if views of man as insignificant would shift to significant.

Dante Wodehouse
04-19-2007, 04:09 PM
What? You think its fine that we dump our economical "BIO"-hazardous waste into the water, our drinking water, so that it can seep into the soil where you grow your veggies for your din din? Come on, Make some sense here.

It isn't good for us, but people claim to speak for the Earth. The general belief is that change is bad for the Earth, but trying to keep the Earth from changing is stupid. We should stop acting as though we are trying to speak for the birds and realize that things will go extinct. Things should be kept in proper perspective; animals take care of themselves, we should do the same.

Neo_Sephiroth
04-20-2007, 05:25 PM
Yep...The Earth is the Earth. It is what it is.

But...Um...Aren't people speeding up the process of the Earth destruction/rebirth and whatnot?