Mark Jones wrote:
>
> I can't do this justice right now so I'll have to pass, I'm sorry. I think there are
> good grounds for saying intelligent life could not eveolve again from a post-crash
> republic of insects, grasses and rodents. But I'm not able to show why that's
> plausible just now, I apologise.
This speculation puts me in mind of Engels's phrase, the "tediousness of
the doctrine of immortality." I can't get real excited about the probability
of intelligent life in some far off galazy or in a post-crash earth. Just as,
frankly, my focus has to be on the human species, not the whole damn
biosphere. If we humans die out, I could care less whether in doing so
we slaughter off only ourselves or fry the whole planet.
There is no way of being biocentric *except* through and by
an initial anthrocentrism. I care about the earth because it is the
home of my fellow humans, past, present, future.
Carrol
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
