On 11 Feb 2014, at 03:57, LizR wrote:
On 11 February 2014 15:22, Hal Ruhl <halr...@alum.syracuse.edu> wrote:
Hi Liz:
I am not sure I understand your comment.
As to "rate" I posit a positive feedback loop in the life system
that forces "natural" ecocide that also makes the rate at which life
approaches it accelerate.
There is always a chance that an essentially "outside" originating
influence could terminate the "natural" extinction process with an
"unnatural" one [cometary impact, etc.].
By "natural" here I mean inherent in life itself. "Unnatural" would
be external to life. [I suppose that these distinctions may have
permeable boundaries.]
In any event my point is that my argument supports a "natural" and
thus unavoidable extinction event built into life and it is fully
effective absent an "unnatural" earlier one.
I still don't think we should be killing off all the species we are,
if only for our own sake. I think we benefit from biodiversity,
probably even more so than the next species since we have occupied
almost every niche on the planet apart from deep sea smokers.
I also don't like the suggestion that ecocide is a "natural and
unavoidable aspect of life" because that appears to be an attempt at
justifying ourselves.
It is the same error than the lawyer who justified his client's murder
by the fact that it just obeys the laws of physics. It is natural!
It is empty also, in this case, as we can say that the human reaction
to avoid the natural ecocide is natural too, like the jury member can
condemm the murderer to any pain, by justifying them by the fact that
they too obey the physical laws.
"naturality" add nothing on each sides of the debate. Here nature
plays a role of the "gap", and some others could just say "Oh, that's
God will".
I think this has a name: fatalism.
Invoking God or Matter in this way, is, in comp+Theaetetus, a
theological error.
Comp explains why this is false, even if true at the non justifiable
"truth level", but it becomes false when asserted (it put us in a cul-
de-sac world, which can satisfies []A -> ~A.)
We do exist, as human or Löbian person, and we do have partial
control, and thus relative responsibilities. If comp is true.
I doubt if the species that came through the k-t boundary with some
members alive had an easy time of it for the next few million years,
and I don't particularly want the same for our children.
OK.
Bruno
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
