On Sat, 23 Dec 2000, Aaron P Ingebrigtsen wrote:
> If nature does it, then so be it, such are the consequenses of living in
> the natural world. But if WE do it, thats another matter entirely. We
> have been seperating ourselves from the natural world because we don't
> want the natural course of things to happen anymore. We would rather
> rise above the mortality of nature and become immortal gods in the
> universe. Or would you rather abandon all technology and knowledge and
> live like a common ape in the wild?!
Well, again, your conception about Man's special place in the cosmos is
halting the argument. I think our power today is a natural product of
evolution. Superiority is unconditional victory over our inferiors.
> Don't you think that power must come with responsibility? With every
> ability or right you have you must also have a responsibility to do the
> right thing, in my opninion. And if you do the wrong thing there must be
> consequenses for your actions.
I would propose examples to the contrary, but I digress.
> Other species should only die as a result of our actions if our actions
> are purely for survival, THAT is nature takeing it's course. But when
> our actions are NOT purely for survival and cause the extinctions of
> species, then that is WRONG!! This is my opinion and I will NOT be
> swayed.
Again: when the bubonic plague unthinkingly survives by killing 2/3 of
Europe's human population, why is that morally superior to humanity
surviving by chopping down all the trees and eradicating the hungry
wolves?
> But those plant life forms evolved and caused the extinctions out of pure
> survival. They weren't sentient beings to thought that the non-oxygen
> breathers were pests and decided to make them extinct. That is something
> that WE have done. There is a BIG difference between nature takeing it's
> course through the struggle for survival and OUR Arrogant and Stupid
> wastefull and destructive activities.
We won fair and square, by the rules (there are no rules). When we win,
you say it's "Arrogant and Stupid wastefull and destructive," and when the
algae won, it was merely innocuous "pure survival."
(BTW, possessive "its" has no apostrophe. I learned that the hard way --
nobody told me.)
> > use
> > it as an integral part of their biological processes emerged soon
> > enough, and the Earth went on. It'll be the same if our activities
> > manage to alter the atmosphere or climate. Some species'll die, a
> > few
> > new ones'll be born, and the Earth will go on.
>
> The earth is not merely the forms of life that live here, earth will
> continue to exist no matter how many life forms go extinct, I agree with
> you on that point. But causing the extinction of life forms merely for
> greed or selfish pleasure or convenience is NOT the natural way of things
> and is WRONG.
You presume to know the algae's intent? For all you know, the green slime
could be the greediest, most selfish creature ever.
> Evolution has no plan for us or any other life form. Evolution cares
> about ONE thing only, and that is the continuation of life itself. It
> doesn't care which species live or die, it doesn't care which individuals
> live or die, and it doesn't care HOW a life form lives or dies.
> Evolution is about change, evolution is Chaos!!!
Agreed.
> Beavers are not sentient beings with the ability to survive without
> causing the extinction or death of any other life form. Yes, they make
You are trivially wrong about Man's ability to survive without causing the
death of any other life form.
Consider smallpox. In a greedy, selfish act of terrorist civilization, we
have ERADICATED smallpox in the first world. It is virtually extinct.
And good riddance. Now, we could have allowed smallpox to survive.
Progress would grind to a halt, the total human population would fall to a
few hundred thousand, and we would, according to your rediculous opinion,
be morally superior to those greedy, selfish men of today who would
eradicate disease for "pleasure or convenience."
[snip]
> This I agree with you about. If it comes to the difference between OUR
> species survival and another species survival, then of COURSE I will
> fight for our survival. But if you destroy a species simply because it
> is in your way, or because you feel like it, then that is WRONG!!! This
> opinion WILL NOT CHANGE!!
Aaron, what are the most obvious distinctions between beavers and
humans? Well, they look different, and they act different.
Beavers build dams of sticks and mud. They have naturally evolved this
behavior. So, too, has humanity evolved its behavior. We build dams of
concrete and steel.
Civilization is every bit as natural to humans as dam-building is to
beavers, hunting is to lions, or swimming is to fish.
Demanding that humanity forego its natural behavior is like demanding that
all people have spiky ears and twelve inch long noses. It's insane.
--
Mark Roberts
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Freenet-chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-chat
