On 5/10/2010 9:31 AM, Christoph Reuss wrote:
But today's assertion that cull means just Natural Selection doesn't make
sense either.
In my first post on semantics, I explained that I might have chosen the
wrong word in using cull. Thus, there is precedent, including Mike G.
saying better not to use the word and your response to him saying
sarcastically that we should indeed do so. The record is there in print.
I defined cull as "natural selection".
Btw, nukes are another example of MAN-MADE -- as opposed to natural forces.
If you can evidence anything that is not natural (supernatural) The
James Randi Foundation has $US 1 million on offer.
If you say that the physical forces of nukes are natural forces too,
They most certainly are as they are physically measurable at all stages
of development.
then
we are back to the example of you throwing me into a lions' cage and then
saying it was the lions, not you, that killed me.
I never agreed with that example as is is foolish. There are, in
analytic philosophy, attempts to pin down primary causes as opposed to
secondary ones (conditions) If anyone exerts the force to expose someone
to high risk of death, (s)he is held responsible for the act. If a human
uses nukes, the human causes the deaths.
extraordinary event or
series of events that kills large numbers of humans during a period of time,
clearly distinguishing itself (both in extent of time and death rate) from
"Natural Selection", which "goes on perpetually" and at rather low intensity.
I didn't say that. I had already defined (if incorrectly) "cull", and
thus the meaning of my statement is what I intended and explained days
ago. Rates of evolution are not constant, and neither are the forces of
selection.
And by "life forms" you didn't mean humanity
as a whole, because not even you bet on total extermination of humanity.
Maybe you think of me as a cousin of the The Terminator. ;-)
A cull is a selection, not an extinction. There will be coming selection
for humans. That is what I stated, and it applies to individuals, not
necessarily the whole species.
Humans will almost certainly go extinct, it is a matter of when. Martin
Rees, pres of The Royal Society, says 50% chance this century. My
review for the UK Journal FUTURES< of his book _Our Final Century_ is
on the same website as my paper.
2 reviews & paper
<http://www.peakoilandhumanity.com/kurtz_folder/steve_kurtz_page_main.htm>
Such an event is commonly referred to as "doom".
Using your definition, a shrunken human population equals doom. As I
already stated, I think fewer people suffering in the future is not
doom, but rather a positive in my value schema. A sterility virus would
produce less suffering in the future, and that is my ethic. BTW, mumps
made many men sterile in the past, including one of my brothers.
Therefore, my statement is correct that you expressed CERTAINTY that
doom is coming, when you talked of "the coming cull".
Mr Ruess, I stated that selection would continue, with changing rates
over time, including an upswing. I put no timetable on it. Does the word
"coming" have a date? Finite lifespans with changing parameters is more
like it...
Is it so hard to stand by your words?
My words have been defined by me. I will not stand by your definitions.
Is it worth losing face for $500?
I give thousands yearly to envorinmental and population NGOs. (incl
Audubon, a US bird advocate)
You supply the definitions/meanings for my words which I've previously
defined. That is building a strawman. Then you repeatedly use the word
"doom." Where have I used that?
The whole "profit" idea from population reduction is yours, but I see it
in reverse. I already explained that capital wants *growing markets*
(increased demand) and *oversupplies of labor* to suppress wages. But
you just ignore that, or have no logical rebuttal.
Steve
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
