Kevin's Watch

Darth Revan wrote:But this again has it's drawback. You increase the lifespan of a race, then it will become even more overpopulated... so populated that we won't have the resources to counter the problem...

Thats exactly what I was saying. By trying to "solve" the percieved problems, we are creating worse problems further down the line.

Darth Revan wrote:Nature has provided us with life... and what have we done in return; what are we doing in return? Destroying it.

Yes, in a sense, although it could be argued that we are trying to preserve it. I think that these attempts will make it much harder in the long run though. Also, on the whole, the only lives that are taken into account in this "saving" tend to be human ones. Preserving ourselves seems to come at the cost of many other lives/creatures/ecosystems/biospheres.

Is it worth it to have more humans and less for them to marvel over? I'm not sure.

--Avatar

Avatar wrote:

Darth Revan wrote:But this again has it's drawback. You increase the lifespan of a race, then it will become even more overpopulated... so populated that we won't have the resources to counter the problem...

Thats exactly what I was saying. By trying to "solve" the percieved problems, we are creating worse problems further down the line.

Darth Revan wrote:Nature has provided us with life... and what have we done in return; what are we doing in return? Destroying it.

Yes, in a sense, although it could be argued that we are trying to preserve it. I think that these attempts will make it much harder in the long run though. Also, on the whole, the only lives that are taken into account in this "saving" tend to be human ones. Preserving ourselves seems to come at the cost of many other lives/creatures/ecosystems/biospheres.

Is it worth it to have more humans and less for them to marvel over? I'm not sure.

--Avatar

We are not trying to preserve it at all Avatar. People say they are, but as soon as it gets to inconvenient, we stop. People don't want their comfortable life styles to be disturbed. Even those that have jobs that are supposedly trying to preserve the environment, are still not doing all they could do. They're only willing to help as long as it doesn't disrupt their lives.

If a man uses no electricity, get's his water from a lake, does all his washing and eating through none electric or technological way (Grows his own crops, etc); then I'll admit someone is trying to do good for the environment.

Darth Revan wrote:We are not trying to preserve it at all Avatar. People say they are, but as soon as it gets to inconvenient, we stop. People don't want their comfortable life styles to be disturbed. Even those that have jobs that are supposedly trying to preserve the environment, are still not doing all they could do. They're only willing to help as long as it doesn't disrupt their lives.

In a way, I have to disagree, while at the same time agreeing. It is the people who could achieve the most who are doing the least, and those who are not in a position to offer anything but their time, effort, and lives who do the most.

The world is being destroyed by the search for money. It is the people who make this money, the industrialists ect. who have the most to lose if we implemented policies to preserve the world. There are plenty of everyday people doing their best, but it becomes meaningless in the face of the drive for enrichment.

It is the beneficiaries of destruction that allow the "inconvenience" of it all to stop them, and in this case, "inconvenience" means cost and reduced profits. It is those who have little to gain but that preservation who are stopped by nothing, who think of that disruption as a small price to pay.

Many, many people do what they can, but until those few profiteers change their perspective, it will never be enough.

Darth Revan wrote:If a man uses no electricity, get's his water from a lake, does all his washing and eating through none electric or technological way (Grows his own crops, etc); then I'll admit someone is trying to do good for the environment.

This is not a new issue. As long ago as the early-mid 1800's (can't remember the exact date) Thoreau wrote Walden, all about a return to the simple life. There was no electricity, or mass agricultural practices, and yet he still thought that "civilisation" had complicated peoples lives far too much.

Unfortunately, with the massive world population, it would be impossible to return to some sort of pastoral existence. all it would mean would be that most people would die horrible deaths. I'll leave it to you to decide if this would be bad.

--Avatar

Avatar wrote:Unfortunately, as you said, it is part of the cycle of nature. However, unlike the foxes, who will starve if they over-reach their food supply, or the rats, who have natural predators to keep their numbers in check, humans are, theoretically, at the apex of the "food chain".

Not only do we have no natural predators, but we spend huge amounts of time, money and effort in order to cure the only check on our numbers that there can be: disease.

I agree with Gart that our main problems stem from over-population. That is what has provided the drive for things like technology.

Temporary stop-gaps to our expansion could be global pandemics, another world war, or mass starvation, not just of the underdeveloped countries, but of the world.

Callous as it may seem, our best chance does lie in the reduction of our population. The world population doubles every 35 years or so, and it's not as though we've got anywhere else to go at the moment. Land is a finite resource.

--Avatar

P.S.
It is estimated that by 2015, my own country will have lost five million people to AIDS.
--A

We are our own natural predator, and many would say we don't need to wait for the next World War, it is already upon us, rather we need to wait for it to blow out of proportion.[/b][/i]

Perhaps... I mean look at our history... The wars in it. We're fighting a fellow human... I think all wars as Civil Wars. We're figting our own race. Maybe we need a greater being than humans that we can be pray to... a larger being. That would unite us... Or maybe not.

Darth Revan wrote:Perhaps... I mean look at our history... The wars in it. We're fighting a fellow human... I think all wars as Civil Wars. We're figting our own race. Maybe we need a greater being than humans that we can be pray to... a larger being. That would unite us... Or maybe not.

Unfortunately that's exactly what's fueling the war. We can't agree upon which Superior being to pray to, and some want to force others to pray to their version. (Note: I am not blaming Islamicists, the West is being quite agressive themselves, it's the extreme factions of all religions involved, not just Catholics, or just Jews, or just Christians or just Muslims)

You know I was wondering what good have beavers ever done?

sindatur wrote: Unfortunately that's exactly what's fueling the war. We can't agree upon which Superior being to pray to, and some want to force others to pray to their version. (Note: I am not blaming Islamicists, the West is being quite agressive themselves, it's the extreme factions of all religions involved, not just Catholics, or just Jews, or just Christians or just Muslims)

I agree with you on this score. I've often thought that all wars boil down to whose version of "love thy neighbour" is the best. And as Napolean once said, "God fights on the side with the heaviest artillery."

I've thought that the only thing that has a chance of really uniting humanity would be the discovery of, and attack by, some alien race. Then we'd all be humans together. Until then, people are so consumed by our differences that they're blind to our similarities.

--Avatar

I've thought that the only thing that has a chance of really uniting humanity would be the discovery of, and attack by, some alien race. Then we'd all be humans together. Until then, people are so consumed by our differences that they're blind to our similarities.

People only unite as long as unity suits them. The moment the Aliens were defeated there would be nothing to stop people from fighting with each other again. The people who had been the main players in the war against the Aliens would claim the right to rule because they are the only reason humanity remains. Others would claim their manufacturing capicity provided the means to fight the aliens, so they should rule. Etc.

That's if we even won...
There's also piracy to consider. Pirates have always existed and always will exist, in the vast reaches of space, no-one can hear you scream. Certainly in the early days of mass space travel (if these days ever come) piracy will be rampant because there will be no way to effectively combat it. A war would just compound the confusion, focus would be removed from the piracy in favour of the war, they would be able to run free, probably dealing with the enemy too.

A war for humanity would only be a temporary solution at best.

Nathan wrote:The people who had been the main players in the war against the Aliens would claim the right to rule because they are the only reason humanity remains. Others would claim their manufacturing capicity provided the means to fight the aliens, so they should rule. Etc.

An excellent point, and a telling observation about the so-called "Human Condition".

Nathan wrote:A war for humanity would only be a temporary solution at best.

You're probably right. All solutions do is create more problems to be solved. A vicious circle?

--Avatar

You're probably right. All solutions do is create more problems to be solved. A vicious circle?

A vicious spiral I'd say. The same situations for different reasons. Besides, it has to end at some point. Either that, or some kind of circle that doesn't quite join up at the ends, so sometime everything will fall off the circle.

Aah, but if it does, we'd rapidly rebuild it, and re-populate it with everything that got lost. We are, first and foremost, creatures of habit. Watch for it in your everyday life, you may be very surprised.

--Avatar

Brinn wrote:You know I was wondering what good have beavers ever done?

No act done by any individual or group can be 'good' or 'evil' - any act only has such value as is assigned it by other individuals or species.

I'm not sure about that. I agree that all knowledge is morally neutral, but not necessarily all actions. Although admittedly, it is a consensual agreement on the value of the act that defines it as "good" or "evil".

By your apparent reasoning, murder is only wrong because as a society we forbid it. If we had no law against it, it would be "right".

Deforestation is only wrong because we say say so, and not becuase it's intrinsically damaging the planet?

--Avatar

Aah, but if it does, we'd rapidly rebuild it, and re-populate it with everything that got lost. We are, first and foremost, creatures of habit. Watch for it in your everyday life, you may be very surprised.

Very true. But everything comes to an end eventually. This planet, our sun, the universe will not last forever, the spiral has to end evertually.

No act done by any individual or group can be 'good' or 'evil' - any act only has such value as is assigned it by other individuals or species.

YES YES!
Finally someone who agrees with me.

Deforestation is only wrong because we say say so, and not becuase it's intrinsically damaging the planet?

Yep, it's not necessarily wrong to damage the planet.

If by saying 'if we had no law against [murder]', you mean if our society did not consider it wrong, then it would still not be 'right'. It would be neither right nor wrong, since right and wrong are concepts we ourselves have created. There is no 'right' or 'wrong', no 'good' or 'evil'. No act has any inherent value or meaning.

As for the deforestation thing - it may be considered 'wrong' that it damages the environment, but really it is once again neither right nor wrong. In the end it wouldn't have any real effect - maybe a lot of lifeforms would die out because of climate change, but that happens anyway, and new lifeforms would appear later. It's happened before. Just because industry caused it this time doesn't make it any different from other large atmospheric changes caused by other lifeforms.

Murrin wrote:No act done by any individual or group can be 'good' or 'evil' - any act only has such value as is assigned it by other individuals or species.

Nice catch Murrin. I was wondering if someone would address the issues that my seemingly simple question raises.

Avatar wrote:By your apparent reasoning, murder is only wrong because as a society we forbid it. If we had no law against it, it would be "right".

I don't want to put words in Murrin's mouth but I think you hit the nail on the head Av. Do lions consider the killing of the gazelle as evil? I agree that within the human condition there are fundamental rights and wrongs; evils and goods if you will, but when comparing humans, who possess morality, to animals, the comparisons begin to break down.

My point: We are as much a part of nature as any other organism. When we act as we do we are doing nothing more than what our nature demands. Beavers engage in deforestation. Do we rail against them? Weeds spread at the expense of other plants. Are weeds evil?

Brinn wrote:

Murrin wrote:No act done by any individual or group can be 'good' or 'evil' - any act only has such value as is assigned it by other individuals or species.

Nice catch Murrin. I was wondering if someone would address the issues that my seemingly simple question raises.

Avatar wrote:By your apparent reasoning, murder is only wrong because as a society we forbid it. If we had no law against it, it would be "right".

I don't want to put words in Murrin's mouth but I think you hit the nail on the head Av. Do lions consider the killing of the gazelle as evil? I agree that within the human condition there are fundamental rights and wrongs; evils and goods if you will, but when comparing humans, who possess morality, to animals, the comparisons begin to break down.

My point: We are as much a part of nature as any other organism. When we act as we do we are doing nothing more than what our nature demands. Beavers engage in deforestation. Do we rail against them? Weeds spread at the expense of other plants. Are weeds evil?

Plants and beavers have less consious choice than we do Brinn. We are able to think more than they. No, plants are not evil.

but when comparing humans, who possess morality, to animals, the comparisons begin to break down.

Morality is only a tool of leaders to make people do their version of good. If you look at "Morality" around the world, there are no moral absolutes. For example, Killing is wrong, but not if you're fighting for something and you're in the right.

Morality seems to be a system of rules accepted to be "right" by the powerful majority. Western morals are based on the ten commandments because Europe was a Christian continent. Far eastern morals are based on the teachings of Buddha, Taoism, Bushido etc. because of the histories of these countries. They consider things right that we consider wrong. Why? Because all morality is opinion. As is the concept of right and wrong.

Darth,

When you ask "What good have humans done?" I would ask "from who's perspective?". Answer that question and I will address your concerns.