'Nature', Humankind and the Natural World

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

William
 
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 12:41 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
William:)

You are more pessimistic then I. First you state there is no collective consciousness, and then you say it is bound to fail, which is it, if it does not exist it can have no intensions. You may be right about its non-existence, but you cannot have it both ways.


When did I say there was no "collective consciousness"? There is no use of collective intellect. There is a collective consciousness, it's just we have no idea of what that means. Until we start communicating in a genuine cooperation with each other, we will never know.

William
 
boagie
 
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 12:45 pm
@William,
William:)

What then is the colletive intellect, the same sensory and understanding apparatus, in that case I did miss understand you, my apologies.
 
William
 
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 01:01 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
William:)

What then is the colletive intellect, the same sensory and understanding apparatus, in that case I did miss understand you, my apologies.


It is that discourse between people that comes from a free mind. The ability to speak freely without fear or bias to reach a collective understanding that will be beneficial to all. As it is today you have the liberal collective, the conservative collective, the muslim collective, the christian collective, the atheistic collective, the power collective, and so on and so on all filled to the birm with bias and fear making collective reasoning impossible to achieve. IMO.
William
 
manored
 
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 04:39 pm
@Khethil,
William wrote:
Thank you boagie, perhaps I did misinterpret it a bit. I just hate to see the attitude that indicates we are helpless and can't do anything about it, especially in those areas in which we can. People aren't starving to death because it is the nature of things; they are starving because we let them starve. Why do we let them starve is because our "status quo" sees no value to them. I don't think nature has anything to do with it. I read somewhere and I don't remember where and I hope it is unfounded, that amidst many ideas of those who seem to think they know what is best for the world there is a notion to just let those who are starving, starve. In doing so we will have enough resources for the "upper crust". What really runs shivers up and down my spine is I can conceive some actually believing that is a "solution". Everything we do in this world is based on profits. If it is not profitable, screw it. I have no idea of what the "limit" is for people on this planet. I have never seen a "maximum capacity sign" anywhere. I could be wrong but I don't think we are even close to it.

The more we become "technologically adept" the more people become "less profitable". Granted these people exist in our poorer countries, but one day, the way we are going, they could live just down the street. Which brings to mind a scene from the movie TITANIC. In which Billy Zane responded to the statement, "..half of the people on this ship are going to drown", in which he added, "not the better half". Now in the animal kingdom, that could be construed to mean "not the fittest half". What kind of world could be conceive if one was thrashing around in the frozen water of existence and someone throws them a ball and chain rather than a life preserver. There is so much more we could do if we were not strangled by our insane economic structure and those who flourish and have control of that structure.
Whenever we are on the "population cap" of the planet or not is discutible, but its clear we will eventually hit and have to do something about it if we keep breeding like nowadays. What troubles me is how to make people breed so little winhout being tyranic... I think its only possible if we get the human race to work like a family.


Khethil wrote:
Yes we should feel bad; yes we should take a look at the effects of our actions. If not the role of the philosopher, to whom might the duty of issuing such warnings fall?

... I'll shut up now. Surprised Thanks
We shouldnt fell bad, feeling bad brings despair and depressing and makes us waste precious time searching people to blame, and its not like we are on a specially bad moment for humanity: Since ancient times groups of people have been fighting groups of people, and only recently all this fighting diminished, so we pretty much just exchanged one trouble for another.

And, if we fail, its not like all is forever lost, we will have other chances to not blow ourselves. Unless you dont believe in after-life, then you can scream and panic at will Smile
 
Ruthless Logic
 
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 10:37 pm
@Khethil,
Khethil wrote:
Quite true.

By way of clarification to other points made here I'd like to add this:

One cannot say that, like other species on our planet, humans should just "do what we will" and that, like other species, "all things will even out". The reason for this is because of the wide, planetary scale of these our effects.
[INDENT]Because of our intelligence, ingenuity and the nature of our effects, we have the ability to destroy and consume on a massive scale; and indeed that's just what we've done. While a rabbit population may eat itself into starvation on in a particular place; have their numbers thinned, then repeat the cycle-to-balance, this is done on a much smaller scale. They don't pollute entire ecosystems with acids, carcinogens and nerve agents, they don't decimate whole regions of their forests nor can they suck down millions of years of fossil buildup in just a few centuries. You won't see a possum burying a time-bomb filled with thousands of tons of radioactive waste, or are you likely to come across a pack of Joeys strip-mining, dumping chemicals or driving a supertanker filled with crude oil into a rock. Need there be given more examples?
[/INDENT]When we speak of balance; we're not talking in absolutes but in a 'proportionate' means. It's like keeping your checkbook balanced: That what is created is expended at a relatively consistent rate. If its not, and you're spending more than you get, sooner or later you'll run out. Were it just our species doing this to itself that might be called 'just'; but it's not. We're doing it on a planetary scale through our insatiable need for "stuff"; for buildings, concrete, automobiles, plastics, petroleum, fast-and-fat food, and toys, toys, toys - All done at the expense of our world on an unimaginable scale. If you don't care about the planet's ability to sustain life, then none of this is of real concern.

Could we scale back to reach a balance? I don't know; I doubt it. But I do know that what's taking place cannot be called 'natural'; to say so, I believe, is irresponsible, counter intuitive and (by the way) incorrect. Should we not feel the impact of our effects? If there's the slightest chance for correction, mitigation or potential for our future survival could we perhaps use this higher intelligence to scale back?

Yes we should feel bad; yes we should take a look at the effects of our actions. If not the role of the philosopher, to whom might the duty of issuing such warnings fall?

... I'll shut up now. Surprised Thanks






 
William
 
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 05:26 am
@Ruthless Logic,
Ruthless Logic wrote:


As an example, the 1st law of thermodynamics states that matter/energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. The Natural World is represented within a Construct. It is the careless mind that considers the possibility of producing an "unnatural" event or product from the Natural World Construct. It is simply a self-serving assertion fraught with contradiction. (1)While some the actions of human beings appear to be detrimental towards the species in the short-run, the long-run viability of the natural world is completely assured with or without the presence of Human Beings. (2)The concept of living in balance or sustainability with the Natural World DOES NOT insulate the human species from catastrophic events that eliminate millions of individuals from the population pool (new strain of bacterium or viruses, famine, severe weather, earthquakes, eruptions, pestilence, climate change, do I need to continue?)



Brilliantly put. If I might add we must do the very best with what we have to work with. I agree will all of (1) and only some of (2). Every thing you see is of the natural world. Stand on top of the Empire State Building and everything you see is from Earth, Air, Fire, Water, blood, sweat and tears. Ha. To add a few of my own. Some of what we know is in line with our ability to understand it and some of what we know is well beyond our ability to understand. In my opinion it is all about balance. This is not about the Earth's continuation, it's about ours. You bet, the Earth will continue on. All I am saying is we have a greater chance to understand what life is all about once we consciously try to act in accordance with the precise structure of universe rather than gratuitously and wastefully abusing her resources. The most important of which is man. In the free mind of man are those answers we need to make this planet hum. IMO. Right now we "rape" our most brilliant minds to continue the status quo. Once we really begin grasping for straws is when we will be past the point of no return and we will understand what hell is all about.

Of the catastrophic events that are beyond our control "now" are the two I have underlined, IMO: Earthquakes and Eruptions. All the others we can fix. In my opinion those are consequences of the imbalance. How could we say it doesn't have anything to do with balance when we don't have a clue to what that balance is. As far as the Earthquakes, eruptions, we can do all we can to insure we stay clear of those areas until we learn how to stem their occurrences. I fully believe we will learn how to deal with those. Yes they are "acts of God", and so are we. We are creations of this universe and we are meant to harmonize with it just as everything else does and whistling while we work has something to do with it. We don't work very well under stress.

Yes, there will be death as that is an essential part of life. It is that quality of life that is what is important. The better the quality, the more harmonic we are and the more productive we are as we work together as we were meant to. As far as the catastrophe's you mention, I don't think will hold a candle to the misery we could create for ourselves if we continue on the path we are going. I am not saying it can be done over night, creating a new reality will take a little time. Hell, we have eternity to work with. This existence on Earth is just a stepping stone in that existence, but unless we do all we can to harmonize here, the chances of us spreading our wanton ways through out that macrocosm will be like pushing a camel through the eye of a needle. I honestly think we will get it right, or we will begin again. IMO. We surely need to do something. Like I said, we have only been here for arguably 5000 years. We have a lot to learn. Right now I think we are at one of those crossroads.
William
 
Ruthless Logic
 
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 02:37 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Hi Ruthless!Smile

I could not agree more, I have seen examples of the utter indifference of nature myself. It is just that man dispite his self proclaimed superiority cannot control himself, and shall be controled by the same natural principles as the rest of the animal kingdom. The nightmare which is impending apparently is unavoidable, mans superior consciousness does not stack up to much if he has no more control over himself than the rest of the animal world. Life lives upon life, as the snake consuming its own tail. Nature red in tooth and claw. It is good to hear from you again Ruthless logic!!



Greetings Boagie,

Your objective analyses are always welcoming and enlightening. Often times people do not appreciate what you bring to the discussion table, rest assure that will not be one of my failures.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 04:28 pm
@manored,
Hey Manored, Thanks for replying.

manored wrote:
We shouldnt fell bad, feeling bad brings despair and depressing and makes us waste precious time searching people to blame, and its not like we are on a specially bad moment for humanity: Since ancient times groups of people have been fighting groups of people, and only recently all this fighting diminished, so we pretty much just exchanged one trouble for another.


Your point's well taken. But I don't agree, and I hope you'll give me that. I believe that it's only through acknowledgment of damage done and the subsequent feelings of remorse that we can hope to be moved to action. I do; however, believe you're quite right in saying that therein lies the potential for senseless blame-laying. But if that's the case, I'd think the problem would then be blame-laying itself, not the remorse for wrong-doing.

manored wrote:
And, if we fail, its not like all is forever lost, we will have other chances to not blow ourselves...


Perhaps, there's always possibilities one can't immediately see.

Thanks again
 
manored
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 10:12 am
@Khethil,
Khethil wrote:
Hey Manored, Thanks for replying.

Your point's well taken. But I don't agree, and I hope you'll give me that. I believe that it's only through acknowledgment of damage done and the subsequent feelings of remorse that we can hope to be moved to action. I do; however, believe you're quite right in saying that therein lies the potential for senseless blame-laying. But if that's the case, I'd think the problem would then be blame-laying itself, not the remorse for wrong-doing.

But how can we fell remorse if we would not have learnt about our mistake, had we not done what we did? Smile
 
Khethil
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 01:15 pm
@manored,
manored wrote:
But how can we fell remorse if we would not have learnt about our mistake, had we not done what we did? Smile


I'm not sure which direction you're going here Manored. Your previous question made sense, this one has me boggled. I'm sorry, but if there's an overall point or common theme, I'm missing it. Could you clarify?

Thanks
 
manored
 
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 10:37 am
@Khethil,
Khethil wrote:
I'm not sure which direction you're going here Manored. Your previous question made sense, this one has me boggled. I'm sorry, but if there's an overall point or common theme, I'm missing it. Could you clarify?

Thanks
Ignore it, I kinda screwed the logic there Smile

Re-doing:

I think remorse is not necessary, only acknowledging the damage done and deciding that it opposes whatever objectives the person has is.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 10/22/2021 at 01:14:17