Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
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.
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.Thanks
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.
Hi Ruthless!
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!!
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?
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
