If mankind went extinct

[AzurePhoenix]

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

 

he he ho ho ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

It's a hell of a lot more effective to belittle someone with actual reasoning rather than just be an ass about it and try to make someone feel bad or whatever emotion you're trying to inflict rather than try to explain why they are either false and hopefully correct them / sway the opinion that you disagree with.

[Dr. Dalek]

It's a hell of a lot more effective to belittle someone with actual reasoning rather than just be an ass about it and try to make someone feel bad or whatever emotion you're trying to inflict rather than try to explain why they are either false and hopefully correct them / sway the opinion that you disagree with.

 

I'm sorry, I was going for a firendly but competative jab not a direct insult. I've never been very good making my intentions clear. I admit it.

 

If you like I'd like to start a thred on this subject and invite you to join in. I'm in the mood for a decent debate.

[ParanoiA]

Seriously though, I really can't see how anybody who lives on this planet and has eyes and understanding can consider man(kind) the most beautiful thing on it.

 

woman(kind) though...definitely the most beautiful thing on it.

[Dr. Dalek]

woman(kind) though...definitely the most beautiful thing on it.

 

Good point, women are a lot better looking, but keep in mind the term Mankind has its roots in an anglo-saxon term Mannez meaning human. Back then men were called were (thus were-wolf, man-wolf) and women were called wife.

[AzurePhoenix]

I am not saying that they are physically beautiful (although many are in my opinion, especially the females) but the presence of mankind has led to some of the most beautiful things on the planet. Look at the thread by bacule on Suerat's painting for example. The world would be a much much poorer place without mankind.

Trust me, I'd never even believe that you meant physical beauty even if you claimed that's what you meant, all gangly and bulbous and anti-streamlined and naked . In counter-perspective from my point of view, I saw a ladybug on a hibiscus blossom a few days back, much prettier than that dot-fest of bascule's if you ask me. I myself only really ever been swayed by the more primal arts, though I do admit, I have a weakness for the "impressive" monuments of man. Pyramids, monolithes and such, certain skyscrapers. Not pretty, but definately "wow"

[bascule]

I'm in the mood for a decent debate.

 

As I recall your last debate on the issue ended with something to the effect of "Just because there's a scientific concensus doesn't mean it's right!"

[Dr. Dalek]

As I recall your last debate on the issue ended with something to the effect of "Just because there's a scientific concensus doesn't mean it's right!"

 

Which is true, after all a long time ago there was a "scientific consensus" that God created the heavan and the earth, continental drift was impossible, Dragons were a recently extinct life form, and the Fench scientific establishment once belived that it was imposible for rocks to fall from the sky. European scientists studying caves a long time ago concluded that eventualy the earth would be dry from water pentrating further underground. Things have change since then we have leaned new details that we didn't know before and it changed everything, including the doomsday scenario of water penetrating underground.

I'd like to compair this to a certain modern day doomsday scenario.

[AzurePhoenix]

Maybe I misread you, but in other words, science can't really tell us anything about bad possible future scenarios so we should scoff at all it tells us in favor of.... some other explanation, which itself would be based on what now?

 

I'd think it'd be clear that it's faulty logic to say "these methods were wrong all these times so why should it be right now," (ignoring that they clearly didn't use the same methods) basically comparable to the creationist tendency to shrug off all fossil evidence because one or two were forgeries.

 

Besides, doomsday is a bit farfetched. Disastrous and obscenely destructive perhaps, but as long as humans get smart and ease things up by eating eachother and reducing the excess population before their crops get messed up and swamped or dried out or something I'm pretty certain they could pull through a major-climatic shift scenario without a hitch.

[Dr. Dalek]

Maybe I misread you, but in other words, science can't really tell us anything about bad possible future scenarios so we should scoff at all it tells us in favor of.... some other explanation, which itself would be based on what now?

 

Not quite. What I was trying to say is that a scientific concensus dosen't prove anything.

[AzurePhoenix]

Not quite. What I was trying to say is that a scientific concensus dosen't prove anything.

While few might, I doubt most responsible sciency peoples would claim certainty about the matter, but just because something isn't absolute doesn't mean it's crap either, especially without anything backing up the denial of the evidence suggesting the likely authenticity of the matter in question.

[Dr. Dalek]

While few might, I doubt most responsible sciency peoples would claim certainty about the matter, but just because something isn't absolute doesn't mean it's crap either, especially without anything backing up the denial of the evidence suggesting the likely authenticity of the matter in question.

 

I've heard so much stuff about global warming over the years it all just sounds the same to me. My opinion has been for quite a while, based on what I have learned from reasearch online, that since most of the scientic conclusions reached on global warming are labeled by the scientists as "Uncertain" I see it as fairly reliable to consider that there is a natural reason for it as we are at the end of a warming cycle that started at the end of the last ice age.

Granted I'm no expert, but I've kind of been galvinized into ridiculing people who always seem to believe that gloabl warming is a distaster becasue I know that the atmospheric scientists call it uncertain but average joes on the street, smart people I know, and news media always treat it as a major disaster just over the horizon. Also people tend to attibute almost everything to global warming.

[bascule]

Which is true, after all a long time ago there was a "scientific consensus" that God created the heavan and the earth, continental drift was impossible, Dragons were a recently extinct life form, and the Fench scientific establishment once belived that it was imposible for rocks to fall from the sky. European scientists studying caves a long time ago concluded that eventualy the earth would be dry from water pentrating further underground. Things have change since then we have leaned new details that we didn't know before and it changed everything, including the doomsday scenario of water penetrating underground.

I'd like to compair this to a certain modern day doomsday scenario.

 

That's the same argument creationists use against evolution. You're ad homineming science.

 

Falsifiability and uncertainty are strengths of science, not weaknesses. That's why science creates theories, not laws. Science doesn't perport to know the truth, merely provide the best explanation based on available evidence, and since the available evidence is constantly changing, so must science.

[D H]

I see Religion has crept back in again ...

 

The religion I see in this thread is not creeping in. It is very blatant: the religion of misanthropism that plagues the environmental movement. For example,

 

but as long as humans get smart and ease things up by eating eachother and reducing the excess population ...

 

That is sick.

 

I have yet to see an environmentalist offer to address the "excess population" problem by removing themselves from the population.

[Cyberman]

I have yet to see an environmentalist offer to address the "excess population" problem by removing themselves from the population.

 

The extreamists will do that on their own by smoking too much pot, but ere are some things when it comes to the human impact on the environment that should be considered.

 

The best solution to environmental problems, in my opinion, is to be dependant on the environment. For example there used to be huge tracks of land up here in Maine that were owened by paper and lumber companies that were open to fishing and hiking and hunting. Some still do.

Now some people (namely the affore mentioned hemp smoking extreamists) would acuse these companies of destroying the forests, but if they were to destroy th forests what would they be cutting in twenty years?

 

Some of this land has been bought up by out of state environmentalists in the interests of protecting it, but at least one that I know of will not let anyone on it. If the woods were to catch fire, no trucks could go near it!

I think the best thing for man ind to do is to take a lesson from animals. They act as they need to act and depend on and inadvertantly preserve the environment.

The exreame environmentalist approach of "hands off" is insuficent to preserve the earth they love so dearly. Nor will ignoring enviromnetal problems or assuming that humans can do whatever the hell they want won't help anyhing either.

All things in moderation.

That's the same argument creationists use against evolution. You're ad homineming science.

 

Falsifiability and uncertainty are strengths of science, not weaknesses. That's why science creates theories, not laws. Science doesn't perport to know the truth, merely provide the best explanation based on available evidence, and since the available evidence is constantly changing, so must science.

 

In defence of my old high school chum I don't think he is trying to ad hom . . anthing. I think he is simply trying to substancicate that a concensus is not to be taken as evidence.

 

You want my opionion on Global Warming? Who knows I don't know enough about climatology to claim to know anything all I know is "Hope for the Best Prepair for the Worst." So I drive a fule efficent car.

[AzurePhoenix]

That is sick.

 

I have yet to see an environmentalist offer to address the "excess population" problem by removing themselves from the population.

If you think that's sick and twisted you should see the real hardcore stuff I frequently support and endorse on this site . Besides, it's simply practical to suggest that a reduced population would ease the pressure on an overgrown species suffering from the hardships of ecological failure and the possibly (worst-case scenario) the collapse of civilization as we know it. It's also practical to suggest that those humans who "win the game" and survive make some use out of their fallen brethren rather than let perfectly good meat go to waste, whether they be used for food or fertilizer. However, it is NOT practical to offer to sacrifice (and thereby remove) yourself; that's just generous and altruistic (an impractical way to live in a disorganized anarchy). The point is to eat your neighbors first so that YOU can survive yourself . However, if you are gonna go in for cannibalism, you have to remember to avoid the parts that might be all priony. Actually, come to think of it, this day and age I don't think I'd trust the safety of human meat; are stds transferable through the consumption of flesh?

 

The religion I see in this thread is not creeping in. It is very blatant: the religion of misanthropism that plagues the environmental movement. For example

It's not misanthropy. I recognize that no matter what humanity may be and do as a species, it is composed of countless individuals who likely as not might not deserve such harsh judgement. However, I don't feel that humans are more "special" than the rest of the world, certainly humanity is culturally and intellectually advanced, prominant and impressive, and unquestioningly fairly sympathizable with by it's individual componants. But no matter how impressive the species is, or how well liked it is by the individuals that make it up, sometimes sympathy and naive optimism have to take a back seat to practicality, which is synonomous with survival under the worst-case scenario I was picturing in my head when I suggested that human-eating thing.

 

It's nice to take everyone's feelings into account, and try to make do for all, but nice probably won't get you through a cataclysm (worst-case ). Besides, under the context of what I suggested, the idea isn't "sick" (which I'm guessing you mean to imply "evil"), it's simply mean, and mean has a very important role in the world. Keeps things running. Nearly every damn species on the planet is here today because it outcompeted another (granted the parasites got by through being sneaky free-loaders, and there are a few of those commensalist symbionts). And if you think that being mean for the sake of practicality is sick, you have to remember that this humanity you seem so compassionate about out-compteted the ass off of nearly every species we've come up against, whether they were competing with us or not (a fact that both saddens me but also fills me with pride, I have to admit). "Mean" is life, embrace it and survive.

[AzurePhoenix]

The exreame environmentalist approach of "hands off" is insuficent to preserve the earth they love so dearly. Nor will ignoring enviromnetal problems or assuming that humans can do whatever the hell they want won't help anyhing either.

All things in moderation.

Aye, it's a simple part of life that you have to take a little to get by, and it's inevitable that even if we were fairly responsible and paced ourselves, bits of harm would still come about, and it's just as unfair for our species to live ascetically for the sake of everything else. Problem is that right now we pace ourselves like locusts, and rather than try to fix things in a practical matter, extremist environmentalists want the world to go in for total asceticism cold-turkey. THings just can't reconcile that way.

 

I think he is simply trying to substancicate that a concensus is not to be taken as evidence.

Entirely true, but can't actual suggestive evidence be taken as evidence for the possibility on its own merit?

[Dr. Dalek]

Well I'm back, I have my "Ducks in a row" as it were and I will try to embrace the more rational side of my personality that seriously considers posts and dsn't post on a whim.

 

Aye, it's a simple part of life that you have to take a little to get by, and it's inevitable that even if we were fairly responsible and paced ourselves, bits of harm would still come about, and it's just as unfair for our species to live ascetically for the sake of everything else. Problem is that right now we pace ourselves like locusts, and rather than try to fix things in a practical matter, extremist environmentalists want the world to go in for total asceticism cold-turkey. THings just can't reconcile that way.

Dispite my belife in the importance of industry, technology, and human life I often wonder how long we can continue at the pace we are going. I tend to think that eventualy we will go through a time were our population is so dense that as a society we will be suseptable to diseases, or we run out of food and our population dies back.

My ultimate vision of humanity is a species that has figured out that they don't need a population of six billion to accomplish a rich culture amazing feats science and technology. I have no idea if this goal is acheivable, or even possible, but I think if it was we would be a lot better off for it.

At the same time I tend to think that we humans might have an inflated veiw of ourselves and at times exagerate the certanty of our negative effects on the environment. I think I read an artical that supports my point a while ago. I'll dig it out if I can.

 

Entirely true, but can't actual suggestive evidence be taken as evidence for the possibility on its own merit?

Yes, but in the context of the "Accuracy of an Inconveinient Truth" Bascule was trying to use the the Scientific concensus as evidence to support his point. Or at least thats how it seemed to me.

[ParanoiA]

Aye' date=' it's a simple part of life that you have to take a little to get by, and it's inevitable that even if we were fairly responsible and paced ourselves, bits of harm would still come about, and it's just as unfair for our species to live ascetically for the sake of everything else. Problem is that right now we pace ourselves like locusts, and rather than try to fix things in a practical matter, extremist environmentalists want the world to go in for total asceticism cold-turkey. THings just can't reconcile that way.[/quote']

 

Nicely put. I've also wondered if humans are in a transitionary period now where we begin to shed our limitless predatory indulgence and begin to give a crap about the consequences of our actions as well as the relevance of a diversity of life. Perhaps these posts, and the uprise of environmentalism is the stirring of evolution changing direction.

 

Or maybe we'll be extinct before then...I hope not.

[padren]

Nicely put. I've also wondered if humans are in a transitionary period now where we begin to shed our limitless predatory indulgence and begin to give a crap about the consequences of our actions as well as the relevance of a diversity of life. Perhaps these posts, and the uprise of environmentalism is the stirring of evolution changing direction.

 

Or maybe we'll be extinct before then...I hope not.

 

I can't help to think that somewhere along the evolutionary line, species that did well enough to find extremely successful feeding grounds had to either adapt to the unique dangers of that environment or died like belly-up fish with too many helpings of seconds.

 

We don't eat to the point of death these days (unless you count slow-death by obesity related health problems) but we sure don't have an off-switch when it comes to other aspects of over consumption. But at our juncture in history we are so past instinct we'll have to adapt mentally instead of physically to survive within a bountiful yet limited environment.

 

I think the key is in survival stress. The more stressful survival is, the more preditory we are. The more we hand off the hard work of survival to technological mechanisms and feel less instinctual threat, the freer our minds are to make decisions that aren't about getting "whatever we can" but consider the current boundries of our environment and how not to tip the boat.