Living beyond our means: second earth needed

[DeepIron]

Originally Posted by August

I disagree with just about everything in this post except what your good friend said.

Edit: Oh and I had some bison steak just the other night. Not bad eating for a "vanished" animal...

Well my friend was waxing sarcastic at the time and he doesn't see any long-term continuation of the Human species either. Humans will come and humans will go, but the planet will continue on...

As for Clarke's observation: That certainly remains to be seen doesn't it? Our "intelligence" is at the root of the problem IMO. We "intelligently" bend nature to our will to benefit our race but we evidently don't know (or don't care as the case may be) about the long term consequences. The current belief is that we're "trashing the planet". Now, is that anyway for a truly intelligent race to act?

I just really like Ripley's quote as I believe it rings true more frequently than we'd like to admit. Exxon made record profits last quarter and US taxpayers will foot the bill for the $700B Bailout. I can't think of two more shining examples of being "screwed" over for a percentage.

Anyway, the whole point is, ummm... pointless... It's highly doubtful that any of us participating in this forum will be around to see the end of it anyway...

(But personally, I look forward to Revelations 21:1-4 myself)

[August]

My response to Clarke would be to ask just how long we as a species would have survived without that intelligence, and while I opposed the bailout, I don't really get the connection between that and an oil company's quarterly profit.

[DeepIron]

Originally Posted by August

My response to Clarke would be to ask just how long we as a species would have survived without that intelligence, and while I opposed the bailout, I don't really get the connection between that and an oil company's quarterly profit.

In answering your first observation, consider the shark. A fish that has existed for millions of years virtually unchanged. How much intelligence does a shark have? I would say enough to survive the "natural conditions" with.
Now one might argue about the "quality of life" that a shark enjoys, or how many technological achievements the shark family has created, or that it's "Not Intelligent" when compared to Homo Sapiens. But that's moot. The shark is a survivor none the less because it is well suited to it's environment...

The only animal that seeks to change it's environment is Man... And by the looks of things, it's not going along too well...

As for the second: The connection is that I feel I've been screwed in both instances. Concerning Exxon, I've paid much higher prices at the pump while their percentage of profit skyrocketed. In the second, while perhaps not technically a "percentage" figure, I see the bailout as a vehicle whereby someone else will profit by screwing me, and I'm sure a huge number of Americans, over for their personal gain...

[August]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

In answering your first observation, consider the shark. A fish that has existed for millions of years virtually unchanged. How much intelligence does a shark have? I would say enough to survive the "natural conditions" with.
Now one might argue about the "quality of life" that a shark enjoys, or how many technological achievements the shark family has created, or that it's "Not Intelligent" when compared to Homo Sapiens. But that's moot. The shark is a survivor none the less because it is well suited to it's environment...

You are correct of course but we aren't sharks. Our bodies aren't nearly as suited to our environment as theirs are to their environment. We rely on our intelligence to make up for the specialization that our bodies lack, to clothe, feed and shelter ourselves, not to mention defend ourselves against large predators. Had we not we'd quickly have gone the way of the dodo bird.

[DeepIron]

Originally Posted by August

You are correct of course but we aren't sharks. Our bodies aren't nearly as suited to our environment as theirs are to their environment. We rely on our intelligence to make up for the specialization that our bodies lack, to clothe, feed and shelter ourselves, not to mention defend ourselves against large predators. Had we not we'd quickly have gone the way of the dodo bird.

And I agree, we have relied upon our intelligence to make up to the lack of "natural ablility" we would have needed to survive otherwise. Thinking in Darwinistic terms, our intelligence has made us the dominant species on the planet by dint of our evolution of the brain... We subjugate everything that confronts or opposes us by sheer intellect and willpower.

Here's the catch, where has this application of intelligence led us to? Certainly, Man's ability to make fire, flint tools and stone weapons and engaging in primitive agriculture would have little effect on the earth in millenia past. Man's early populations would have been a trifle to support in a natural ecosystem. But, it just wasn't enough... Man wanted more...

So, in the long run, has Man's "superior intellect" saved him from inevitable extinction? Taking the current state of affairs (social, political, ecological) at face value (for there are many arguments one might raise for and against) my position is no. We're merely prolonging the inevitable.

I love reading Douglas Adams: "Human beings, who are unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."

[baggygreen]

You know what you 2 are forgetting during the whole discussion is that sharks have had literally millions of years to perfect themselves.

Homo Sapiens has had what, 150,000 at the outside?

Now, if we had not, for example, learnt to dress warmly or control fire, we would've stayed in the warmer areas. The regions which suited us, comparable to a shark staying in water which is the 'region' which suits it. We'd probably be still around without "intelligence", but we'd be simply another type of great ape.

There is no proof on the other hand that "intelligence" will be our demise. Sure, we've created weapons that can do this, etc, but we haven't done it. There is every possibility that we have attained in Homo Sapiens the pinnacle of evolutionary development, and that we as a species will continue indefinately.

Pragmatically speaking, Homo Sapiens must eventually die out. Almost every single species has. Perhaps a new genus (is that the right word, I can't remember) of human will emerge, perhaps not. but nothing is eternal! (please don't open the religion can of worms there)

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by baggygreen

You know what you 2 are forgetting during the whole discussion is that sharks have had literally millions of years to perfect themselves.

Not really. Their design has not changed since millions of years. It reached perfection relatively early on. They are one of the most well-adapted to their environment lifeforms on this planet.

[August]

Well given the fact that our sun will eventually burn out it's pretty safe to say that any earth bound species will not survive it. Man however, thanks to his intelligence, does have a chance. A chance that say the shark just doesn't have.

[Skybird]

I cannot share your optimism, Baggy. We are are a test run of a blueprint very young in age, and despite our young age we managed to manouver ourselves already into a dead end. That does not sound very promising. Also, evolution is not a strictly linear process so that at any given time there is always the best of all designs so far created on display. Evolution does not have a goal, it just adds new stuff and deletes other stuff, and sometimes it is good stuff getting deleted and bad stuff added, and you certainly have samples of design studies from very different eons of earth'S history of life living simultaneously on this planet, like sharks and crocodiles and dragonflies and jellyfish living together with youngster like maritime mammals, and talking apes on land.

Man should really stop thinking of hoimself as a "crown of evolution". We are one sample amongst others. If we would understand that, maybe we would learn the modesty to save ourselves from extinction and stop messing up our life's environmental basis. Last but not least we are raping the planet becasue we think we have the right to do so: the right of the master of the house, the crown of evolution, the superior. If we are that superior I am wondering why we have so many existentially threatening problems now, all self-made. Is that a sign of intelligence? Or more a sign of a certain mental deadlock, a mental handicap that prevents true intelligence?

[DeepIron]

You know what you 2 are forgetting during the whole discussion is that sharks have had literally millions of years to perfect themselves. Homo Sapiens has had what, 150,000 at the outside?

As a rejoiner to your observation, I must point out as well that sharks didn't try and manipulate their environment either during any of their evolution. So, was the further evolution of brain capacity, hence the development of "higher intelligence" in sharks effectively halted because they were able to strike a harmonious balance with their natural surroundings and did not require more intelligence? Something Man has not been able to do thus far...

Well given the fact that our sun will eventually burn out it's pretty safe to say that any earth bound species will not survive it. Man however, thanks to his intelligence, does have a chance. A chance that say the shark just doesn't have.

Again, true enough IF Mankind can survive his own folly...