FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-03-2002, 08:55 AM   #21
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Proud Citizen of Freedonia
Posts: 42,473
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by MrXarvox:
<strong>Humans are indirectly self-destructive by nature. Just like any other over-burgeoning population, we need to be thinned out, or face dire consequences. <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" /> </strong>
Well, after all the help we give deers for thinning out their herds, you'd think deers would return the favor and come around and shot some of us.
Jimmy Higgins is offline  
Old 05-03-2002, 09:02 AM   #22
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA
Posts: 2,115
Post

Quote:
"Those who want to destroy humanity are perfectly free to kill themselves or not procreate. "
The people who will destroy humanity are those too selfish to leave room for anything but their own gratification. Humanity will probably eat itself into oblivion. And why is it that you think YOUR genes are so wonderful? What have you contributed? What books have you writen? What discoveries have you made? What have you done other than make CO2, and blow CH4. If a smeer of sperm is all you have to offer, I suggest you take your own advice.

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]</p>
Dr.GH is offline  
Old 05-03-2002, 03:15 PM   #23
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5,658
Post

How do you think that response was at all in proportion to what you quoted?

Anyway, count me among those who will destroy humanity. Why should I leave room for anything other than my own gratification? If I'm not going to be around for it, I don't really care that much about humanity's future. That said, an extremely good way to make people care about the environment would be to ensure that they live long enough to see the consequences of their actions.

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>
tronvillain is offline  
Old 05-04-2002, 08:40 AM   #24
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: the most isolated city in the world
Posts: 1,131
Thumbs down

vixstile, this one is for you...

Some say the end is near.
Some say we'll see armageddon soon.
I certainly hope we will.
I sure could use a vacation from this

Bullshit three ring circus sideshow of
Freaks

Here in this hopeless fucking hole we call LA
The only way to fix it is to flush it all away.
Any fucking time. Any fucking day.
Learn to swim, I'll see you down in Arizona bay.

Fret for your figure and
Fret for your latte and
Fret for your hairpiece and
Fret for your lawsuit and
Fret for your prozac and
Fret for your pilot and
Fret for your contract and
Fret for your car.

It's a
Bullshit three ring circus sideshow of
Freaks

Here in this hopeless fucking hole we call LA
The only way to fix it is to flush it all away.
Any fucking time. Any fucking day.
Learn to swim, I'll see you down in Arizona bay.

Some say a comet will fall from the sky.
Followed by meteor showers and tidal waves.
Followed by faultlines that cannot sit still.
Followed by millions of dumbfounded dipshits.

Some say the end is near.
Some say we'll see armageddon soon.
I certainly hope we will cuz
I sure could use a vacation from this

Silly shit, stupid shit...

One great big festering neon distraction,
I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied.

Learn to swim.

Mom's gonna fix it all soon.
Mom's comin' round to put it back the way it ought to be.

Learn to swim.

Fuck L Ron Hubbard and
Fuck all his clones.
Fuck all those gun-toting
Hip gangster wannabes.

Learn to swim.

Fuck retro anything.
Fuck your tattoos.
Fuck all you junkies and
Fuck your short memory.

Learn to swim.

Fuck smiley glad-hands
With hidden agendas.
Fuck these dysfunctional,
Insecure actresses.

Learn to swim.

Cuz I'm praying for rain
And I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way.
I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.
I wanna watch it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in.
Watch you flush it all away.

Time to bring it down again.
Don't just call me pessimist.
Try and read between the lines.

I can't imagine why you wouldn't
Welcome any change, my friend.

I wanna see it all come down.
suck it down.
flush it down.

TOOL- aenima
garraty is offline  
Old 05-04-2002, 09:08 AM   #25
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy
Posts: 12,048
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by MrDarwin:
<strong>Healthy, relatively intact ecosystems--the ones you label "inferior"--are essential to our survival, because we benefit directly or indirectly from them. For example, virtually all of the oxygen in the air we breathe is produced by plants--and not by cultivated plants. We benefit from the oxygen produced by relatively intact ecosystems, like the open ocean and rain forests. We also benefit from these ecosystems acting as a carbon dioxide "sink" to soak up the greenhouse gases we produce. We also depend on these ecosystems--rivers, lakes, and oceans--to act as our sewer systems. We benefit from marshlands to absorb floodwaters without destroying human settlements. We also benefit from these largely unmanaged ecosystems to produce food for us (e.g., relatively few of the fish we eat come from managed fisheries--many still come from natural, unmanaged sources.)</strong>
What if we developed the technology to supplant these natural cycles with artificial replacements? If we could replace the functions of all these things with some kind of technology or managed environment, e.g. farms of genetically engineered algae or bacteria that are "souped up" and can replace the carbon cycle, replace the water cycle, etc., would there be any ethical question about doing whatever suited homo sapiens? Or is it now just a question of aesthetics, rather than ethics? Put another way, if it is legitimate to pursue the long term goal of terraforming and colonizing Mars, why not also terraform Earth to better suit us? If we have the will and the capability, why not?
Autonemesis is offline  
Old 05-04-2002, 09:40 AM   #26
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: the most isolated city in the world
Posts: 1,131
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Kind Bud:
<strong>

What if we developed the technology to supplant these natural cycles with artificial replacements? If we could replace the functions of all these things with some kind of technology or managed environment, e.g. farms of genetically engineered algae or bacteria that are "souped up" and can replace the carbon cycle, replace the water cycle, etc., would there be any ethical question about doing whatever suited homo sapiens? Or is it now just a question of aesthetics, rather than ethics? Put another way, if it is legitimate to pursue the long term goal of terraforming and colonizing Mars, why not also terraform Earth to better suit us? If we have the will and the capability, why not?</strong>
Why not?

If it isn't broke don't fix it!!! If mankind wasn't so greedy and short sighted there wouldn't be a need.

The arrogance to think that one we can just fix it all (with tomorrows technology, always tomorrows technology), and two that this whole planet is just here for us to fuck over and who cares about the trillions of other life forms just astounds me.
garraty is offline  
Old 05-04-2002, 10:18 AM   #27
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA
Posts: 2,115
Post

tronvillain:

Quote:
How do you think that response was at all in proportion to what you quoted?

Anyway, count me among those who will destroy humanity. Why should I leave
room for anything other than my own gratification? If I'm not going to be around for
it, I don't really care that much about humanity's future. That said, an extremely
good way to make people care about the environment would be to ensure that they
live long enough to see the consequences of their actions.
Re: Proportionality. I think that people should be able to follow their own advice. If the
boyo thinks it would be a good idea that a bunch of people commit suicide he should be
ready to follow that advice. If the --- thinks it is desirable that people he disagrees with
die, then I can do without him as well. One reason this is rather personal to me is that a
good part of my professional life was once trying to keep people from killing themselves
(not always successfully).

Re: Count me ... How about a little room somewhere with an electrode in you brain to
stimulate a nice pleasure center. We can give you a switch that will turn off the current
and let you out of the room. After a few days we can flush the room. The irony I see is
that the lack of procreative self-control leads to selfish hedonists, ignorant, and/or stupid
people having the most babies and still not care enough about their children to notice the
“consequences of their actions.” The probable end result of that is the continued
environmental degradation and ultimate extinction of Homo. sap. The problem is that we
are potentially going to take a majority of the Earth’s species with us.


Kind Bud:

Quote:
What if we developed the technology to supplant these natural cycles with artificial
replacements? If we could replace the functions of all these things with some kind of
technology or managed environment, e.g. farms of genetically engineered algae or
bacteria that are "souped up" and can replace the carbon cycle, replace the water
cycle, etc., would there be any ethical question about doing whatever suited homo
sapiens? Or is it now just a question of aesthetics, rather than ethics? Put another
way, if it is legitimate to pursue the long term goal of terraforming and colonizing
Mars, why not also terraform Earth to better suit us? If we have the will and the
capability, why not?
Terraforming Mars doesn’t solve the problem, it merely makes it larger. Nor is it at all
practical. Please explain how we will survive on a totally managed environment if we
can not manage to live competently on the planet that we evolved on, and are as suited to
as billions of years of selection can provide. This coupled with the fact that nearly all the
Earth’s life support systems can be relied on to automatically function well, as long as
they are not destroyed by humans, suggests that H. sap can’t make off the planet without
first learning the same discipline needed to continue surviving here.

Your question about “aesthetics, rather than ethics” is very interesting and deserves
further thought.
Dr.GH is offline  
Old 05-04-2002, 11:30 AM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: California
Posts: 2,029
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by garraty:
<strong>vixstile, this one is for you...

TOOL- aenima</strong>
?
vixstile is offline  
Old 05-04-2002, 03:57 PM   #29
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5,658
Post

Dr. GH: Since his "advice" (which it wasn't since he merely pointed out they were free to to so) was directed towards those who want to destroy humanity, it obviously does not apply to him. Your response was a ridiculous overreaction.

The electrode might very well be fun and addictive, but I prefer the more indirect pleasures. As for children, I don't plan on having any - my genes are special by virtue of being mine but I have little inclination to further their "goals." While I would prefer that the human race not go extinct, it's not an absolute necessity and the extinction of the majority of Earth's species is nothing new.
tronvillain is offline  
Old 05-04-2002, 04:32 PM   #30
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sydney Australia and beyond the realms of Gehenna
Posts: 6,035
Post

Count me among those who wouldnt mind the partial destruction of mankind. in fact, just get rid of humanity altogether, what good have we accomplished?
6 or so billion and rising by the minute will, in a short amount of time be unsustainable. Humans have multiplied to a parasitic level, surviving for themselves and not giving a shit for anything else they might encounter. vixstile's responses have more that extended that idea.

Quote:
Why not (given the right knowledge and technology) alter the environment to best suite the needs of humanity?
that is one of the most ridiculous things i have ever heard. humans have destroyed the environment irreperably, so what do you suggest? That we change the planet to suit our needs. Isnt that what caused the problem in the first place? For example, to suit humans want and needs, foxes were introduced to australia, and thats had a fantastic effect hasnt it.

Quote:
I think everybody can agree that effecting the environment in a way that is detrimental to humans is a bad thing.
i dont agree. you suggest we change the earth for humans sake, everything you suggest is there for humans only. What gives us any more right to survive than any other species? I mean, non-subjectively.
Quote:
What im concerned with is people that saying that ANY human impact on environment is a bad thing.
why?
Quote:
Many of the more aggressive environmentalist seem to be under the delusion that the non-human ecosystems possess some kind of intrinsic dignity or value that we have an objective obligation to preserve.
delusion? its not about dignity at all, nothing could be further from the truth.

Quote:
Objectively speaking, non-human environments do NOT have any dignity or value. Non human environments are in NO way superior to human environment. Human environments are in NO way superior to non-human environments.
Non-human environments are the original environments, they are whats supposed to be here, and all humans have done is manipulate and destroy that for their whim. That is how they have nore of a right to survive, because without non-H environments, nothing can survive. We depend on non-H environments, and in no way does that reverse. that is how non-H environments are superior.

Quote:
Subjectively speaking, non-human environments DO have dignity and value. Non-human environments ARE inferior to human environments. Human environments ARE superior to non-human environments.
it has nothing to do with dignity. you have yet to explain in what way human environments are superior.

Quote:
*A human environment is: an environment that humans build, design or alter for the benefit of humans

*A non-human environment is: an environment that is untouched or unaffected by humans
then by your definition there is no such thing as a non-H environment. There is nowhere in the world humans have not had an impact.

Quote:
Of course non-human environments are important for oxygen, water, other crucial resources, as well as aesthetic value.
aesthetic value? i would have thought that would have been way down on the list and hardly worthy of mention.

i would say more, but doing so would just reiterate a number of points already made by others.
ju'iblex is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:47 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.