Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Kumar]

All over the UK.

 

[Kumar]

All over the UK.

No, i both situations creatures will go on eating whatever they eat in the way they always eat it. If food is plentiful the result is increased population and increased consumption, if it is not plentiful the population will tend to decrease. Your slogans are irrelevant.

Yes but in plentiful state they will not need to do any extra effort and odd but when not plentiful, they will need these. That will be live & let live in former and might is right in later. You do exta efforts and odds while interactíng with me.

 

[Mojo]

Yes but in plentiful state they will not need to do any extra effort and odd but when not plentiful, they will need these.

They will just do what they do: consume as much as they can and breed as much as they can. Nothing to do with "balancing".

 

[Kumar]

I don't know exactly what you mean. My best guess is that you are asking if humans behaviour alters on the basis of availability of resources. If so, that is true, so does every other animal. What of it?

Thanks.
Tell me the difference in behaviour which humans and other animals can show in plentiful and scracity conditións.

 

[abaddon]

Yes but in plentiful state they will not need to do any extra effort and odd but when not plentiful, they will need these. That will be live & let live in former and might is right in later. You do exta efforts and odds while interactíng with me.

And that is your flawed argument in a nutshell. Resources are LIMITED. You cannot change that. The lions on the Serengeti Plain eat gazelles, for example. Why are there not huge numbers of lions and no gazelles left at all?

 

[abaddon]

Thanks.
Tell me the difference in behaviour which humans and other animals can show in plentiful and scracity conditións.

Just that one word. You have been told over and over that it is "SCARCITY", yet you insist on your borked spelling in post after post after post. It cannot be a translation-bot error, so the only available conclusion is that it is intentional, deliberate and basically agenda driven.

Tell me, can you learn the correct spelling of a single word, just one word? Or do you refuse even that?

 

[Kumar]

Just that one word. You have been told over and over that it is "SCARCITY", yet you insist on your borked spelling in post after post after post. It cannot be a translation-bot error, so the only available conclusion is that it is intentional, deliberate and basically agenda driven.

Tell me, can you learn the correct spelling of a single word, just one word? Or do you refuse even that?

I think, spelling corrector is doing that, Making my correct spelling wrong. Anything can happen. Not intentional. A&F. Like borked above comes out in spelling corrector as bored,bonked,barked...on this site only.

 

[fagin]

I don't believe your spellcheck is making up nonsense words.

 

[Kumar]

I don't believe your spellcheck is making up nonsense words.

Ok, do not believe.

 

[Peregrinus]

I think, spelling corrector is doing that, Making my correct spelling wrong. Anything can happen. Not intentional. A&F. Like borked above comes out in spelling corrector as bored,bonked,barked...on this site only.

You recognize some of the limitations of spell-checkers yet attempt to use those limitations to excuse your own. "Anything can happen" sounds as if you have surrendered control over what you post. This is as far from any idealized A&F as you can get.

 

[Kumar]

You recognize some of the limitations of spell-checkers yet attempt to use those limitations to excuse your own. "Anything can happen" sounds as if you have surrendered control over what you post. This is as far from any idealized A&F as you can get.

If we need to check, spell checker, what is its purpose? Many time big odd happen.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

If we need to check, spell checker, what is its purpose? Many time big odd happen.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

 

[abaddon]

I think, spelling corrector is doing that, Making my correct spelling wrong. Anything can happen. Not intentional. A&F. Like borked above comes out in spelling corrector as bored,bonked,barked...on this site only.

 

[Belz...]

I think, we need to understand, how beings livings in different prevailing states can behave differently. In plenty and sufficiency state of availability of means for survival AND in scracity state. Live & let live can be the attribute of former whereas might is right of later

Holy ****! Different beings behave differently?

I gotta call the scientists and schedule a meeting!

 

[JayUtah]

I think, spelling corrector is doing that, Making my correct spelling wrong. Anything can happen.

No, anything cannot happen. No English spelling checker is going to replace a correctly-spelled word with a word that does not exist in English. You will need to supply a different explanation. You complain that people do not understand your arguments, yet your posts are usually just one step above gibberish at best. You keep trying to blame that on various automated tools that you use to render English, but the tools you name are known not to behave in the way you accuse them. That leads us to suspect different mechanisms and motivations for your nearly-incomprehensible posts.

 

[JayUtah]

You have to remember that as far as Kumar is concerned, "natural" is good and "unnatural" is bad. Everything he posts is afflicted with that basic fallacy.

An astute observation. I would go on to say that his definitions of "natural" and "unnatural" derive from his religion, not from how everyone else uses the word. He has been told that his religion derives from nature and is somehow in harmony with it. Hence he cannot distinguish between his religious beliefs and facts.

 

[JayUtah]

Then, how behaviour of beings can change in case of plenty and scracity in nature?

Via ordinary cause and effect. A lion can't eat a gazelle that isn't there. So when gazelles are scarce, lions naturally don't eat as many of them. But minimalism enforced by supply is not the same as ascetism. Ascetism is minimalization for its own sake. Or rather, it's minimimalization even in times of plenty. A lion in time of plenty does not keep to the bare minimum consumption. A lion in time of scarcity does not keep to a bare minimum consumption if he can help it. He doesn't engage in resource planning and conscious mitigation of impending scarcity.

What happens to a species when a resource it depends on goes extinct? The dependent species also goes extinct. You note that this dependency would produce a balance of supply and consumption, but you wrongly think this means ascetism. You wrongly think that the correct balance is minimal consumption. You ignore the other side of the equation. Assuming a resource is depended upon because it produces an advantage, a portion of the species that artificially consumes little of a plentiful resource is at a disadvantage compared to another portion of the same species that consumes a larger amount and thus reaps a larger advantage. In times of plenty there is an evolutionary advantage to avoiding minimalism.

Ascetism is not natural. The ebb and flow of consumption to track supply is not evidence that ascetism is superior -- morally or evolutionarily.

 

[Kumar]

Via ordinary cause and effect. A lion can't eat a gazelle that isn't there. So when gazelles are scarce, lions naturally don't eat as many of them. But minimalism enforced by supply is not the same as ascetism. Ascetism is minimalization for its own sake. Or rather, it's minimimalization even in times of plenty. A lion in time of plenty does not keep to the bare minimum consumption. A lion in time of scarcity does not keep to a bare minimum consumption if he can help it. He doesn't engage in resource planning and conscious mitigation of impending scarcity.

What happens to a species when a resource it depends on goes extinct? The dependent species also goes extinct. You note that this dependency would produce a balance of supply and consumption, but you wrongly think this means ascetism. You wrongly think that the correct balance is minimal consumption. You ignore the other side of the equation. Assuming a resource is depended upon because it produces an advantage, a portion of the species that artificially consumes little of a plentiful resource is at a disadvantage compared to another portion of the same species that consumes a larger amount and thus reaps a larger advantage. In times of plenty there is an evolutionary advantage to avoiding minimalism.

Ascetism is not natural. The ebb and flow of consumption to track supply is not evidence that ascetism is superior -- morally or evolutionarily.

Thanks. Lot of logics in your reply. I appreciate. However I want to check these:

1.Ascetism may not be natural but why can't it be derived from nature and nature's rules?

2. There can be a confidence level for getting the plenty of food supply on need or a fear of not getting it readily. Former can be possible in plenty state for long time, as if being is never exposed to scarcity but later remained in a consistent scarcity state. You can also say, that being has no inharent sense of scarcity so not perceived to it. We also need to check from this POV. I think, whatever you have told above is based on current state i.e. sometime plenty othertime scarcity. Yes, this state will not develop full confidence or preception for assured supply on need without extra efforts. He will conserve energy will not spend unnecessarily. I thínk conservation of max energy is also a nature's rule. So pls comment iñ this sense.

 

[JayUtah]

1.Ascetism may not be natural but why can't it be derived from nature and nature's rules?

Because that would just be a different way of trying to say it's natural. Don't equivocate.

I thínk conservation of max energy is also a nature's rule. So pls comment iñ this sense.

Hunting in a time of plenty is a net energy gain. Predators only have to conserve energy for the hunt when the hunt is prolonged due to scarcity. Once again, cause and effect -- and not a viable argument for ascetism being natural.

 

[Mojo]

An astute observation. I would go on to say that his definitions of "natural" and "unnatural" derive from his religion, not from how everyone else uses the word. He has been told that his religion derives from nature and is somehow in harmony with it. Hence he cannot distinguish between his religious beliefs and facts.

He likes to use religion to bolster his arguments, so he needs religion to be "natural", and not just some human invention. Human inventions are bad, as far as Kumar is concerned.