Will the internet survive energy contraction?

Myriad said:
I was just pointing out that "finding the proper place for humanity in the living world," even if the concept were coherent, would be utterly undesirable in the overwhelmingly probable case that that proper place were comparable to the proper place for trilobites.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it's undesirable.

Myriad said:
The genetic replicators of Earth, and the geological, astronomical, aquatic, and atmospheric environment that acts upon them.
Click to expand...

And we have a proper place in that environment.

Myriad said:
Most of us will not make the mistake he made -- and that you appear determined to make.
Click to expand...

Human welfare is simply one of many components to be concerned about.
 
TFian said:
Yup, as things get worse, the Holocene extinction will speed up.
Click to expand...

Well, things aren't going to get worse. We've been telling you that since the first page of this thread, and the tremendous amount of evidence you've NOT been providing hasn't changed that.

But beyond that, you're contradicting yourself again.

Near extinctions of humans are good, or at least, acceptable.

But it's bad that other animals would go extinct (post #1084).

Unless, of course, that extinction is caused by humans overhunting other animals because of resource starvation (also post #1084).

But taking measures that would prevent human extinction, and therefore also prevent the extinction of other animals is bad. (post #1084).
 
TFian said:
Human welfare is simply one of many components to be concerned about.
Click to expand...

Except that you're not concerned.

You're not concerned about human welfare, but you're also not concerned about the welfare of any other "components" that benefit from improved human welfare. Such as protection for threatened species like chimps, dolphins, and elephants.
 
drkitten said:
Except that you're not concerned.
Click to expand...

Not horribly no. I most certainly don't put human needs above nature's needs.

drkitten said:
You're not concerned about human welfare, but you're also not concerned about the welfare of any other "components" that benefit from improved human welfare. Such as protection for threatened species like chimps, dolphins, and elephants.
Click to expand...

Humans needs are in direct contradiction with animals and mother earth. They'd be much better off without us. As Derrick Jensen said, we're a psychopathic species. We'll destroy the environment around us, and eat our own babies if we had to.
 
Myriad said:
TFian said:
Meh. The proper place for humanity is to find our place in the living world, rather than dominating it.
Click to expand...


What makes you think we have that choice? That is, what makes you think that any such place -- other than the place we ourselves create by our "dominating" -- exists?

The vast majority of the species that have ever existed have "found" their "place in the living world" to be extinction. That was their reward for their supposed noble acceptance of the proper order of things. (And of course that noble acceptance is also total ********; they all tried as hard as they could to do whatever it took to survive, but most just failed.)
Click to expand...

Humanity has had a very short run so far so let's not get too arrogant!


News flash: no creature or species has a place in the living world. That's what makes it a living world.
Click to expand...

Every creature has a place in the living world or it could not exist.

Some creatures, like us, stumble on windfalls, have population explosions, then die off when the windfall is used up. Sometimes this means extinction.


It would prefer to kill you and grow some more bacteria in your place. Eventually it will succeed. And by "you" I mean every living thing and kind including the bacteria itself.

Do you understand that the very same drive that makes the moose fight the wolf pack in that Jack London story you linked to, will make most people fight you when you declare your opposition to measures to support their children's survival? Being on the side of "the living world" sounds all noble and cool, until you think about it and realize it makes you the mortal enemy of everyone and everything.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Human domination of "the living world" is destroying the stable balance of nature it depends on to survive.

Wespectfully,
JihadJane
 
JihadJane said:
Humanity has had a very short run so far so let's not get too arrogant!
Click to expand...

Never underestimate human arrogance!

JihadJane said:
Some creatures, like us, stumble on windfalls, have population explosions, then die off when the windfall is used up. Sometimes this means extinction.
Click to expand...

Like mice with the grain ;)

JihadJane said:
Human domination of "the living world" is destroying the stable balance of nature it depends on to survive.

Wespectfully,
JihadJane
Click to expand...

Quite true. Nature isn't some quaint little idea that can be measured as some luxury good. It's integral to our very existence.
 
TFian said:
Humans needs are in direct contradiction with animals and mother earth.
Click to expand...

But when humans act to protect animals and "mother earth," that's even worse.

Killing elephants to extinction is bad.

But preventing elephants from being killed to extinction, that's worse?


As Derrick Jensen said, we're a psychopathic species. We'll destroy the environment around us, and eat our own babies if we had to.
Click to expand...

And once again, you quote someone who has no idea what he's talking about.

Or, as Homer Simpson put it, "It takes two to lie. One to lie, and one to listen."
 
drkitten said:
But when humans act to protect animals and "mother earth," that's even worse.

Killing elephants to extinction is bad.

But preventing elephants from being killed to extinction, that's worse?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the current biosphere is probably beyond redemption because of man's current wasteful destructive ways. However I'm sure new biospheres will form in the future, absent of man, and will likely thrive without us.


drkitten said:
And once again, you quote someone who has no idea what he's talking about.
Click to expand...

Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and the Nieman Foundation at Harvard disagree.

Derrick Jensen said:
We are members of the most destructive culture ever to exist. Our assault on the natural world, on indigenous and other cultures, on women, on children, on all of us through the possibility of nuclear suicide and other means--all these are unprecedented in their magnitude and ferocity.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
TFian said:
Unfortunately the current biosphere is probably beyond redemption because of man's current wasteful destructive ways.
Click to expand...

Er, evidence?

So far, all the evidence you've presented.... Well, it doesn't do anything, because it's not there.

Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and the Nieman Foundation at Harvard disagree.
Click to expand...

The graduate school of journalism isn't qualified to hold an opinion on ecology. Would you go to a journalist to have your teeth filled, or a dentist?
 
TFian said:
I don't trust anyone else with my own health.
Click to expand...

So, what you do you do, go after that abscessed molar with a bathroom mirror and a can of spackle?

I'm sure you'll have lots of fun if your appendix ruptures as well. I think I saw that scene in Master and Commander, although even he had to have someone hold the mirror for him....
 
drkitten said:
What would keep them from succeeding? As pointed out, we've done that experiment. So far, humans seem to be nearly undefeated against megafauna except when we ourselves decide to throw the game.
Click to expand...
And sometimes even then. And not just megafauna - we accidentally wiped out the passenger pigeon, and there were billions of them.
 
TFian said:
Unfortunately the current biosphere is probably beyond redemption because of man's current wasteful destructive ways. However I'm sure new biospheres will form in the future, absent of man, and will likely thrive without us.

Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and the Nieman Foundation at Harvard disagree.
Click to expand...
As usual, this is worthless blather from the scientifically illiterate.

Two words: Deccan Traps.
 
PixyMisa said:
You do know that herbal medicine is worse than useless, right?
Click to expand...

That's not true. We've used herbal medicine for thousands of years. Anyway, I wouldn't put anything in my body I wouldn't put in the ground.


PixyMisa said:
Okay, I guess you were right. You probably won't live past 30. Nice knowing you.
Click to expand...

That's the price I'm willing to pay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom