To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Will nature destroy herself?
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Creation / Evolution

Your fellow human (yfh)
This is a serious question, and I am talking about the very long-term.

Please add-to/destroy the few concepts that I've forwarded thus far:

Evolution is refined by environmental stress.
If there is no environmental stress [ex: utopia]
Then the random mutations of each birth + the mass production of babies will cause:
Degeneration & overpopulation.
[ Thus nature autocratically destroys utopias. ]

Besides this, dosile, non-agressive species or individuals [ex: self-sacrifice, virtue, charity] will be outdone & consumed by the crafty, agressive minority.

Death, scarcity, imperfection and competition are big factors for how "good" evolution "works". Take away the problems of the species and then the species will become the problem.

I realize that evolution was not built for sustainability.
The only law -- is "freedom". Nature is amoral.
Evolution is not intelligence.

The genetic codes and abilities of the individual are far less then the genetic codes and abilities of the whole.

Nature is anything but a collectivist-unity.
Look how many millions of years it took for her to get anywhere!
And she's loosing her progress -- again and again.
SENT
Hello YFH,
Interesting topic you have here.

QUOTE
Evolution is refined by environmental stress.
If there is no environmental stress [ex: utopia]
Then the random mutations of each birth + the mass production of babies will cause:
Degeneration & overpopulation.
[ Thus nature autocratically destroys utopias. ]


IMO, environmental stress doesn't always have to be in the form of physical stress, and even in a utopian environment there would be mental stress due to self taxation, learning, and curiosity.

I think that at some point, as a mental race rather than physical, we'd limit our replication (babies) so we could pursue the mental realm without the added sideline stress of parenting.

This is of course speculation so who knows for sure. Guess we'll have to wait and see biggrin.gif

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Evolution is refined by environmental stress.
If there is no environmental stress [ex: utopia]
Then the random mutations of each birth + the mass production of babies will cause:
Degeneration & overpopulation.
[ Thus nature autocratically destroys utopias. ]


IMO, environmental stress doesn't always have to be in the form of physical stress, and even in a utopian environment there would be mental stress due to self taxation, learning, and curiosity.

I think that at some point, as a mental race rather than physical, we'd limit our replication (babies) so we could pursue the mental realm without the added sideline stress of parenting.

This is of course speculation so who knows for sure. Guess we'll have to wait and see biggrin.gif

Besides this, dosile, non-agressive species or individuals [ex: self-sacrifice, virtue, charity] will be outdone & consumed by the crafty, agressive minority.

Death, scarcity, imperfection and competition are big factors for how "good" evolution "works". Take away the problems of the species and then the species will become the problem.


I don't think we'd be "consumed" by the "agressive minority" as you put it, especially if mental abilities determines ones placement in society. The "problems of the species" will simply change as we have more time to ponder what our true problems are, and separate them from our perceived problems.

QUOTE
I realize that evolution was not built for sustainability.


Why not? What leads you to this conclusion? While I'd agree that it's taken a LONG time to get to where we are, you must admit, when we move forward we sometimes take BIG steps. As a whole we advance more slowly due to our fear of change, and our lack of understanding of the progress we've made, but we're still going forward.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I realize that evolution was not built for sustainability.


Why not? What leads you to this conclusion? While I'd agree that it's taken a LONG time to get to where we are, you must admit, when we move forward we sometimes take BIG steps. As a whole we advance more slowly due to our fear of change, and our lack of understanding of the progress we've made, but we're still going forward.

Nature is anything but a collectivist-unity.
Look how many millions of years it took for her to get anywhere!
And she's loosing her progress -- again and again.


What if nature IS a collective unity, and it takes time to perfect it in the physically observable realm? What if the universe is taking it's time so it doesn't fall apart at a critical point in time?

This is speculation, but IMO things are exactly as they are supposed to be to get us where we're going. Whether that's a collapse into singularity, divine union, or both, who can say, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that we're not all united in our journey through space on this dust ball called earth.

It's true that the more complex a system is the more susceptible it is to collapse, and that may even be true for the human system, but you have to wonder if all these brains we have working to resolve the problems of system collapse isn't just the universes way of breaking free of an old pattern, or just a futile attempt at preventing the inevitable.

So I guess my answer would be, I don't know, but we're in this together and I'd rather make it a pleasant experience than sit around worrying about something that may or may not be inevitable. If it is inevitable, all we CAN do is enjoy the ride, but if not then we can at least be prepared for the possibility of having to prevent it.
Your fellow human (yfh)
QUOTE (SENT+Jun 26 2006, 08:55 PM)
Hello YFH,
Interesting topic you have here.

Thanks.

QUOTE
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Evolution is refined by environmental stress.
If there is no environmental stress [ex: utopia]
Then the random mutations of each birth + the mass production of babies will cause:
Degeneration & overpopulation.
[ Thus nature autocratically destroys utopias. ]

IMO, environmental stress doesn't always have to be in the form of physical stress, and even in a utopian environment there would be mental stress due to self taxation, learning, and curiosity.

I think that at some point, as a mental race rather than physical, we'd limit our replication (babies) so we could pursue the mental realm without the added sideline stress of parenting.

This is of course speculation so who knows for sure. Guess we'll have to wait and see biggrin.gif

Ideally, "Natural-Selection" should be replaced by intelligent-selection.
That means eugenics, state-controlled breeding.

QUOTE
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Besides this, dosile, non-agressive species or individuals [ex: self-sacrifice, virtue, charity] will be outdone & consumed by the crafty, agressive minority.

Death, scarcity, imperfection and competition are big factors for how "good" evolution "works". Take away the problems of the species and then the species will become the problem.

I don't think we'd be "consumed" by the "agressive minority" as you put it, especially if mental abilities determines ones placement in society. The "problems of the species" will simply change as we have more time to ponder what our true problems are, and separate them from our perceived problems.

What's happening to our environment & our population -- today?

Today there is no "agressive minority", there is an agressive majority.
Once the over-consumption peaks & there just isn't enough for everyone, the cannibalism will set in and militarily superior nations will eat the weak ones.

QUOTE
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I realize that evolution was not built for sustainability.
Why not? What leads you to this conclusion? While I'd agree that it's taken a LONG time to get to where we are, you must admit, when we move forward we sometimes take BIG steps. As a whole we advance more slowly due to our fear of change, and our lack of understanding of the progress we've made, but we're still going forward.

Cyclic extinctions.
"Progress" -- gone.

QUOTE
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Nature is anything but a collectivist-unity.
Look how many millions of years it took for her to get anywhere!
And she's loosing her progress -- again and again.

What if nature IS a collective unity, and it takes time to perfect it in the physically observable realm? What if the universe is taking it's time so it doesn't fall apart at a critical point in time?

I'm not talking about the universe.

QUOTE
This is speculation, but IMO things are exactly as they are supposed to be to get us where we're going. Whether that's a collapse into singularity, divine union, or both, who can say, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that we're not all united in our journey through space on this dust ball called earth.

Hah!

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
This is speculation, but IMO things are exactly as they are supposed to be to get us where we're going. Whether that's a collapse into singularity, divine union, or both, who can say, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that we're not all united in our journey through space on this dust ball called earth.

Hah!

It's true that the more complex a system is the more susceptible it is to collapse,

The opposite is true, and bio-diversity is going down-&-down.

If another species made humanity extinct, you wouldn't be hear singing about la-la-land. Right you you're very VERY far away from the victims. You're at the opposite side of the scale. It's all fantastic from your view point.

QUOTE
but you have to wonder if all these brains we have working to resolve the problems of system collapse isn't just the univers's way of breaking free of an old pattern, or just a futile attempt at preventing the inevitable.

The universe? The universe doesn't give a damn about the earth. [ex: history of asteriods and mass extinctions in the passed.]

"all these brains" -- like anything human -- is a two-edged sword, driven by an out-of-date set of insticts.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
but you have to wonder if all these brains we have working to resolve the problems of system collapse isn't just the univers's way of breaking free of an old pattern, or just a futile attempt at preventing the inevitable.

The universe? The universe doesn't give a damn about the earth. [ex: history of asteriods and mass extinctions in the passed.]

"all these brains" -- like anything human -- is a two-edged sword, driven by an out-of-date set of insticts.

So I guess my answer would be, I don't know, but we're in this together and I'd rather make it a pleasant experience than sit around worrying about something that may or may not be inevitable. If it is inevitable, all we CAN do is enjoy the ride, but if not then we can at least be prepared for the possibility of having to prevent it.

What are you talking about?

You're an "energy-worker"?
I thought you said it at another thread.

For this reason, you have an optamistic attitude about all higher powers and unknown forces. I see that in your posts.

I think that sort of trust and peace is a form of bias.
StevenA
QUOTE
Evolution is refined by environmental stress.
If there is no environmental stress [ex: utopia]


Lack of any selection pressure doesn't lead to utopia, it leads to a bland lifeless universe. Life forms tend to survive because they reproduce faster than dead matter. If dead matter didn't have to compete with life, everything would have stayed dead.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Evolution is refined by environmental stress.
If there is no environmental stress [ex: utopia]


Lack of any selection pressure doesn't lead to utopia, it leads to a bland lifeless universe. Life forms tend to survive because they reproduce faster than dead matter. If dead matter didn't have to compete with life, everything would have stayed dead.

Then the random mutations of each birth + the mass production of babies will cause:
Degeneration & overpopulation.
[ Thus nature autocratically destroys utopias. ]


No, individually such random mutations tend to be destructive but the occasionally successes are worth millions of times more because these are replicated and not the failures. It's not much different than some experimenting and making thousands of mistakes but yet that possibility of failure is always what allows for the successes and progress ... no pain no gain. Without a ability for change, things stagnate and in this universe stagnation tends to lead to death.

QUOTE
Besides this, dosile, non-agressive species or individuals [ex: self-sacrifice, virtue, charity] will be outdone & consumed by the crafty, agressive minority.


Not necessarily, though selection on a sub population with similar genetic traits still seems necessary. For example, it makes sense genetically for parents to sacrifice for their children or family members etc., and nature even rewards this. This is possible because the merit is still closely tied to genetics. Sacrifices done on a larger scale don't have much of any positive evolutionary feedback and can even be destructive in that it this sacrifice could be done in order to support parasitical relationships or genetics/culture that wouldn't be willing to make this sacrifice. Back when people were physically restricted to living and dying in a small region of the Earth and living with people who were effectively family members genetically (500 years ago noone had the ability to simply fly across an ocean and before that most people lived and died within about 20 miles of where they were born) so any personal sacrifice was almost guaranteed to be made for people with similar genetic traits.

Genetics likely has less of an unfluence on most social change compared to simple cultural evolution. A society can be evaluated for the merit of its culture and altered over time without much of any requirement for genetic changes.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Besides this, dosile, non-agressive species or individuals [ex: self-sacrifice, virtue, charity] will be outdone & consumed by the crafty, agressive minority.


Not necessarily, though selection on a sub population with similar genetic traits still seems necessary. For example, it makes sense genetically for parents to sacrifice for their children or family members etc., and nature even rewards this. This is possible because the merit is still closely tied to genetics. Sacrifices done on a larger scale don't have much of any positive evolutionary feedback and can even be destructive in that it this sacrifice could be done in order to support parasitical relationships or genetics/culture that wouldn't be willing to make this sacrifice. Back when people were physically restricted to living and dying in a small region of the Earth and living with people who were effectively family members genetically (500 years ago noone had the ability to simply fly across an ocean and before that most people lived and died within about 20 miles of where they were born) so any personal sacrifice was almost guaranteed to be made for people with similar genetic traits.

Genetics likely has less of an unfluence on most social change compared to simple cultural evolution. A society can be evaluated for the merit of its culture and altered over time without much of any requirement for genetic changes.

Death, scarcity, imperfection and competition are big factors for how "good" evolution "works". Take away the problems of the species and then the species will become the problem.


Death, scarcity, imperfection etc. exist because life, resources and ideals of perfection exist. If you want to get rid of death, remove life. If you want to remove the concept of imperfections then stop trying to define perfection. If you don't want to experience any scarcity, desire nothing.

QUOTE
I realize that evolution was not built for sustainability.


How else would you suggest allowing for sustainable changes. Evolution naturally places the requirement on things that be sustainable. Evolution destroys unsustainable changes. Cancer is limited in its grow because of evolution. If cancer were able to simply spread from person to person by touch and destroy the entire population without it destroying itself as well, then life would have already been destroyed. Thankfully cancer is also subject to evolutionary pressures and it isn't a sustainable form of life because it's simply parasitical.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I realize that evolution was not built for sustainability.


How else would you suggest allowing for sustainable changes. Evolution naturally places the requirement on things that be sustainable. Evolution destroys unsustainable changes. Cancer is limited in its grow because of evolution. If cancer were able to simply spread from person to person by touch and destroy the entire population without it destroying itself as well, then life would have already been destroyed. Thankfully cancer is also subject to evolutionary pressures and it isn't a sustainable form of life because it's simply parasitical.

The only law -- is "freedom". Nature is amoral.


Ideally people would both have that freedom as well as remain individually responsible for whatever merits or demerits they create using this. You must assure that accountability isn't detached from this freedom - for example, extending someone the liberty to drive on your property requires that they also be held accountable if they cause harm to others by using this liberty. Trying to issure them against accountability removes the deterant for them to avoid creating such damage and is a disservice to everyone involved.

QUOTE
Evolution is not intelligence.


No but intelligence is a great tool that evolution has pressured for.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Evolution is not intelligence.


No but intelligence is a great tool that evolution has pressured for.


The genetic codes and abilities of the individual are far less then the genetic codes and abilities of the whole.


The whole is only composed of individuals. There is no whole without individual abilities. "Society" itself has no traits except as simply statistical averages of teh individuals involved. You can't point to something physical and say that's "society" ... it doesn't exist but is simply a convenient way to deal with the information overload experienced when trying to think about more than a couple people at a time.

QUOTE
Nature is anything but a collectivist-unity.


I agree.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Nature is anything but a collectivist-unity.


I agree.

Look how many millions of years it took for her to get anywhere!
And she's loosing her progress -- again and again.


She got further than anyone else. Give credit where it's due. If you believe you can do better, I grant you the freedom to pursue that along with whatever other individuals feel they have better ideas but don't drag me along.
Your fellow human (yfh)
You don't think that humanity will destroy itself?

You don't think cycles of mass-extinction happened?

The slate is being whiped clean, species are going extinct every day.

[edit]

Also, let's define what it means to be "superior" within nature.

A "superior" nation with a powerful military could over-power, consume and exploit any sort of non-militant nation, no-matter whether-or-not that exploited nation was more "environmentally-friendly", morally pure, intelligent, etc.
^
Therefor, "superiority" within times of competition consist of short-term goals.

Today, what is being burnt up by civilization are the virgin resources.
Recycling is not as easy/"economic" as the exploit of virgin resource.

Evolution has no forsight. It does not pre-plan itself and predict the far future.

All things on earth alive today are "nature".

Humanity is an example of nature's short-term, degenerating self-destructiveness.

Humans exist within synthetic-scarcity as they over-populate, waste and inequally distribute resources.
curious1
yfh... if humanity does distroy itself, it's likely out of our individual hands. So llive like you're going to die tomorrow:).
Your fellow human (yfh)
QUOTE (curious1+Jun 27 2006, 01:44 AM)
yfh... if humanity does distroy itself, it's likely out of our individual hands. So live like you're going to die tomorrow:).

No.

That's exactly the problem!
The system is too short-term!

People should live like they are going to never die.
This will invoke longer-term planning.

Short term goals leave the future neglected.

Today almost everything is build around short term goals.
That's the "natural way", also.
Nature is so usedto fighting against herself, that once she actually defeats herself -- she has nothing left to do but finish herself off and start over again.

It is absolutely absurd!
StevenA
QUOTE
You don't think that humanity will destroy itself?


I think individual efforts help keep humanity around. The fact that some mistakes might eventually be made doesn't negate this.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
You don't think that humanity will destroy itself?


I think individual efforts help keep humanity around. The fact that some mistakes might eventually be made doesn't negate this.

You don't think cycles of mass-extinction happened?


Evolution turned them into new opportunities for other life. Do you believe dinosaurs should still be around? (I don't think I'd care if I'd been a dinosaur but being human works fine too)

QUOTE
The slate is being whiped clean, species are going extinct every day.


Species are being created ever day as well. Should we simply stop the clock and tell nature it's illegal to destroy anything it creates? (Not that she'd listen anyway)

If you're truly worried about a doomsday scenario consider that it's virtually impossible outside some incredible planetwide destruction that either left the Earth a frozen popsicle or molten blob to stop life here. Once it started, it's been a non-stop flourishing of greater and greater variety. Without evolution how could life have reach even inside the mantle of the Earth and live underground? Maybe it's possible that this life evolved there but most likely it originated from the same single source and adapted to an underground environment.

(I admit I'm cavalier in some ways but that's because life seems inevitable given enough time and where else would you be other than in the middle of it somewhere?)

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The slate is being whiped clean, species are going extinct every day.


Species are being created ever day as well. Should we simply stop the clock and tell nature it's illegal to destroy anything it creates? (Not that she'd listen anyway)

If you're truly worried about a doomsday scenario consider that it's virtually impossible outside some incredible planetwide destruction that either left the Earth a frozen popsicle or molten blob to stop life here. Once it started, it's been a non-stop flourishing of greater and greater variety. Without evolution how could life have reach even inside the mantle of the Earth and live underground? Maybe it's possible that this life evolved there but most likely it originated from the same single source and adapted to an underground environment.

(I admit I'm cavalier in some ways but that's because life seems inevitable given enough time and where else would you be other than in the middle of it somewhere?)

Also, let's define what it means to be "superior" within nature.


Yes, I appreciate you clarifying what you meant by the term.

QUOTE
A "superior" nation with a powerful military could over-power, consume and exploit any sort of non-militant nation, no-matter whether-or-not that exploited nation was more "environmentally-friendly", morally pure, intelligent, etc.
^
Therefor, "superiority" within times of competition consist of short-term goals.


But that isn't evolutionarily superior. You might as well say a cancer cell is evolutionarily superior to healthy cell but simply because it can destroy its neighbors or overpower them doesn't necessarily lead to a sustainable state (and is generally destructive) being able to destroy your neighbors and then die of deprivation yourself isn't "superior" in my book.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
A "superior" nation with a powerful military could over-power, consume and exploit any sort of non-militant nation, no-matter whether-or-not that exploited nation was more "environmentally-friendly", morally pure, intelligent, etc.
^
Therefor, "superiority" within times of competition consist of short-term goals.


But that isn't evolutionarily superior. You might as well say a cancer cell is evolutionarily superior to healthy cell but simply because it can destroy its neighbors or overpower them doesn't necessarily lead to a sustainable state (and is generally destructive) being able to destroy your neighbors and then die of deprivation yourself isn't "superior" in my book.

Today, what is being burnt up by civilization are the virgin resources.
Recycling is not as easy/"economic" as the exploit of virgin resource.


When should "virgin" resources be used and can't people relpace these if they become scarce? Maybe one piece of wood could be called "virgin" in some sense but in the long run wood decays ... what's virgin now, is dead later and new virgins arrive biggrin.gif (Ok, yes, pun intended) .... that's life. We plant new forests, we use other forms of energy when some become scarcer etc.

If resources become scarce (I know you'll hate this comment, so I have to put it in here) and market economy naturally reflects these in the costs to acquire the resources (unless it's a socialized system that attempts to provide a short term mask of the actual costs) speculation also provides leading indicators so that resources become more expensive before they are depleted because of the expectation of higher costs in the future - this naturally leads to competing suppliers. You don't need to attempt to plan out how many children a nation can support, like China, you simply allow the costs of resources to tell potential parents how expensive it is to use some amount of a product and this naturally drives people to search for replacements and innovate substitues or ways of replenishing them as more profits are available in that area.

The real problems arise when we tolerate destruction done in the name of some non-existant entity and say we're justifying some abuse in order to save souls for God or harming individuals for the sake of society ... in both cases people are hurt for the benefit of something etherial. Now, I admit that individual actions can harm large numbers of people and, for example, dumping 55 gallon drums of toxic materials into a lake isn't an action that only affects the person doing the dumping - in this case he's threatening harm to others and their property as well and such an action needs a just resolution but this is different than an outside entity claiming a community can't fish in a lake because they'll deplete the fishing resources ... it's those people with an immediate and prior vested interest in this resource that are the ones who are affected by this and should necessarily have control over the issue - they reap what they sow, instead of reaping what others force them to sow.

QUOTE
Evolution has no forsight. It does not pre-plan itself and predict the far future.


No, but it's final and undeniable. Maybe evolution could have been better designed but it is what it is and people will pay the piper (of course noone should be forced to pay for someone elses ignorance of this though).

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Evolution has no forsight. It does not pre-plan itself and predict the far future.


No, but it's final and undeniable. Maybe evolution could have been better designed but it is what it is and people will pay the piper (of course noone should be forced to pay for someone elses ignorance of this though).

All things on earth alive today are "nature".

Humanity is an example of nature's short-term, degenerating self-destructiveness.

Humans exist within synthetic-scarcity as they over-populate, waste and inequally distribute resources.


If there was no death, the world would overflow with life to the extent that no new life could even fit. If there was no inequality, there could be nothing better. Equality in itself isn't valuable - you could have a world of equally impoverished people and that's not an ideal I'd wish to inflict on anyone. Should everyone be just as tall and have the same dating successes etc.?

The ideal of equality is in respect and treatment. It's the human side of natures equation that we have control over but when someone makes destructive decisions, as long as those are confined to only hurting themselves, there's no punishment or deterant needed expect for hopefully some proper warning ahead of time, but when someone acts destructively with regard to others, then there needs to be accountability and justify and equality only serves to reward waste, harm and unsustainable actions.

QUOTE
That's exactly the problem!
The system is too short-term!


This might be true to an extent but it's only because that when the locusts are at work on the fields, it makes little sense to try to plant for the future. If we had a system where people could truly find long term benefits from their individual actions then they'd again become more long sighted but until that reurns to being the case you can expect a lot more short sighted decisions to be made.
curious1
QUOTE
This might be true to an extent but it's only because that when the locusts are at work on the fields, it makes little sense to try to plant for the future. If we had a system where people could truly find long term benefits from their individual actions then they'd again become more long sighted but until that reurns to being the case you can expect a lot more short sighted decisions to be made.


Excellent response!

What it boils down to, in my opinion, is that we will survive if we deserve to as a species. If we do not, then we do not.

While individual action may be of some benefit, overall, nature will make the final call. If we destroy enough of the earth, we lose our ability to sustain our own life... but nature can distroy us anyway. That's not to say that ALL life will be extinguished.... the dinosaur was a good example. We'd be another example of a species that failed to adapt, and the roaches or rats will be the next to rule the earth. Life will survive, but we may not.

yfh, you seem really concerned. Do you have a better idea? I mean really, there were ice ages and thaws, worldwide plate shifts with new landmasses created and distroyed. All before we even existed. The earth is changing again... that's just the way things are. Will we adapt? That's hard to say.

Did you read about the asteroid that MIGHT hit us in 2036? Do you know the current thinking about what happened to the dinosaur? That's all it would take, 1 hit.

Did you read about Greenland ice melting faster than they thought remotely possible? Some are saying that it's possible that within the next 50-100 years, worst case, the sea could rise 23 feet (swamping most coastal cities around the world).

This Fox news article is from 12 hours ago: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200938,00.html

This from earlier today:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...ld/14899428.htm

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
This might be true to an extent but it's only because that when the locusts are at work on the fields, it makes little sense to try to plant for the future. If we had a system where people could truly find long term benefits from their individual actions then they'd again become more long sighted but until that reurns to being the case you can expect a lot more short sighted decisions to be made.


Excellent response!

What it boils down to, in my opinion, is that we will survive if we deserve to as a species. If we do not, then we do not.

While individual action may be of some benefit, overall, nature will make the final call. If we destroy enough of the earth, we lose our ability to sustain our own life... but nature can distroy us anyway. That's not to say that ALL life will be extinguished.... the dinosaur was a good example. We'd be another example of a species that failed to adapt, and the roaches or rats will be the next to rule the earth. Life will survive, but we may not.

yfh, you seem really concerned. Do you have a better idea? I mean really, there were ice ages and thaws, worldwide plate shifts with new landmasses created and distroyed. All before we even existed. The earth is changing again... that's just the way things are. Will we adapt? That's hard to say.

Did you read about the asteroid that MIGHT hit us in 2036? Do you know the current thinking about what happened to the dinosaur? That's all it would take, 1 hit.

Did you read about Greenland ice melting faster than they thought remotely possible? Some are saying that it's possible that within the next 50-100 years, worst case, the sea could rise 23 feet (swamping most coastal cities around the world).

This Fox news article is from 12 hours ago: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200938,00.html

This from earlier today:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...ld/14899428.htm

By all accounts, the glaciers of Greenland are melting twice as fast as they were five years ago, even as the ice sheets of Antarctica -- the world's largest reservoir of fresh water -- also are shrinking, researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of Kansas reported in February.

Zwally and other researchers have focused their attention on a delicate ribbon -- the equilibrium line, which marks the fulcrum of frost and thaw in Greenland's seasonal balance.

The zone runs around the rim of the ice cap like a drawstring. Summer melting, on average, offsets the annual accumulation of snow.

Across the ice cap, however, the area of seasonal melting was broader last year than in 27 years of record-keeping, University of Colorado climate scientists reported. In early May, temperatures on the ice cap some days were almost 20 degrees above normal, hovering just below freezing.

From cores of ancient Greenland ice extracted by the National Science Foundation, researchers have identified at least 20 sudden climate changes in the past 110,000 years, in which average temperatures fluctuated as much as 15 degrees in a single decade.

The increasingly erratic behavior of the Greenland ice has scientists wondering whether the climate, after thousands of years of relative stability, may again start oscillating.


QUOTE
Since 2002, Greenland's three largest outlet glaciers have started moving faster, satellite data shows.

On the eastern edge of Greenland, the Kangerlussuaq Glacier, like the Jakobshavn, has surged, doubling its pace. To the west, the Helheim Glacier now appears to be moving about half a football field every day.

In all, 12 major outlet glaciers drain the ice sheet the way rivers drain a watershed, setting the pace of its release to the ocean. If they all slide too quickly, there is a possibility that, perhaps decades from now, they could collapse suddenly and release the entire ice sheet into the ocean.

The accelerating ice flow has been accompanied by a dramatic increase in seismic activity, as the three immense streams of ice shake the Earth in their wake.

The lurching ice has generated swarms of earthquakes up to magnitude 5.0, researchers at Harvard University and the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University reported in March.

Last year alone, the Harvard and Columbia researchers detected as many ice quakes as the total recorded from 1993 through 1996, with five times as many in the summer as in the winter months.

``Instability is the key,'' said Jose Rial, a geophysicist from the University of North Carolina.

In the Swiss Camp laboratory tent, Rial moved his finger along the jagged seismic trace displayed on his iBook screen.

The signal had been detected by the 10 sensors he had placed around the camp six days before.

The ice sheet was trembling.


I think the National Geographic article was the one that said we had 50 years at the worst case before all of Greenland is melted if it continues at the rate it was... 3 YEARS ago. It's been picking up ever since as you can see from today's news.

So... 50 years our coasts may be underwater. 30 years... we may be hit by an asteroid.
Asteroid news:
http://www.space.com/news/050519_asteroid_mission.html

In the meantime, we have had devastating hurricanes every year for the last 2 years.

You can worry if you want to, but what are you going to do about acts of nature? And no, we're not helping much either with the war and our energy consumption, but that's not all there is to worry about.
Your fellow human (yfh)
QUOTE (StevenA+Jun 27 2006, 02:41 AM)
QUOTE
You don't think cycles of mass-extinction happened?

Evolution turned them into new opportunities for other life. Do you believe dinosaurs should still be around? (I don't think I'd care if I'd been a dinosaur but being human works fine too)

That's a rather partial question.
Not just dinosaurs got extinct.
I wont be happy if humanity goes extinct, either.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
You don't think cycles of mass-extinction happened?

Evolution turned them into new opportunities for other life. Do you believe dinosaurs should still be around? (I don't think I'd care if I'd been a dinosaur but being human works fine too)

That's a rather partial question.
Not just dinosaurs got extinct.
I wont be happy if humanity goes extinct, either.

QUOTE
A "superior" nation with a powerful military could over-power, consume and exploit any sort of non-militant nation, no-matter whether-or-not that exploited nation was more "environmentally-friendly", morally pure, intelligent, etc.
^
Therefor, "superiority" within times of competition consist of short-term goals.

But that isn't evolutionarily superior. You might as well say a cancer cell is evolutionarily superior to healthy cell but simply because it can destroy its neighbors or overpower them doesn't necessarily lead to a sustainable state (and is generally destructive) being able to destroy your neighbors and then die of deprivation yourself isn't "superior" in my book.

I never said a cancer cell was superior.

I said that short-term agressive powers will destroy long-term, peaceful powers.
Everything from Rome to USA will eventually crumble and die from the inside-out due to the corruption and cannibalism principals that I've listed in the OP.

Evolution encourages disunity.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
A "superior" nation with a powerful military could over-power, consume and exploit any sort of non-militant nation, no-matter whether-or-not that exploited nation was more "environmentally-friendly", morally pure, intelligent, etc.
^
Therefor, "superiority" within times of competition consist of short-term goals.

But that isn't evolutionarily superior. You might as well say a cancer cell is evolutionarily superior to healthy cell but simply because it can destroy its neighbors or overpower them doesn't necessarily lead to a sustainable state (and is generally destructive) being able to destroy your neighbors and then die of deprivation yourself isn't "superior" in my book.

I never said a cancer cell was superior.

I said that short-term agressive powers will destroy long-term, peaceful powers.
Everything from Rome to USA will eventually crumble and die from the inside-out due to the corruption and cannibalism principals that I've listed in the OP.

Evolution encourages disunity.

QUOTE
Today, what is being burnt up by civilization are the virgin resources.
Recycling is not as easy/"economic" as the exploit of virgin resource.


When should "virgin" resources be used and can't people relpace these if they become scarce? Maybe one piece of wood could be called "virgin" in some sense but in the long run wood decays ... what's virgin now, is dead later and new virgins arrive biggrin.gif (Ok, yes, pun intended) .... that's life. We plant new forests, we use other forms of energy when some become scarcer etc.

If resources become scarce (I know you'll hate this comment, so I have to put it in here) and market economy naturally reflects these in the costs to acquire the resources (unless it's a socialized system that attempts to provide a short term mask of the actual costs) speculation also provides leading indicators so that resources become more expensive before they are depleted because of the expectation of higher costs in the future - this naturally leads to competing suppliers. You don't need to attempt to plan out how many children a nation can support, like China, you simply allow the costs of resources to tell potential parents how expensive it is to use some amount of a product and this naturally drives people to search for replacements and innovate substitues or ways of replenishing them as more profits are available in that area.

user posted image
Hi, I'm modern economics, excuse me whilst I pump sewage into my own water-supply. It's less-expencive now, but it's gunnu cost us all our own children in the future!

I don't think that you understand the synthetic-scarcity principal that capitalism invokes.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Today, what is being burnt up by civilization are the virgin resources.
Recycling is not as easy/"economic" as the exploit of virgin resource.


When should "virgin" resources be used and can't people relpace these if they become scarce? Maybe one piece of wood could be called "virgin" in some sense but in the long run wood decays ... what's virgin now, is dead later and new virgins arrive biggrin.gif (Ok, yes, pun intended) .... that's life. We plant new forests, we use other forms of energy when some become scarcer etc.

If resources become scarce (I know you'll hate this comment, so I have to put it in here) and market economy naturally reflects these in the costs to acquire the resources (unless it's a socialized system that attempts to provide a short term mask of the actual costs) speculation also provides leading indicators so that resources become more expensive before they are depleted because of the expectation of higher costs in the future - this naturally leads to competing suppliers. You don't need to attempt to plan out how many children a nation can support, like China, you simply allow the costs of resources to tell potential parents how expensive it is to use some amount of a product and this naturally drives people to search for replacements and innovate substitues or ways of replenishing them as more profits are available in that area.

user posted image
Hi, I'm modern economics, excuse me whilst I pump sewage into my own water-supply. It's less-expencive now, but it's gunnu cost us all our own children in the future!

I don't think that you understand the synthetic-scarcity principal that capitalism invokes.

The real problems arise when we tolerate destruction done in the name of some non-existant entity and say we're justifying some abuse in order to save souls for God or harming individuals for the sake of society ... in both cases people are hurt for the benefit of something etherial.  Now, I admit that individual actions can harm large numbers of people and, for example, dumping 55 gallon drums of toxic materials into a lake isn't an action that only affects the person doing the dumping - in this case he's threatening harm to others and their property as well and such an action needs a just resolution but this is different than an outside entity claiming a community can't fish in a lake because they'll deplete the fishing resources ... it's those people with an immediate and prior vested interest in this resource that are the ones who are affected by this and should necessarily have control over the issue - they reap what they sow, instead of reaping what others force them to sow.

What does God have to do with it?
Morality is [only in the long-term] superior to hedonism & greed.
Evolution isn't about long-term stability/unity.

Example:
USA, Industrial-pork.
This is a short-term, unnessisary, money-sucking absurdom.
^ - My imperfect memory can't do justice to the mechanics of this perfect example of short-term, unnessisary ritches/pleasure causing deep harm to the future.

Basically, they sell something that people do not need, get ritch, but at the same time leave a far more costly effect on the environment and the non-renuable resources; they leave this cost to the future of humanity.

Corporate shams like these are incredibly irresponsable, but they also fit perfectly into the short term system that evolved.

I suggest that you research ecology facts industrial pork.

...

QUOTE
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Evolution has no forsight. It does not pre-plan itself and predict the far future.
No, but it's final and undeniable. Maybe evolution could have been better designed but it is what it is and people will pay the piper (of course noone should be forced to pay for someone elses ignorance of this though).

Evolution is not designed at all. Evolution is purely cause-and-effect. Evolution is the oxy-moronic primalism of our passed which is not going to die without taking us down with it.

QUOTE
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
All things on earth alive today are "nature".

Humanity is an example of nature's short-term, degenerating self-destructiveness.

Humans exist within synthetic-scarcity as they over-populate, waste and inequally distribute resources.

If there was no death, the world would overflow with life to the extent that no new life could even fit. If there was no inequality, there could be nothing better. Equality in itself isn't valuable - you could have a world of equally impoverished people and that's not an ideal I'd wish to inflict on anyone. Should everyone be just as tall and have the same dating successes etc.?

If there is too much reproduction, THEN the world overflows.

"Impoverished" is not a form of equality.

Distribution of resources should depend upon need, not want.

"Dating success" is a form of want, if it is liberalist.

As regards dating:
I want intelligent-selection to replace natural-selection.
Eugenics. Genetic-engineering.
^ - because genetic progress is needed, that need should be put above the want [which is a want for freebirth].
The health and well-being of the children should be put far, FAR above the shallow mating instincts of the parents.

QUOTE
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
That's exactly the problem!
The system is too short-term!
This might be true to an extent but it's only because that when the locusts are at work on the fields, it makes little sense to try to plant for the future. If we had a system where people could truly find long term benefits from their individual actions then they'd again become more long sighted but until that reurns to being the case you can expect a lot more short sighted decisions to be made.

Evolution takes millions of years to adjust to new changes or systems.

Suicides outnumber murders 3 to 2.
^ - this includes unhealthy life-styles & irresonsability.

Humans ALREADY have "had a system where people could truly find long term benefits from their individual actions then they'd again become more long sighted", and they still do!

Irresonsability is everywhere!
Natural-selection does not prevent indirect evils that spoil the far-future.

The survival tools of today -- upon any true victory -- will become the tools for destruction of the future.

The situation has changed.
It's like a defences that were meant to prevent a war -- start to cause more wars, and then more "defences" are build because of that, and then more wars are started.
^ this sort of viscious cycle -- applies to the natural instincts which helped the species survive in the first place.
StevenA
QUOTE
I wont be happy if humanity goes extinct, either.


Ok, same here but social conflict seems more likely to create this than environmental issues. The Earth could be a utopia but if people can't find a way to remain peaceful the beautiful landscape would be little compensation for the other problems. You can march a group of armed guys around for many purposes. Sometimes it's been to save souls or gain converts, sometimes it's been to enslave or conquer and doing it in the name of being environmentally friendly is no different, unless there truly is a legitimate grievance that needs to be addressed or it remains simply a power grab to further monopolize energy markets but controlling energy resources globally. What are the odds we went to Iraq to free Iraqies versus restrict foreign competition in the oil markets (look at the jump in oil prices right after "victory" as well as the emnity the media gives toward nuclear power and nations utilizing it, or attempting to do so). A lot of environmental propoganda (I'm not saying all of it is truly propoganda but there's plenty of b.s. being passed around) is actually distributed through oil companies and paid for by tax dollars ... guess what the odds are if you happened to head out into the middle of nowhere and find oil that you'd be left unmolested to extract it and compete against the big guys, versus the odds that you'd be put out of business due to some penguins or something, only to have the same oil later extracted by a company with the correct paperwork later? The fact that they picked CO2 as the only significant greenhouse gas despite the fact that the remaining 99.97% of the atmosphere, as well as the surface affects this also and of even that small fraction of a percent, most is naturally occuring anyway, along with Kyoto is purely obvious as an excuse to create a global monopoly over energy resources and you'll see every other nation that doesn't come lick their heels on the "to be harassed" list. CO2 isn't the only way to alter temperatures, not that we even need to alter temperatures until there's truly signs of a problem.

I admit there's some baggage in my posts against many environmental issues and claims. It's a bit sad because there are some legitimately real and tangible environmental issues that deserve consideration but the hyped flak tends to drive these to the sidelines. (I admit I'm partly guilty by responding more regarding the hyped fashionable issues than the real but less recognized ones, though that's partly because they don't make global headlines).



QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I wont be happy if humanity goes extinct, either.


Ok, same here but social conflict seems more likely to create this than environmental issues. The Earth could be a utopia but if people can't find a way to remain peaceful the beautiful landscape would be little compensation for the other problems. You can march a group of armed guys around for many purposes. Sometimes it's been to save souls or gain converts, sometimes it's been to enslave or conquer and doing it in the name of being environmentally friendly is no different, unless there truly is a legitimate grievance that needs to be addressed or it remains simply a power grab to further monopolize energy markets but controlling energy resources globally. What are the odds we went to Iraq to free Iraqies versus restrict foreign competition in the oil markets (look at the jump in oil prices right after "victory" as well as the emnity the media gives toward nuclear power and nations utilizing it, or attempting to do so). A lot of environmental propoganda (I'm not saying all of it is truly propoganda but there's plenty of b.s. being passed around) is actually distributed through oil companies and paid for by tax dollars ... guess what the odds are if you happened to head out into the middle of nowhere and find oil that you'd be left unmolested to extract it and compete against the big guys, versus the odds that you'd be put out of business due to some penguins or something, only to have the same oil later extracted by a company with the correct paperwork later? The fact that they picked CO2 as the only significant greenhouse gas despite the fact that the remaining 99.97% of the atmosphere, as well as the surface affects this also and of even that small fraction of a percent, most is naturally occuring anyway, along with Kyoto is purely obvious as an excuse to create a global monopoly over energy resources and you'll see every other nation that doesn't come lick their heels on the "to be harassed" list. CO2 isn't the only way to alter temperatures, not that we even need to alter temperatures until there's truly signs of a problem.

I admit there's some baggage in my posts against many environmental issues and claims. It's a bit sad because there are some legitimately real and tangible environmental issues that deserve consideration but the hyped flak tends to drive these to the sidelines. (I admit I'm partly guilty by responding more regarding the hyped fashionable issues than the real but less recognized ones, though that's partly because they don't make global headlines).



QUOTE
But that isn't evolutionarily superior.  You might as well say a cancer cell is evolutionarily superior to healthy cell but simply because it can destroy its neighbors or overpower them doesn't necessarily lead to a sustainable state (and is generally destructive) being able to destroy your neighbors and then die of deprivation yourself isn't "superior" in my book.


I never said a cancer cell was superior.

I said that short-term agressive powers will destroy long-term, peaceful powers.
Everything from Rome to USA will eventually crumble and die from the inside-out due to the corruption and cannibalism principals that I've listed in the OP.

Evolution encourages disunity.


One issue is that technology has advanced faster than evolution. Evolution in the past revolved around more communal sociaties. When a small community is isolated and dependent upon its own merits to survive, then things like sacrifice and unity can benefit this and tend to be promoted evolutionarily. Imagine two small villages isolated in the middle of winter, though the genetics from person to person in one of these might vary slightly for most intents and purposes each community had a separate gene that was mostly shared by everyone there. Under those circumstances, developing either genetic or social traits that tended to take a "community first" view could be socially or genetically beneficial, but as this isolation is removed this no longer becomes the case. If one villiage developed destructive habits, an isolation would be needed between the two villiages to assure the corruption didn't spread and destroy both villiages. In that case it could even be destructive to both communities make sacrifices in order to keep corruption alive. The only necessary requirement to assure corruption doesn't set in and spread is simply to allow each villiage to live by their own merit ... good fences make good neighbors. Now in the case of pollution there is no easy way to assure such a fence exists and that's where we have to use some rationality in determining if some real harm has been done to someone.

I guess a bit more to the point, I agree with you that tyrannous and militarized methods of "social interaction" are doomed. I put it in terms of cancer and you said the same thing. The issue is that noone really has to try to judge what's corrupt or not - you simply expect people not to tromp around with armed guys in other peoples back yards or otherwise harm their neighbors and what's sustainable or not nature can determine. I'll admit that it would be nice to have a perfect black and white method of determining how to deal with every issue but that's wishful thinking as even if a perfect one existed, in my opinion, it wouldn't necessarily be agreed to by others so instead the rule of thumb is that you take care of your backyard and I'll worry about mine. If there's a legitimate problem of something creeping out of my yard and damaging yours, then if it's not obvious what harm's been done there needs to be at least some proof of this and not simply repetitions of dire predictions that seem to never pan out and even if somehow these predictions end up being true that still doesn't give anyone the right to dictate specifics other than to stop this damage being done ... for example, if people were making the world too warm that doesn't mean a worldwide agency controlling energy resources is created but instead simply means that some compensatory actions in various ways would be needed to address this which could include a variety of alternate methods of controlling temperatures.

You hear cries that New Orleans was due to global warming, rising sea levels, greater storms etc. and that we need to gain global control over this in order to stop it. That's all bogus. The sea level doesn't rise near one city alone, nor was the storm even worse than other storms New Orleans had survived before. If fact it was government that took control of the levies and let them fail that's the same institution we're now expected to hand control of the weather over (somehow). These are just power plays, the sea level isn't rising. Forests are more prevalent now (at least in the U.S.) than ever before and at least here in California we've still had some record colds and rain hasn't been scarce at all. There was a massive dustbowl in the midwest a long time ago and if those trends had been increasing why wouldn't such things be happening more and more often? I admit that effects to improve the air quality in Los Angeles have worked and the yellow haze of smog that was prevalent decades ago has largely vanished. I'll give credit when it's due (though there might be ways of doing this more efficiently ... just thinking out loud).

Yes, I'm rambling as usual.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
But that isn't evolutionarily superior.  You might as well say a cancer cell is evolutionarily superior to healthy cell but simply because it can destroy its neighbors or overpower them doesn't necessarily lead to a sustainable state (and is generally destructive) being able to destroy your neighbors and then die of deprivation yourself isn't "superior" in my book.


I never said a cancer cell was superior.

I said that short-term agressive powers will destroy long-term, peaceful powers.
Everything from Rome to USA will eventually crumble and die from the inside-out due to the corruption and cannibalism principals that I've listed in the OP.

Evolution encourages disunity.


One issue is that technology has advanced faster than evolution. Evolution in the past revolved around more communal sociaties. When a small community is isolated and dependent upon its own merits to survive, then things like sacrifice and unity can benefit this and tend to be promoted evolutionarily. Imagine two small villages isolated in the middle of winter, though the genetics from person to person in one of these might vary slightly for most intents and purposes each community had a separate gene that was mostly shared by everyone there. Under those circumstances, developing either genetic or social traits that tended to take a "community first" view could be socially or genetically beneficial, but as this isolation is removed this no longer becomes the case. If one villiage developed destructive habits, an isolation would be needed between the two villiages to assure the corruption didn't spread and destroy both villiages. In that case it could even be destructive to both communities make sacrifices in order to keep corruption alive. The only necessary requirement to assure corruption doesn't set in and spread is simply to allow each villiage to live by their own merit ... good fences make good neighbors. Now in the case of pollution there is no easy way to assure such a fence exists and that's where we have to use some rationality in determining if some real harm has been done to someone.

I guess a bit more to the point, I agree with you that tyrannous and militarized methods of "social interaction" are doomed. I put it in terms of cancer and you said the same thing. The issue is that noone really has to try to judge what's corrupt or not - you simply expect people not to tromp around with armed guys in other peoples back yards or otherwise harm their neighbors and what's sustainable or not nature can determine. I'll admit that it would be nice to have a perfect black and white method of determining how to deal with every issue but that's wishful thinking as even if a perfect one existed, in my opinion, it wouldn't necessarily be agreed to by others so instead the rule of thumb is that you take care of your backyard and I'll worry about mine. If there's a legitimate problem of something creeping out of my yard and damaging yours, then if it's not obvious what harm's been done there needs to be at least some proof of this and not simply repetitions of dire predictions that seem to never pan out and even if somehow these predictions end up being true that still doesn't give anyone the right to dictate specifics other than to stop this damage being done ... for example, if people were making the world too warm that doesn't mean a worldwide agency controlling energy resources is created but instead simply means that some compensatory actions in various ways would be needed to address this which could include a variety of alternate methods of controlling temperatures.

You hear cries that New Orleans was due to global warming, rising sea levels, greater storms etc. and that we need to gain global control over this in order to stop it. That's all bogus. The sea level doesn't rise near one city alone, nor was the storm even worse than other storms New Orleans had survived before. If fact it was government that took control of the levies and let them fail that's the same institution we're now expected to hand control of the weather over (somehow). These are just power plays, the sea level isn't rising. Forests are more prevalent now (at least in the U.S.) than ever before and at least here in California we've still had some record colds and rain hasn't been scarce at all. There was a massive dustbowl in the midwest a long time ago and if those trends had been increasing why wouldn't such things be happening more and more often? I admit that effects to improve the air quality in Los Angeles have worked and the yellow haze of smog that was prevalent decades ago has largely vanished. I'll give credit when it's due (though there might be ways of doing this more efficiently ... just thinking out loud).

Yes, I'm rambling as usual.

Hi, I'm modern economics, excuse me whilst I pump sewage into my own water-supply. It's less-expencive now, but it's gunnu cost us all our own children in the future!

I don't think that you understand the synthetic-scarcity principal that capitalism invokes.


That's a lot better than the low tech alternative of taking a dump next to the lake and I'd assume you'd approve of recycling water resources.

QUOTE
What does God have to do with it?
Morality is [only in the long-term] superior to hedonism & greed.
Evolution isn't about long-term stability/unity.


I used "God" in a symbolic sense to indicate any type of crusade against some imagined evil. Environmental issues should be grounded in tangible facts and not imagined armageddons.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
What does God have to do with it?
Morality is [only in the long-term] superior to hedonism & greed.
Evolution isn't about long-term stability/unity.


I used "God" in a symbolic sense to indicate any type of crusade against some imagined evil. Environmental issues should be grounded in tangible facts and not imagined armageddons.

Example:
USA, Industrial-pork.
This is a short-term, unnessisary, money-sucking absurdom.
^ - My imperfect memory can't do justice to the mechanics of this perfect example of short-term, unnessisary ritches/pleasure causing deep harm to the future.


To an extent you're correct. There is an problem with government not serving as a just arbitrar in disputes but instead of serving to promote legal monopolization of industries. We do have many powerful individuals in bed with government but this isn't solely limited to corruption in the U.S., it also exists in many attempts to gain international control as well ... anytime you place a lot of power in a limited number of hands it serves as a focal point for corruption.

But these problems aren't a direct result of industrialization or capitalist markets. They're a result of denying these in favor of centralized economic controls, and even in some ways global (it shouldn't take hundreds of pages of documents to define what "free trade" means ... any institution claiming to promote free trade that needs reams of details is a front to denying this).

Basically the only way to resolve these things is to go back to the basics of private ownership and free exchange. If someone dumps stuff in your water or on your land or slips you known hazardous materials in your food, you should be free to seek justice (in the U.S. this should be a trial by jury and not the FDA or EPA etc. these large federal agencies are often more interested in protecting their own than in provide a just resolution, not to mention that many issues don't need to share a common federal control over them and instead should be addressed locally)

QUOTE
Basically, they sell something that people do not need, get ritch, but at the same time leave a far more costly effect on the environment and the non-renuable resources; they leave this cost to the future of humanity.


Well if someone didn't need then they shouldn't buy it. Do you need electricity to use your computer or is that a luxury you should pass up?

And regarding the environment ... why should you need to rely on the EPA or Kyoto etc. to define what harm you've personally experienced via. pollution or global warming etc. In the U.S. it should be as simple as a class action lawsuit by people who feel they've been harmed in some manner. (No, I don't believe you've likely been harmed by global warming so I know which way I'd vote if I were a juror but that's beside the point ... maybe someday the claim would seem more legitimate).

I admit I love to complain about a lot of things, but you've got to be careful when you're talking about enforcing some new ideas on people. There's a limit to how much abuse people will put up with by their government. It's good to make sure the issues that government policies address are those that generally understood as beneficial or the resistance builds.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Basically, they sell something that people do not need, get ritch, but at the same time leave a far more costly effect on the environment and the non-renuable resources; they leave this cost to the future of humanity.


Well if someone didn't need then they shouldn't buy it. Do you need electricity to use your computer or is that a luxury you should pass up?

And regarding the environment ... why should you need to rely on the EPA or Kyoto etc. to define what harm you've personally experienced via. pollution or global warming etc. In the U.S. it should be as simple as a class action lawsuit by people who feel they've been harmed in some manner. (No, I don't believe you've likely been harmed by global warming so I know which way I'd vote if I were a juror but that's beside the point ... maybe someday the claim would seem more legitimate).

I admit I love to complain about a lot of things, but you've got to be careful when you're talking about enforcing some new ideas on people. There's a limit to how much abuse people will put up with by their government. It's good to make sure the issues that government policies address are those that generally understood as beneficial or the resistance builds.

Corporate shams like these are incredibly irresponsable, but they also fit perfectly into the short term system that evolved.

I suggest that you research ecology facts industrial pork.


I agree with you that America seems to be being trashed and shipped overseas though I likely disagree on many of the solutions. I don't see corporations as the direct cause but instead a decay in government that allows the King to be swooned by whoever offers to line his pockets the most. If we truly had a capitalist society, government couldn't simply use emminent domain to steal land and though I love Ayn Rand, I don't believe thoughts and ideas are private property in the same sense that physical property is. It's difficult to highlight the many and various ways that people are ripped off and artificially impeded in many ways by things like fiat currency, emminent domain, property taxes (imagine you have to pay rent on something you could have built with your own two hands) and I.P. laws etc. It's too numerous and I don't believe things are going to be ultimately fixed by working within the system (if voting could actually fix anything it would already be illegal). Ultimately when the house of cards tumbles, people will learn what's real and what propoganda. Let's just hope it's not too painful of a learning process. I call that nature and evolution but people are free to call it what they want or wish things worked some other way, but ultimately cold hard reality wins out over propoganda.

I wish you luck.
SENT
Hello YFH, StevenA,

QUOTE
Ideally, "Natural-Selection" should be replaced by intelligent-selection.
That means eugenics, state-controlled breeding.


This is an opinion, not fact. Ideally people would limit their own breeding. Government or state controlled breeding would have to be enforced, and short of putting sterilization drugs in the water or installing some kind of nano enforcer into the reproductive organs at birth, this is an unenforceable idea.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Ideally, "Natural-Selection" should be replaced by intelligent-selection.
That means eugenics, state-controlled breeding.


This is an opinion, not fact. Ideally people would limit their own breeding. Government or state controlled breeding would have to be enforced, and short of putting sterilization drugs in the water or installing some kind of nano enforcer into the reproductive organs at birth, this is an unenforceable idea.

Today there is no "agressive minority", there is an agressive majority.
Once the over-consumption peaks & there just isn't enough for everyone, the cannibalism will set in and militarily superior nations will eat the weak ones.


This assumes that once the over-consumption peaks that humanity will seek to dominate what we've always consumed rather than seeking or producing new consumables, or easily reproducible derivatives of old consumables.

QUOTE

QUOTE (->
QUOTE


QUOTE

I realize that evolution was not built for sustainability.

Why not? What leads you to this conclusion? While I'd agree that it's taken a LONG time to get to where we are, you must admit, when we move forward we sometimes take BIG steps. As a whole we advance more slowly due to our fear of change, and our lack of understanding of the progress we've made, but we're still going forward.

Cyclic extinctions.
"Progress" -- gone.


The cyclic extinctions were a result of events outside of biological control, but we have more of a chance now more than ever of controlling our destiny.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

I realize that evolution was not built for sustainability.


Why not? What leads you to this conclusion? While I'd agree that it's taken a LONG time to get to where we are, you must admit, when we move forward we sometimes take BIG steps. As a whole we advance more slowly due to our fear of change, and our lack of understanding of the progress we've made, but we're still going forward.

Cyclic extinctions.
"Progress" -- gone.


The cyclic extinctions were a result of events outside of biological control, but we have more of a chance now more than ever of controlling our destiny.


If another species made humanity extinct, you wouldn't be hear singing about la-la-land. Right you you're very VERY far away from the victims. You're at the opposite side of the scale. It's all fantastic from your view point.


Yep, it's all fantastic from my point of view because I'm going to make the best of my time here, and try to make it a suitable place for my children to have a fantastic time too. I'd rather spend my time fixing the things within my control than complaining about the things beyond it.

QUOTE
The universe? The universe doesn't give a damn about the earth. [ex: history of asteriods and mass extinctions in the passed.]

"all these brains" -- like anything human -- is a two-edged sword, driven by an out-of-date set of insticts.


How do you know the universe doesn't care? You don't. These "out-of-date" set of instincts have driven us quite far, and we're beginning to understand more and more about what it means to live on this planet, and as a result we're learning more and more of what we should and should not do.

I don't buy into this whole pessimistic viewpoint you have about life on earth. I find it strange that when one looks for a circumstance to fit their view they find it, yet you seem content to search out the negative. Not my way, but a way.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The universe? The universe doesn't give a damn about the earth. [ex: history of asteriods and mass extinctions in the passed.]

"all these brains" -- like anything human -- is a two-edged sword, driven by an out-of-date set of insticts.


How do you know the universe doesn't care? You don't. These "out-of-date" set of instincts have driven us quite far, and we're beginning to understand more and more about what it means to live on this planet, and as a result we're learning more and more of what we should and should not do.

I don't buy into this whole pessimistic viewpoint you have about life on earth. I find it strange that when one looks for a circumstance to fit their view they find it, yet you seem content to search out the negative. Not my way, but a way.

QUOTE

So I guess my answer would be, I don't know, but we're in this together and I'd rather make it a pleasant experience than sit around worrying about something that may or may not be inevitable. If it is inevitable, all we CAN do is enjoy the ride, but if not then we can at least be prepared for the possibility of having to prevent it.

What are you talking about?

You're an "energy-worker"?
I thought you said it at another thread.

For this reason, you have an optamistic attitude about all higher powers and unknown forces. I see that in your posts.

I think that sort of trust and peace is a form of bias.


I'm talking about looking at the bright side while being aware of the dark.

Yes, I'm a reiki healer, and as such I've been made very aware of the impact of stress, and negative thought patterns so I choose to be upbeat.

It may be a form of bias, but my stress level is VERY low, and I see no reason to be otherwise. To choose to look at the negative aspects of humanity tends to bring out those negative aspects, so I choose to see the beauty, and allow that to be what I try to bring out in others.

It's Ok that you're aware of the negative aspects of life, but to make them your focus is very limiting, and seriously unhealthy. I see the negative in this world, but the negative shouldn't be preached as the inevitable when we still have time to do something about it. All we can do is be an example of what we believe to be true, change what is within our power to change, and hold on to the ideas we want our children to flourish in. THAT is what I am doing.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.