More OT Political Stuff

Discussion in 'rec.music.guitar' started by Richard, Aug 10, 2003.

  1. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "'nuther Bob" <norealaddy@somephonydomain.com> wrote in message
    news:u6vckv0behc2vlop92iu6b3trrcahhtqa5@4ax.com...
    >
    > That's certainly a short list but you get the point. From a clear
    > viewpoint you can see that the planet is pretty fscked up. Your kids
    > and grandchildren are going to inherit a badly polluted Earth and one
    > quite a bit different from that our Grandfathers left to us.
    >

    And I agree we are making the earth uninhabitable, but that's not the
    same as "killing the earth", that was alls I was saying IndEEd, bromandude.

    ryanm
  2. On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 13:51:11 -0600, "ryanm"
    <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> spewed forth:

    >"Richard" <rh310@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >news:MPG.19af82d9a41c4bbf9897ed@news.verizon.net...
    >>
    >> That's not my mistake. If you review your own comments you can see
    >> the anthropomorphizing starts there: "mother earth doesn't give two
    >> shits", "[living things] are simply parasites from the earth's
    >> perspective", "earth could live several hundred thousand miles closer
    >> to the sun", and even the "we're irrelevant to the planet" above.
    >> Now, maybe that's just you using language very badly, but all of
    >> those expressions carry the connotation of the earth as a living,
    >> conscious entity with a point of view.
    >>
    >> I carried it over deliberately, so as to talk about this in the terms
    >> you expressed it in.
    >>

    > That's true, but it's one thing to say "from the earth's perspective"
    >which is putting yourself in the position of the earth to gain perspective,
    >or "the earth could live closer" suggesting only relative position (and used
    >only because the word "live" was referring to two things, the earth and life
    >on it), or "we're irrelevant to the planet" suggesting only lack of lasting
    >impression (same as "doesn't give two shits"). It's a whole new level of
    >anthropomorphism to say the earth "nurtures and cherishes" anything. You
    >carried it over deliberately to the extreme. I only lent perspective, you
    >have the earth singing and dancing and playing guitar. This is a good
    >example of the modern debating skills someone mentioned earlier in the
    >thread.
    >
    >ryanm
    >


    I'm more of a creationist. The way I see it we're still in day seven
    and god is resting. I just don't want to be around when he wakes up
    and sees what we've done to this place.

    Ken Wilson

    Amer. Dlx. Tele, Gary Moore LP,
    Jeff Beck Strat, Morgan OM Acoustic,
    Rick 360/12, Standard Strat (MIM),
    Mesa 100 Nomad, Mesa F-30

    "Just because people don't understand
    you doesn't mean you are an artist"
  3. On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 20:06:36 GMT, "Dan Stanley" <vze2bjcf@verizon.net>
    spewed forth:

    >
    >"ryanm" <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> wrote in message
    >news:vkcoskhl440i90@corp.supernews.com...
    >> "Stephan Neuhaus" <neuhaus@cs.uni-sb.de> wrote in message
    >> news:bi4jf8$1ggmn$1@hades.rz.uni-saarland.de...
    >> >
    >> > Therefore, the earth has been plugging along for 4.6 billion years,
    >> > during the vast majority of which (77% and rising) there were many signs
    >> > of cellular life on it.
    >> >

    >> What about the first part when the earth was molten and unable to
    >> sustain life? That time doesn't count?
    >>

    >
    >It only seemed like that. Usually after my first cup of coffee I'm fine.
    >I swear, though, that I'm *never* eating a dozen chorizo stuffed chiles
    >releno at three AM again.
    >
    >Mother Earth
    >


    I assume you keep a good 20# CO2 extinguisher handy in the bathroom,
    hehehe ...

    Ken Wilson

    Amer. Dlx. Tele, Gary Moore LP,
    Jeff Beck Strat, Morgan OM Acoustic,
    Rick 360/12, Standard Strat (MIM),
    Mesa 100 Nomad, Mesa F-30

    "Just because people don't understand
    you doesn't mean you are an artist"
  4. As "ryanm" <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> so eloquently put:
    [] "Not A Speck Of Cereal" <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote in message
    [] news:rh9bkv4emdchsls5on9gd73hp6rd34s7t2@4ax.com...
    [] >
    [] > Damn straight. We can wipe out sentient life, produce a layer of
    [] > atmosphere that obliterates the balance of plant and animal life as we
    [] > now know it, but this is not damaging the planet.
    [] >
    [] > Oh sure, something would survive cataclysmic ecological stress, so
    [] > that validates our actions as non-damaging somehow.
    [] >
    [] > This rock will survive, no matter what, so our actions should never be
    [] > perceived as damaging to the ecostructure.
    [] >
    [] I said nothing about validating any actions, I said we're not "killing
    [] the earth". The earth doesn't give two shits about us or what we do, and
    [] like I said, short of knocking the thing out of orbit or literally cracking
    [] it wide open (like with a massive nuclear blast or something), there is very
    [] little we *could* do to actually damage the earth.

    So turning it into a lifeless solar satellite is not "killing the
    planet" to you. Okay.

    [] Kill everything on it,
    [] and the earth will go on. And probably make more life after everything has
    [] chilled out for a while.

    Maybe, maybe not. It is entirely possible that we could destroy life
    on this planet irrevocably. Why do you have a problem with this
    concept?

    ----
    "...there would have been no Holdsworth or
    Hendrix without the genius of Boxcar Willie"
    -- Mark Garvin
    Remove X's from my email address above to reply
    [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
  5. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "Not A Speck Of Cereal" <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote in message
    news:2trdkvoq2m02khe889ed0ghq4so0t36ukr@4ax.com...
    >
    > So turning it into a lifeless solar satellite is not "killing the
    > planet" to you. Okay.
    >

    Nope, that's killing ourselves.

    > Maybe, maybe not. It is entirely possible that we could destroy life
    > on this planet irrevocably. Why do you have a problem with this
    > concept?
    >

    I don't. It's just not the same thing as the feel good rhetoric of
    "killing the earth", we're killing ourselves, which is probably better for
    the earth in the long run anyway.

    ryanm
  6. As "ryanm" <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> so eloquently put:
    [] "Not A Speck Of Cereal" <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote in message
    [...]
    [] > Maybe, maybe not. It is entirely possible that we could destroy life
    [] > on this planet irrevocably. Why do you have a problem with this
    [] > concept?
    [] >
    [] I don't. It's just not the same thing as the feel good rhetoric of
    [] "killing the earth", we're killing ourselves,

    Nope, we're killing more than ourselves and have the potential to
    destroy nearly everything. In fact, we're still here, long after
    causing other species to become extinct.

    Chris

    ----
    "...there would have been no Holdsworth or
    Hendrix without the genius of Boxcar Willie"
    -- Mark Garvin
    Remove X's from my email address above to reply
    [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
  7. As Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> so eloquently put:
    [] Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:
    [....]
    [] > I would be interested to hear more of your viewpoints regarding point
    [] > 1.
    [...]
    [] I'm not terribly enamored with our current policy of "only people who
    [] don't read the paper or watch TV can be good jurors." However, the
    [] problem I personally observed had less to do with the jury per se than
    [] with the pre-filtering of the evidence the jury was even allowed to see.

    [... story snipped ...]

    That's pretty cruel. I'd call it another case of blind justice, were
    it not for the apparent bias on the judges part. No appeal, eh? Wait,
    let me guess:

    [] Oh, and one last thing. If you are accused of a serious crime, your
    [] defense attorney can suck you, your family, and even your friends (if
    [] they're willing) completely dry financially and still give at best a
    [] half-hearted and/or incompetent defense. You'll get bills for tens of
    [] thousands of dollars and have no idea what the attorney did, if anything
    [] at all, to earn that money. And by the time you realize what's
    [] happening, it's too late to fire him and hire someone better.

    He couldn't afford an appeal, right?

    I know this bad lawyer scenario first hand. My ex and I had such a
    case (personal injury from a car accident). We realized he was
    incompetent after about 1/2 a year, but we didn't seek to replace him
    until a year or more had gone by. Nobody else would touch it.

    Now, 20 years later, the ex still suffers from the effects of the
    accident and only last year was able to obtain reasonable employment,
    but she was only compensated for $20k (settlement--we cut our losses
    rather than hope this asshole could actually perform in court).

    Years later, she got 3 times that much for a bungled repair of a
    broken little finger (negligence) without even trying or having
    representation -- the insurance company just offered it

    NONE of that compares to your friends woes--it only relates to the
    example of having a poor attorney.

    Chris

    ----
    "...there would have been no Holdsworth or
    Hendrix without the genius of Boxcar Willie"
    -- Mark Garvin
    Remove X's from my email address above to reply
    [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
  8. As jshinal_REMOVE_THIS_PART@mindspring.com (John S. Shinal) so
    eloquently put:
    [] Les Cargill wrote:
    []
    [] Les, Richard, Speck, et. al. - there has been some really
    [] interesting critical and adventurous thinking in this thread - it's
    [] nice to see.

    This is a gun newsgroup, after all.

    [] >It's controversial whether it's true or not, but population growth
    [] >has apparently slowed dramatically in places.
    []
    [] The treatise that impressed me (log ago, forgotten source) was
    [] that humans breed based on infant and child mortality.

    But we can certainly put a twist on nature here. China's full of
    ultrasound machines now, thanks to their one-child policy. They've
    been aborting female pregnancies so much (especially on the 2nd child)
    that the male to female ration is getting quite unbalanced. I wonder
    how that will affect breeding their over the next few generations.
    Could be trouble.

    [] Thus when
    [] people can be relatively safe and raise children to adulthood, they
    [] tend to breed less. Not an absolute, but there is some correlation.

    Works for me. The sister breeds, so I don't have to. I get to take
    pictures of them, but I don't have to pay any bills. Heh.

    [...]
    [] >> That will wipe
    [] >> us out, or a big asteroid, whichever comes first. We're just a blimp
    [] >> on the meter compared to the dinosaurs. Let's not forget that for all
    [] >> their lack of "intelligence", they lasted a couple hundred million
    [] >> years. We ain't gonna make it that long.
    [] >
    [] >You never know. I think it's impossible *to* know for sure.
    []
    [] Certainly. If you go disrupting temporal causality, I'm going
    [] to be *very* annoyed. Right before I vanish in a puff of logic.

    Eeze alright, it would just be this reality. We still have all'a other
    infinite alternate realities, including the one where a Tyrannosaur
    snared me in a net this morning.

    "Get yer paws of me, you damned dirty dinosaur!"

    Chris

    ----
    "...there would have been no Holdsworth or
    Hendrix without the genius of Boxcar Willie"
    -- Mark Garvin
    Remove X's from my email address above to reply
    [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
  9. As "ryanm" <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> so eloquently put:
    [] "Richard" <rh310@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    [] > All I asked for was the degree of precision in your statement. The
    [] > answer is, "Not very much." This isn't a bad thing, it just wasn't
    [] > clear until your reply.
    [] >
    [] I disagree. The earth has been plugging along for millions of years,
    [] during the vast majority of which there was no sign of any kind of life on
    [] it. Same when we're gone. In the long run, we won't even leave a mark.

    The only trouble with your logic here (and it's a pretty big hole, to
    be sure), is that only in our time has their been a species on this
    planet that has become capable of "destroying the planet". I believe
    you can guess what species that is.

    As far as we know. I mean, baring extra-terrestial life, I don't know
    of any dinosaur or plant life capable of nuclear war. Heck, we don't
    need nukes to do it. Word:

    Natural extinction rates over tens of thousands of years is estimated
    to be about 1 to 10 species per year.

    The current species extinction rate is estimated between 100-1000.
    Some sources site a species per day.

    [] > There's exactly as much evidence that the earth considers life as
    [] > hitchhiking "pests" as there is evidence that the earth that nurtures
    [] > and cherishes each species: None.
    [] >
    [] Your mistake is in giving human attributes, such as consideration, to
    [] the earth. We're irrelevant to the planet, just as before we existed.

    Nope. We're the first species with the ability to not only have the
    upper hand over mother earth, but can continue to do so while being
    aware of what we're doing.

    Chris

    ----
    "...there would have been no Holdsworth or
    Hendrix without the genius of Boxcar Willie"
    -- Mark Garvin
    Remove X's from my email address above to reply
    [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
  10. Odin

    Odin Guest

    "Not A Speck Of Cereal" <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote in message

    > [] > Maybe, maybe not. It is entirely possible that we could destroy life
    > [] > on this planet irrevocably. Why do you have a problem with this
    > [] > concept?
    > [] >
    > [] I don't. It's just not the same thing as the feel good rhetoric of
    > [] "killing the earth", we're killing ourselves,
    >
    > Nope, we're killing more than ourselves and have the potential to
    > destroy nearly everything. In fact, we're still here, long after
    > causing other species to become extinct.


    Not to wade into this thread too deep (I'm kinda bored by it all, but I'll
    throw this out there)......why should an atheist care if we destroy the
    Earth? I mean, 2 atoms will collide and make a new Earth eventually so
    what's the big deal? There's no moral issue of destroying an accidental
    planet is there?
  11. "ryanm" <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> wrote in message
    news:vkcpc21b4n4719@corp.supernews.com...
    <snip>
    > you
    > have the earth singing and dancing and playing guitar.

    <snip>
    If earth is gonna play the guitar, it'll have to be a Tele. Sorry, but it
    had to be said....;+)
  12. Atlas

    Atlas Guest

    x-no-archive: yes

    On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 06:46:12 GMT, "Odin" <res0jmoj@REMOVEverizon.net>
    wrote:

    >Not to wade into this thread too deep (I'm kinda bored by it all, but I'll
    >throw this out there)......why should an atheist care if we destroy the
    >Earth? I mean, 2 atoms will collide and make a new Earth eventually so
    >what's the big deal? There's no moral issue of destroying an accidental
    >planet is there?


    Think about it this way. Way over 90% of the species which
    appeared on this planet are extinct - and became extinct before man
    ever appeared here.

    I happen to agree with Ryan. We aren't destroying the earth.
    We cannot destroy the earth.

    What we can do is to make the earth inhabitable for our own
    survival. So instead of "saving the earth", perhaps we should
    rephrase it to read "save our own inhabitat". Because the earth isn't
    going anywhere. We are. We will eventually become extinct...and the
    earth will continue for another couple of billion years.



    Atlas
    --
    http://www.geocities.com/cbpdoc/DiscHerniation_Main.html
  13. Atlas

    Atlas Guest

    x-no-archive: yes

    On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 11:45:15 GMT, "Robert Barker"
    <rwbarker@spambegonecox.net> wrote:

    >If earth is gonna play the guitar, it'll have to be a Tele. Sorry, but it
    >had to be said....;+)


    Yeah, I think you gotta point thar. The Tele is the
    "cockroach" of guitars. It'll survive a nuclear holocaust.



    Atlas
    --
    http://www.geocities.com/cbpdoc/DiscHerniation_Main.html
  14. Grant

    Grant Guest

    Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:
    > As Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> so eloquently put:


    >
    > [] Oh, and one last thing. If you are accused of a serious crime, your
    > [] defense attorney can suck you, your family, and even your friends (if
    > [] they're willing) completely dry financially and still give at best a
    > [] half-hearted and/or incompetent defense. You'll get bills for tens of
    > [] thousands of dollars and have no idea what the attorney did, if anything
    > [] at all, to earn that money. And by the time you realize what's
    > [] happening, it's too late to fire him and hire someone better.
    >
    > He couldn't afford an appeal, right?
    >


    *He* couldn't. But his parents and a few friends continued to pour
    money down the rathole for quite a while. I don't recall the deal with
    the appeal, but it went nowhere, possibly because there weren't
    sufficiently egregious errors on the part of the judge or defense that
    could be pointed out.

    There was an attempt to win post-conviction relief (not the same as an
    appeal), that was denied (I attended the hearing and thought the defense
    arguments went well; that the three judges (or at least two of the
    three) were sympathetic and that the prosecution case was pathetic --
    embarrasssing even, in it's illogic, ill-preparedness and lack of
    substantive rebuttals to the defense arguments. We were all stunned,
    therefore, when the final decision basically echoed the prosecution's
    half-baked arguments. It's almost as if the judges made a *political*
    decision not to appear to be "soft" on criminals.

    >
    > NONE of that compares to your friends woes--it only relates to the
    > example of having a poor attorney.


    Not surprisingly, there are good and bad lawyers. But what really
    opened my eyes is the *degree* to which your fate hangs on the
    competence and motivation of someone you basically pick at random out of
    a phone book, and on their almost total lack of accountability as they
    burn through your assets which, in his case, included all of his
    possessions and the equity in his house, once his bank account was
    empty. I came away feeling that the legal profession is at least
    partly a legal shakedown racket.

    - Grant
  15. Richard

    Richard Guest

    XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX wrote...
    > As "ryanm" <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> so eloquently put:
    > [] "Richard" <rh310@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > [] > All I asked for was the degree of precision in your statement. The
    > [] > answer is, "Not very much." This isn't a bad thing, it just wasn't
    > [] > clear until your reply.
    > [] >
    > [] I disagree. The earth has been plugging along for millions of years,
    > [] during the vast majority of which there was no sign of any kind of life on
    > [] it. Same when we're gone. In the long run, we won't even leave a mark.
    >
    > The only trouble with your logic here (and it's a pretty big hole, to
    > be sure), is that only in our time has their been a species on this
    > planet that has become capable of "destroying the planet". I believe
    > you can guess what species that is.


    Well, technically, Ryan is effectively correct within the narrow
    confines of his point: That people who describe the irreversible
    damage being done to ecosystems as 'damaging the earth' crack him up
    because the earth, per se, is a big rock and we're not hurting that.

    It isn't much of a point, I'll grant you, but that's really what his
    point is and there's no reason to argue it. Yeah, if we put our
    minds to it we could probably figure out a way to split the earth in
    two, or knock down the Andes--but there's no money in that, so those
    with short-sighted commercial interests will limit themselves to
    destroying ecosystems, wiping out habitats, poisoning the air and
    water from the standpoint of what living things need, and so on.

    Just don't call that 'damaging the earth,' Ryan sez. Even cases
    where we've strip-mined the sides of mountains away aren't really
    damaging the earth, because a few million years after we're gone
    it'll all be covered up and it won't leave a mark.

    Again, it's not much of a point--but we may as well give it to him.

    --
    "Leave the donkeys to their thistles." -- old Persian saying
  16. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "Not A Speck Of Cereal" <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote in message
    news:ua0jkv4doom13k8dq8ljlfpkt22ms5egc1@4ax.com...
    >
    > The only trouble with your logic here (and it's a pretty big hole, to
    > be sure), is that only in our time has their been a species on this
    > planet that has become capable of "destroying the planet". I believe
    > you can guess what species that is.
    >

    Except that even if we got all the nukes on the planet together and
    buried them a mile below the surface and detonated them all at once, we may
    or may not even make a lasting mark on the planet. I don't know that we're
    even capable of doing real damage to the planet itself. The things trying to
    live on it, sure, we can (and do) do all kinds of damage to them, but I was
    never a proponent of the idea that the things living on the surface are part
    of the planet itself. In order for a symbiotic relationship to exist, the
    planet would need to benefit from our (meaning all life) presence, and
    there's no evidence that it does. None of the other planets we can observe
    seem to suffer due to lack of life on their surface. What tangible benefit
    is gained by the panet by having life on it's surface?

    > Nope. We're the first species with the ability to not only have the
    > upper hand over mother earth, but can continue to do so while being
    > aware of what we're doing.
    >

    I'm not sure what you mean by having the upper hand. I also think you're
    confusing the earth with nature, and I don't see those as the same. Nature
    operates on all planets all over the universe, and is simply the laws that
    apply to the systems at work on those planets, even those without life. We
    may have the upper hand over nature and even be able to defy nature
    (outliving serious injury or illness, etc), but that's not the same thing as
    having the upper hand over a planet, which we don't have any apparent impact
    on in the long run, short of being a source of fossil fuels after we die.

    ryanm
  17. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "Not A Speck Of Cereal" <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote in message
    news:pasikvog7c8hg3rr1jo0ip4ebhikir2acs@4ax.com...
    >
    > Nope, we're killing more than ourselves and have the potential to
    > destroy nearly everything. In fact, we're still here, long after
    > causing other species to become extinct.
    >

    Again with the egocentric "destroying everything". Why is the tiny bump
    on the meter that we call life on this planet "everything"? Many more
    species became extinct before we even existed than we have caused to become
    extinct. And what makes you think this isn't simply a part of nature, which
    you claim we have the upper hand over? Maybe this is all in accordance with
    nature, and is happening exactly as intended. You still haven't shown how
    we're damaging the earth, either. You can talk about killing the parasites
    that live on the surface all day long, but as far as I can see, that would
    only benefit the earth.

    ryanm
  18. Richard

    Richard Guest

    ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com wrote...
    > "Richard" <rh310@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >
    > > It isn't much of a point, I'll grant you, but that's really what his
    > > point is and there's no reason to argue it.
    > >

    > The real lesson to be taken from my point is that maybe if we practiced
    > a little more honesty in our language it might, through osmosis, begin to
    > affect our thoughts and actions.


    It's hard to take your call for honesty in language too seriously,
    after you--as an easy example--misquote people as saying the earth is
    a thing that sings, dances and plays guitar.

    Honest communication is sure easier to critique than do, isn't it?

    > To me, "we're making the earth
    > uninhabitable" makes a much more important statement than "we're killing the
    > earth", not only because the second is a joke, but because it actually
    > describes what is happening accurately and at the same time makes it relate
    > to the reader.


    Well, it depends on the reader. Apparently, not everybody reads "the
    earth" as meaning "the big rock" like some people seem to.

    > And, about the "commercial interests" who are "destroying ecosystems,
    > wiping out habitats, poisoning the air and water", that's a load of crap
    > too. *We* do the damage, by buying the products they produce. As long as
    > someone will buy it they will make it, and no amount of legislation or
    > regulation will work, because there are too many places outside of our
    > influence where industry will go if it's more cost effective. You make the
    > difference with your wallet, not the "commercial interests", who wouldn't be
    > in business if you didn't support them.


    Too simplistic and naive for further comment.

    --
    "Leave the donkeys to their thistles." -- old Persian saying
  19. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "Richard" <rh310@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.19b434c9182d21f9897f8@news.verizon.net...
    >
    > It isn't much of a point, I'll grant you, but that's really what his
    > point is and there's no reason to argue it.
    >

    The real lesson to be taken from my point is that maybe if we practiced
    a little more honesty in our language it might, through osmosis, begin to
    affect our thoughts and actions. To me, "we're making the earth
    uninhabitable" makes a much more important statement than "we're killing the
    earth", not only because the second is a joke, but because it actually
    describes what is happening accurately and at the same time makes it relate
    to the reader.

    And, about the "commercial interests" who are "destroying ecosystems,
    wiping out habitats, poisoning the air and water", that's a load of crap
    too. *We* do the damage, by buying the products they produce. As long as
    someone will buy it they will make it, and no amount of legislation or
    regulation will work, because there are too many places outside of our
    influence where industry will go if it's more cost effective. You make the
    difference with your wallet, not the "commercial interests", who wouldn't be
    in business if you didn't support them.

    ryanm
  20. As Richard <rh310@hotmail.com> so eloquently put:
    [] XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX wrote...
    [] > As "ryanm" <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> so eloquently put:
    [] > [] "Richard" <rh310@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    [] > [] > All I asked for was the degree of precision in your statement. The
    [] > [] > answer is, "Not very much." This isn't a bad thing, it just wasn't
    [] > [] > clear until your reply.
    [] > [] >
    [] > [] I disagree. The earth has been plugging along for millions of years,
    [] > [] during the vast majority of which there was no sign of any kind of life on
    [] > [] it. Same when we're gone. In the long run, we won't even leave a mark.
    [] >
    [] > The only trouble with your logic here (and it's a pretty big hole, to
    [] > be sure), is that only in our time has their been a species on this
    [] > planet that has become capable of "destroying the planet". I believe
    [] > you can guess what species that is.
    []
    [] Well, technically, Ryan is effectively correct within the narrow
    [] confines of his point: That people who describe the irreversible
    [] damage being done to ecosystems as 'damaging the earth' crack him up
    [] because the earth, per se, is a big rock and we're not hurting that.

    Richard, I can't agree with that.

    Ryan said "we're simply making it uninhabitable for humans", from
    which I infer that he meant that "the Earth" would get a long just
    fine after we're gone (see my definition of "the Earth" below). That
    statement ignores the fact that we're not the only species that we're
    making it uninhabitable for.

    But mostly, to most people I know, "the Earth" is more than this rock
    shell encasing a molten center. It is a planet with a complex,
    evolving biosphere. In the time we've been here (a long time,
    regardless of how small compared to the entire history of the planet),
    we've mostly managed to live in this balance.

    What damage we've done was little more than what animals do to their
    habitat (e.g. elephants destroying scarce resources in some areas
    compare to nomadish people causing desertification in some areas).

    Until recently. And by recently, I'm talkin' about that teeny sliver
    of time that's elapsed since the birth of the industrial age.

    Perhaps it would be more fair to say that the planet, or the rock
    would still be here. But the Earth would not, because we humans, with
    the awareness of the planets biosphere, gave it this name. The Earth.
    This name and our perception of it was borne of our evolving
    perception of the living world around us, in all it's wondrous glory.

    When we refer to "the Earth", we don't just think of rock. At least, I
    don't.

    Word: technically, I believe that we are damaging the Earth.

    [] Just don't call that 'damaging the earth,' Ryan sez. Even cases
    [] where we've strip-mined the sides of mountains away aren't really
    [] damaging the earth, because a few million years after we're gone
    [] it'll all be covered up and it won't leave a mark.
    []
    [] Again, it's not much of a point--but we may as well give it to him.

    Can't do it. Wiping out a species at the rate of one per day is too
    much for me.

    Chris

    ----
    "...there would have been no Holdsworth or
    Hendrix without the genius of Boxcar Willie"
    -- Mark Garvin
    Remove X's from my email address above to reply
    [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

Share This Page