More OT Political Stuff

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

  1. As "ryanm" <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> so eloquently put:
    [...]

    Look, here's the crux of the biscuit:

    [] 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.

    So to you, splitting open the rock is the only valid way to destroy
    the planet.

    To you, if we destroyed most or all sentient live, we haven't
    destroyed the Earth, because there are still rocks, certainly some
    chemicals and possibly some very simple bioforms.

    I contend that if we destroy all sentient life, and all is left is a
    planet of primordial goo, it is no longer "the Earth". It's just
    another planetary object, and may as well have a number, rather than a
    name.

    We are damaging the Earth, and we are capable of destroying the Earth.
    Word.

    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]
  2. As "ryanm" <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> so eloquently put:
    [] "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"?

    Easy. Because we have it within our oh so powerful abilities to
    destroy that which began it's evolution far before we were here. It's
    not just us, it is the biosphere we evolved into. It was created long
    before we got here, but we have the ability stamp it out in, as you
    say, this tiny bump on the meter. It's not just our time--it is our
    effect on that which evolved over a much longer period than we have
    been here.

    [] Many more
    [] species became extinct before we even existed than we have caused to become
    [] extinct.

    See my reference in another post re: how the rate of extinction has
    greatly increased in our more recent history.

    [] 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.

    I've pondered it greatly. Our rise above all lesser life forms, the
    intelligence granting us the ability to do these things, is natural.
    Well of course it is. It is within the very nature of our evolution to
    go through this phase. This is elementary.

    What you keep missing is that in our tiny bump in the meter, we have a
    choice, because the very power that we've been granted, within the
    realm of so-called higher intelligence, also offers us responsibility.
    We think, we act, we destroy, but we know better.

    No other species had this. No other species capable of changing
    planetary evolution has ever had the ability to choose. We do.

    [] You still haven't shown how
    [] we're damaging the earth, either.

    It's not inconceivable that you could argue against the damages of
    rain-forest destruction, global warming, ozone depletion and other
    biosphere affecting human interactions. I don't feel that I need to
    offer an agrement here--you're entirely aware of these issues, I'm
    sure.

    [] 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.

    I don't remember ever talking about such parasites--care to remind 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]
  3. Tony Hwang

    Tony Hwang Guest

    Atlas wrote:

    > 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.


    Hi,
    If it becomes inhabitable, then we have destroyed it.
    I hope we evolve, not extinct.
    Tony

    >
    > 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
  4. Richard

    Richard Guest

    XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX wrote...
    > 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.


    I don't agree with it either. I'm just explaining what his very
    narrow point is so that the irrelevance of debating it is clear.

    He considers the earth to be just the inanimate rock itself. OK,
    fine. He uses the term "parasite" to describe life's relationship to
    his earth, even though parasites are little living things that suck
    from bigger living things, so even his use of that word conflicts
    with his definitions as he's provided them so far. If I were to keep
    it up with him, at some point he'd explain what he "really" meant
    after I'd wasted hours and lots of words thinking he was already
    saying what he "really" meant. Did that once. Won't do it again.

    > 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.


    I agree completely. That's why when somebody says "we're damaging
    the earth" most people know the speaker is referring to the whole kit
    and caboodle and not just the rock.

    > 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.


    Believe me, Chris, I'm with you completely. Ryan may even feel that
    our wiping out a species a day is too much for him, too, although
    from the last bit he posted to something of mine I gather he thinks
    you, I and he are wiping out those species with our wallets.

    I don't sense any illumination coming my way from trying to argue
    that one, so I'm just going to let it stand and get on with stuff
    that I can do something about.

    --
    "Leave the donkeys to their thistles." -- old Persian saying
  5. Richard

    Richard Guest

    XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX wrote...

    > [] 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.
    >
    > I don't remember ever talking about such parasites--care to remind me?


    Ryan-speak for "life." Think Star Trek and the episodes about the
    "carbon-based units infesting Enterprise."

    --
    "Leave the donkeys to their thistles." -- old Persian saying
  6. Odin

    Odin Guest

    "Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message

    > >>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.

    >
    > Hi,
    > If it becomes inhabitable, then we have destroyed it.


    Well there's an arrogant view. Why do you assume that humans are the only
    beings that should inhabit the Earth, and why do you assume that it
    wouldn't be better off without us? I mean, if the Earth is billions of
    years old then I don't see why it needs humans around at all. Personally,
    I don't buy the billions of years old crap, but for all of those who
    believe in evolution and big bang theories you shouldn't worry about humans
    because if we destroy the Earth all will be repaired when a couple more
    atoms smack into each other and form a new Earth.
  7. Odin

    Odin Guest

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

    > [] Again with the egocentric "destroying everything". Why is the tiny

    bump
    > [] on the meter that we call life on this planet "everything"?
    >
    > Easy. Because we have it within our oh so powerful abilities to
    > destroy that which began it's evolution far before we were here. It's
    > not just us, it is the biosphere we evolved into. It was created long
    > before we got here, but we have the ability stamp it out in, as you
    > say, this tiny bump on the meter. It's not just our time--it is our
    > effect on that which evolved over a much longer period than we have
    > been here.


    And you know this how?


    > [] Many more
    > [] species became extinct before we even existed than we have caused to

    become
    > [] extinct.
    >
    > See my reference in another post re: how the rate of extinction has
    > greatly increased in our more recent history.


    And you know this how?


    > [] 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.
    >
    > I've pondered it greatly. Our rise above all lesser life forms, the
    > intelligence granting us the ability to do these things, is natural.
    > Well of course it is. It is within the very nature of our evolution to
    > go through this phase. This is elementary.
    >
    > What you keep missing is that in our tiny bump in the meter, we have a
    > choice, because the very power that we've been granted, within the
    > realm of so-called higher intelligence, also offers us responsibility.
    > We think, we act, we destroy, but we know better.


    Or maybe we don't really have a choice at all, maybe everything is
    predetermined and chosen for us.


    > No other species had this. No other species capable of changing
    > planetary evolution has ever had the ability to choose. We do.


    And you know this how? Maybe on a planetary scale of 1-10 in intelligence,
    humans rate a 2 or something.


    > [] You still haven't shown how
    > [] we're damaging the earth, either.
    >
    > It's not inconceivable that you could argue against the damages of
    > rain-forest destruction, global warming, ozone depletion and other
    > biosphere affecting human interactions. I don't feel that I need to
    > offer an agrement here--you're entirely aware of these issues, I'm
    > sure.


    We're all aware of only what we are able to comprehend. Maybe there is
    much that humans are unable of comprehending that contradicts all that we
    think we know.

    I think the best reason for being conservation minded and trying to avoid
    further pollution of the Earth boils down to a quality of life issue for
    humans. Let's not make this planet worse for us, let's make it better for
    us and enjoy what little time we have here.
  8. Odin

    Odin Guest

    "Richard" <rh310@hotmail.com> wrote in message

    > I don't sense any illumination coming my way from trying to argue
    > that one, so I'm just going to let it stand and get on with stuff
    > that I can do something about.


    In the big picture you really can't do anything about anything. You're an
    insignificant speck on the ass of the planet, just like everyone else.
    Enjoy life and try not to make it bad on those around you, leave the
    delusions of changing the world to hippies and kids. In the long run a
    single man is inconsequential. Live for today and have no regrets.
  9. Richard

    Richard Guest

    res0jmoj@REMOVEverizon.net wrote...
    >
    > "Richard" <rh310@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >
    > > I don't sense any illumination coming my way from trying to argue
    > > that one, so I'm just going to let it stand and get on with stuff
    > > that I can do something about.

    >
    > In the big picture you really can't do anything about anything.


    What big picture? There's only the picture I live in, where I can do
    a lot about some things, a little about some others, and not much
    about others still.

    > You're an
    > insignificant speck on the ass of the planet, just like everyone else.
    > Enjoy life and try not to make it bad on those around you, leave the
    > delusions of changing the world to hippies and kids. In the long run a
    > single man is inconsequential. Live for today and have no regrets.


    You don't regret selling a particular Super Reverb?

    --
    "Leave the donkeys to their thistles." -- old Persian saying
  10. feklar

    feklar Guest

    On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 06:14:16 GMT, "Odin" <res0jmoj@REMOVEverizon.net>
    wrote:

    >delusions of changing the world to hippies and kids. In the long run a
    >single man is inconsequential. Live for today and have no regrets.


    http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=...selm=3f48bf20.103441058%40news.houston.sbcglo
    bal.net%26rnum%3D2
    http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=...elm=3f4ac1e7.42063196%40news.houston.sbcgloba
    l.net%26rnum%3D1


    now you are really screwed
    http://rjnpages.tripod.com/defeat.htm

    http://www.infernalpress.com/Columns/election.html
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm

    And don't forget to vist
    http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=...n&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3e7b0647.306061257%40news
    .kc.sbcglobal.net%26rnum%3D1
  11. feklar

    feklar Guest

    On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 06:14:16 GMT, "Odin" <res0jmoj@REMOVEverizon.net>
    wrote:

    >delusions of changing the world to hippies and kids. In the long run a
    >single man is inconsequential. Live for today and have no regrets.


    http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=...selm=3f48bf20.103441058%40news.houston.sbcglo
    bal.net%26rnum%3D2
    http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=...elm=3f4ac1e7.42063196%40news.houston.sbcgloba
    l.net%26rnum%3D1


    now you are really screwed
    http://rjnpages.tripod.com/defeat.htm

    http://www.infernalpress.com/Columns/election.html
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm

    And don't forget to vist
    http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=...n&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3e7b0647.306061257%40news
    .kc.sbcglobal.net%26rnum%3D1
  12. Odin

    Odin Guest

    "Richard" <rh310@hotmail.com> wrote in message

    > > > I don't sense any illumination coming my way from

    trying to argue
    > > > that one, so I'm just going to let it stand and get on

    with stuff
    > > > that I can do something about.

    > >
    > > In the big picture you really can't do anything about

    anything.
    >
    > What big picture? There's only the picture I live in,

    where I can do
    > a lot about some things, a little about some others, and

    not much
    > about others still.
    >
    > > You're an
    > > insignificant speck on the ass of the planet, just like

    everyone else.
    > > Enjoy life and try not to make it bad on those around

    you, leave the
    > > delusions of changing the world to hippies and kids. In

    the long run a
    > > single man is inconsequential. Live for today and have

    no regrets.
    >
    > You don't regret selling a particular Super Reverb?


    Regret wouldn't be the word I would use if I was asked to
    put it in the most accurate terms. There are things I have
    done that I wish I hadn't done or that I would do
    differently, but I wouldn't say that I "regret" doing them.
    Hindsight is 20/20 but regret is a wasted emotion. Besides,
    if I *really* missed the Super Reverbs (there have been
    several) I would have bought another by now.
  13. Atlas

    Atlas Guest

    x-no-archive: yes

    On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 05:32:15 GMT, Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:

    >If it becomes inhabitable, then we have destroyed it.


    If it becomes inhabitable, than we have destroyed ourselves.
    The earth will go on for another couple of billion years (just like it
    was here for a couple of billion years before we appeared - and
    arrogantly assumed responsibility for it's future safety).

    The earth is a self cleansing, self healing mechanism.

    >I hope we evolve, not extinct.


    Yeah, one would hope. But neither of us are going to be
    around to find out, so why waste any of your (short time on this
    planet) finding out?



    Atlas

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

    Atlas Guest

    x-no-archive: yes

    On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 06:14:16 GMT, "Odin" <res0jmoj@REMOVEverizon.net>
    wrote:

    >In the big picture you really can't do anything about anything.


    Only in a very tiny realm, and for a very short time.

    >You're an
    >insignificant speck on the ass of the planet, just like everyone else.


    Agreed. After a Dixie Dregs show, I was bullshitting with
    Steve Morse about this, that and the other. And the discussion
    started shifting away from music and toward life. And I asked him -
    what he did to keep perspective on things. He's a big fan of
    airplanes...and flys wherever and whenever he can. So he goes up in
    one of his planes...and scares the shit out of himself...so he can be
    reminded that he's just a tiny little speck on the planet. <-- His
    words, not mine.

    After that, he claims it clears his mind...and he's able to
    focus on what's really important to him.

    Maybe other adrenaline junkies are like that too?

    >Enjoy life and try not to make it bad on those around you, leave the
    >delusions of changing the world to hippies and kids. In the long run a
    >single man is inconsequential. Live for today and have no regrets.


    I'd like to re-frame that statement a bit. We're
    inconsequential in terms of the status of the earth, and it's
    existance. However, we're supremely consequential in terms of our
    family & friends.

    Human beings ought to work more on building relationships, and
    spend less time fussing over matters which they have no control over.




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

    Atlas Guest

    x-no-archive: yes

    On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 06:10:35 GMT, "Odin" <res0jmoj@REMOVEverizon.net>
    wrote:

    >Or maybe we don't really have a choice at all, maybe everything is
    >predetermined and chosen for us.


    Or maybe none of this is real - and we're all simply in a
    dream of a being from the planet Zork. Or maybe we need to take the
    red pill, unplug ourselves from the energy machine that is the Matrix,
    and spend the rest of our lives eating lumpy cereal and fighting
    AgEnTs. There is no spoon.

    >We're all aware of only what we are able to comprehend.


    Actually, we're all only aware that we're aware. Everything
    else could be imagined.

    >Maybe there is
    >much that humans are unable of comprehending that contradicts all that we
    >think we know.


    Aye. We're all fairies dancing on the head of a pin.

    >I think the best reason for being conservation minded and trying to avoid
    >further pollution of the Earth boils down to a quality of life issue for
    >humans. Let's not make this planet worse for us, let's make it better for
    >us and enjoy what little time we have here.


    Agreed 100%.




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

    Odin Guest

    "Atlas" <c1sublux@hotmail.comNOSPAM> wrote in message

    > >In the big picture you really can't do anything about

    anything.
    >
    > Only in a very tiny realm, and for a very short time.
    >
    > >You're an
    > >insignificant speck on the ass of the planet, just like

    everyone else.
    >
    > Agreed. After a Dixie Dregs show, I was bullshitting with
    > Steve Morse about this, that and the other. And the

    discussion
    > started shifting away from music and toward life. And I

    asked him -
    > what he did to keep perspective on things. He's a big fan

    of
    > airplanes...and flys wherever and whenever he can. So he

    goes up in
    > one of his planes...and scares the shit out of

    himself...so he can be
    > reminded that he's just a tiny little speck on the planet.

    <-- His
    > words, not mine.
    >
    > After that, he claims it clears his mind...and he's able

    to
    > focus on what's really important to him.
    >
    > Maybe other adrenaline junkies are like that too?


    Maybe. I like to do things that have an associated risk.
    In fact, pretty much all I like to do are things with an
    associated risk. The riskier the better. It does something
    for me. Safe bores me. I just assumed it was a mental
    problem but maybe it's my way of putting things into
    perspective.

    I think that's why we do the things we do, for thrills. The
    timid watch sports and try to project themselves into the
    situation, the bold put themselves into harms way in pursuit
    of thrills but we all do it to some degree. There are many
    degrees of risk, not just physical risk. I like to gamble,
    whicj is a risk but not physically risky (unless you don't
    pay your bookie). I think hunting is also a similar
    situation - many people hunt for the thrill of the hunt, not
    the kill. Personally I'd prefer to be hunted than to hunt,
    it's more of a thrill.


    > >Enjoy life and try not to make it bad on those around

    you, leave the
    > >delusions of changing the world to hippies and kids. In

    the long run a
    > >single man is inconsequential. Live for today and have

    no regrets.
    >
    > I'd like to re-frame that statement a bit. We're
    > inconsequential in terms of the status of the earth, and

    it's
    > existance. However, we're supremely consequential in

    terms of our
    > family & friends.
    >
    > Human beings ought to work more on building relationships,

    and
    > spend less time fussing over matters which they have no

    control over.

    I keep personal relationships to a minimum. I really don't
    feel like spending time with other people all that much.
    Too many friends is a hassle.
  17. Odin

    Odin Guest

    "Atlas" <c1sublux@hotmail.comNOSPAM> wrote in message

    > >I think the best reason for being conservation minded and

    trying to avoid
    > >further pollution of the Earth boils down to a quality of

    life issue for
    > >humans. Let's not make this planet worse for us, let's

    make it better for
    > >us and enjoy what little time we have here.

    >
    > Agreed 100%.


    I don't care if the earth is flat or round unless I'm
    sailing. I don't care if there's life on Mars unless I'm
    going to Mars. I'm more concerned with the here and now.
    Let someone else spend their time pondering the mysteries of
    the earth, I got things to do.
  18. Richard

    Richard Guest

    ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com wrote...

    > > I don't sense any illumination coming my way from trying to argue
    > > that one, so I'm just going to let it stand and get on with stuff
    > > that I can do something about.
    > >

    > That would be because you are reacting emotionally rather than
    > intelligently. You're not thinking about it, that's all.


    Opting out of a circular discussion with you, because I doubt I'll
    find it informative, is not the same thing as not thinking about it.

    Cheers.

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

    ryanm Guest

    "Not A Speck Of Cereal" <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote in message
    news:9cplkvk7hq56r8fr1tl41j9nfe0urhf4dd@4ax.com...
    >
    > 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.
    >

    So the planet Jupiter, which, as far as we have been able to determine,
    has never had a complex, evolving biosphere, is not a planet also? The earth
    was not a planet before it had a complex, evolving biosphere? In my opinion,
    that defenition is too limited, as it would not include the millions of
    other planets that we know exist, some of which may be capable of sustaining
    life, most of which cannot.

    > 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).
    >

    And what makes you think that industry is not a natural part of the
    progression of our species? What gives you the impression that humans coming
    along and destroying all other species is not the intention of the earth?
    Just a question...

    ryanm
  20. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "Richard" <rh310@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.19b4c0f86efe61919897fc@news.verizon.net...
    >
    > He considers the earth to be just the inanimate rock itself. OK,
    > fine. He uses the term "parasite" to describe life's relationship to
    > his earth, even though parasites are little living things that suck
    > from bigger living things, so even his use of that word conflicts
    > with his definitions as he's provided them so far.
    >

    Actually, a parasite can be anything that lives on the byproducts of
    something else, it needn't be living. Lichens have a symbiotic relationship
    with the rocks they may live on, and small changes in surface temperature or
    acidity can have a drastic affect on them, even though they are not "sucking
    life" from the rock itself. How is this different from our (all living
    things) relationship with the earth.

    > I agree completely. That's why when somebody says "we're damaging
    > the earth" most people know the speaker is referring to the whole kit
    > and caboodle and not just the rock.
    >

    Most people aren't generally what I would call intelligent, and react
    more to emotional triggers than intellectual ones.

    > I don't sense any illumination coming my way from trying to argue
    > that one, so I'm just going to let it stand and get on with stuff
    > that I can do something about.
    >

    That would be because you are reacting emotionally rather than
    intelligently. You're not thinking about it, that's all.

    ryanm

Share This Page