Are we screwing with natures course?

[Flatlander]

Does nature exists within consciousness, or does consciousness exist within nature?

Whichever view is the superceding framework will define whether one believes either that we have the ability to manipulate nature, or that nature has the ability to manipulate us.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

does nature exist without consciousness?

 

[Loki]

Does nature exists within consciousness, or does consciousness exist within nature?

Whichever view is the superceding framework will define whether one believes either that we have the ability to manipulate nature, or that nature has the ability to manipulate us.

That's like asking if a tree falls down in the forest and no one is there to hear it, is there a sound? Science would say yes.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Thank you.

As pointed out earlier ... America's understanding of science is woefully inadequate.

Let's try some old categorical syllogism...Americans are woefully inadequate in science; Michael Edwards is an American. Therefore, Michael Edwards is woefully inadequate in science? Or is that...ad homonym?

Michael: First off, get your panties out of a bunch. I didn't bring this up to be racist or antagonistic. I brought this up after reading about the failing aid in the Pakistani earthquake region, and read a subsequent article regarding why some of the nations are having a hard time meeting their promised obligations...many are contending with disasters of their own.

It occurred to me that, if aid fails in that region, there will likely be a massive loss of life. The world community (whatever the heck that is) will either have to find a way to step up, or send shovels in place of food so they can bury their dead.

Lack of natural resources in a given region, either due to location or disaster, is a cause for loss of ecosystems in that region: Organisms in that region must either migrate to where the food IS, or die. Modern borders and frontiers (keep in mind...you can't see international borders from sky-lab...relating to the fact that we're all on this marble together) prevent migration without acts of war. More death.

We have, as modern men, created circumstances that allow us to be absurd in how we address current issues. No food? That's fine...don't move, we'll send it to you. Can't send it to you? Well, don't move, or the border guards will shoot you. The whole thing is insane.

As far as my science background being woefully inadequate, I even stated that my numbers and the issue were recollected from a Sociology 101 class text and lecture...from 1984, Michael. I DO hang on to my old textbooks, but I have no intention of taking a weekend to dig through a storage space full of class notes and texts just so I can provide you the reference source, especially since you've cited a more recent source, likely better informed (unfortunately, I lack the computer savvy to keep up with such things on search engines...another woeful inadequacy on my part, to accompany my decreasing genital size and scienamatific inadequacies).

But enough of talking around an issue without addressing it directly. Who the crap are you to accuse me of being racist, egotistical, selfish, hubristic (big word...can anybody tell me what that means? my pea-little brain is strugglin' here) etc., when you don't know me from Adam? The tone in your posts reminds of the demeanor I had come to expect from RMcRobertson when he would be on one of his more pompous & demeaning tirades.

I opened the thread to start a dialogue around some currently socially and economically germain issues. From medical science to global economics and resource allocation, there are concerns about peeing in the gene pool being raised by members of the "scientific community" who have better informed minds than my own. I didn't start the thread so I could get pissed on by you over semantics, but rather to explore and expand on some ideas surrounding these issues.

Meaningful contribution = nothing can occur in nature that is outside of nature. Interesting proposition. Perhaps you could drop the uberreich accusations, and expand on your big blue marble theories instead.

Propagating inadequacy & mindless prejudices as only the uneducated and uninformed can,

Dave

 

[michaeledward]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the rant.

And thank you for the inference that I and Dr. McRobertson are, in any way, alike. I have always had a great deal of respect for Robert. I believe his intellect is sorely missed in these discussions.

And, while you were away, other users posting on this thread. The quote you grabbed from me, about American's capabilities and understanding of science were directed at comments made by others. Specifically, BlackCatBonz stated that mutation is "hardly random". He has since indicated that he chose his words poorly, and I accept that. This medium often manifests poor word choices (just the other day, I typed 'mail' when I meant 'male' - oops).

You state that you didn't bring this topic into existance to be 'racist' or 'antagonistic'. You did choose, however, to title the thread with the word 'screwing'. What, if any, conclusions should I draw from your choice in that word? Especially when you combine it with the pronoun 'we'.



And .... as for who the crap I am ....

Please note that I did not claim you were 'racist, egotistical, selfish and hubristic'. I said I found question such as this posed 'rasict, egotistical, selfish and hubristic'. The specific question I am refering to is: 'Are We Screwing with Natures Course?'

The argument you pose to support a positive answer to this question is that the United Nations Aide Agencies are interfering with the nature's 'population checks'.

Some of the ways I interpret that premise are:

• "The rich people helping the poor people is against nature's plan"
• "Let the poor people (black people - brown people) die" (didn't see many caucasions suffering in the tsunami and hurricanes, did we?)
• "People who can't migrate during drought deserve to die of starvation"

As I said, this medium often manifests in poor word choices and phrases. If you didn't intend for the are 'We Screwing' with natures plan, to divide the population of the world into an 'US-v-THEM' argument (Have-v-Have Not), then I will listen to a more clear explanation as to whom you intend is the screwer and who is the screwee.

If you wish to talk about the effectiveness of human endeavor concerning natural disasters and common aide, that could be an interesting discussion to. But from the title of this thread, that is not what I was expecting.


www.m-w.com Merriem Webster online dictionary
hubris (n): exaggerated pride of self-confidence
hubristic (adj)

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Thank you for your responsible reply to my irresponsible rant: I have got to learn not to post until after I've fed my morning coffee addiction.

"screwing with nature's course" is a phrase I picked up recently while at a seminar in Northern California, relative to the right to die and assisted suicide. Something in the tone of the phrase stuck with me, and in my craw.

There is a book my pseudo-Mother-in-Law asked me to read by a guy named Hank Wesselman. He's either brilliant, or in need of medication. He makes some interesting assertions in an otherwise boring book about overpopulation, consumption of resources, and the future of mankind as having to revert back to neolithic, tribal civilization due to the absence of renewable materials (i.e., no metal left a thousand years from now...only rust).

For the record, none of the ways you expressed interpreting the premise are accurate reflections of my intent in the thread, or my own views. I found the assumption disturbing. Seeing racism or elitism where there is none may constitute an opportunity to examine one's own projections.

The screw/being screwed dichotomy is, in my mind, mankinds conspicuous consumption of natural resources and interference in natural disease processes that causes us to have more people with less to go around. Vegan, to me, is not the answer. But the issues of resource distribution raised around it were interesting.

As un-P.C. as it may be to say "there's an elephant in the living room" when we are all seated in dung, there are have's; there are have-nots; and many of the have-not's will pass early because the have's don't want to give it up. Actions and inactions both have consequences, and the cost of doing nothing will be many lives in that region. Even as we save them, long-term planning requires that we ask...for what purpose? If the region cannot sustain life, we need to be sending them luggage along with food, and relocating them to areas that CAN sustain life. Please note, Michael...I am NOT suggesting we let them die...I'm suggesting we stop countering nature by sending food to regions that cannot grow enough food to sustain the population, and relocate the population until such time as the area can be rehabilitated.

Kinda rambling...hard to present a cohesive thought; 8 hours sleep in three days. I'll get a better look at this after some rest, and try to present my position more coherently then.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Shizen Shigoku]

No matter what happens, nature will exist with or without us, so it doesn't make a difference.

 

[heretic888]

Are we screwing with the course of Nature? Nope, can't be done.

Don't get me wrong. We humans are certainly mucking up the ecosystem, to our own collective detriment. We're certainly doing things that are ecologically insensitve, historically short-sighted, and, well, stupid.

But, can you then make the claim that any of this is 'unnatural'?? No, I don't think so. Its still a product of natural selection.

The evolved intelligence and self-awareness that allows us to do all these things is a perfect manifestation of natural selection in action via Baldwinean mechanisms. The Flynn Effect, a popular topic of cognitive psychology, is the observation that the average IQ scores of human beings within industrialized nations has progressively gotten better over the course of the 20th century. I can't think of any better proof that human beings are still evolving and are still operating within the confines of natural selection.

As for the compassion argument --- sorry, no dice.

Just think about it. What is truly more adaptive in an ever-chaning global environment (which humans now live in)?? Egotistic self-interest?? Or, mutual recognition and helping of others?? Which builds alliances and friendships with those who might otherwise be your rivals?? Which increases social stability and welfare with the recognition that its not just you against the world?? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

Humans aren't magically beyond natural selection or other biological mechanims. We are their very expression, as manifested in the form of self-aware, intelligent, and (potentially) compassionate human beings.

I think part of the problem here is what so many still interpret natural selection in these rather anemic and archaic contexts such as genetic determinism and random gradualism. Might make sense for bacterium, but not for complex organisms.

Laterz.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

ok.......let's leave all philosophical BS out of the argument in reference to nature and natural selection, for those of us that dont know a lick about science.

should we help? or should we let those in need find their own way out of their own messes?

 

[heretic888]

ok.......let's leave all philosophical BS out of the argument in reference to nature and natural selection, for those of us that dont know a lick about science.

should we help? or should we let those in need find their own way out of their own messes?

Shawn,

I believe you are misconstruing the subject here.

If you are going to debate whether human behavior is or is not "screwing with nature's course", then this inevitably evokes all that "philosophical BS" as well as scientific information about the natural world (including natural selection). That is the discussion topic, after all.

Personally, I would argue that we should help and that this is perfectly in accord with "Nature's Way".

Laterz.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

Shawn,

I believe you are misconstruing the subject here.

If you are going to debate whether human behavior is or is not "screwing with nature's course", then this inevitably evokes all that "philosophical BS" as well as scientific information about the natural world (including natural selection). That is the discussion topic, after all.

Personally, I would argue that we should help and that this is perfectly in accord with "Nature's Way".

Laterz.

that is why i said......lets leave all of that out of the discussion.....and ask a simple question.
the thing with philosophy is, you have people's own personal philosphy, then you have schools of philosophy.
personal feelings both effect and affect philosophy.......and you can either agree or disagree with them.

Is helping another human in distress "nature's way"?

or is it the political way?

is being selfish a product of nature or nurture?

is it science or emotion?

 

[AdrenalineJunky]

He makes some interesting assertions in an otherwise boring book about overpopulation, consumption of resources, and the future of mankind as having to revert back to neolithic, tribal civilization due to the absence of renewable materials (i.e., no metal left a thousand years from now...only rust).

 

[FearlessFreep]

He he...

 

[heretic888]

that is why i said......lets leave all of that out of the discussion.....and ask a simple question.
the thing with philosophy is, you have people's own personal philosphy, then you have schools of philosophy.
personal feelings both effect and affect philosophy.......and you can either agree or disagree with them.

Is helping another human in distress "nature's way"?

or is it the political way?

is being selfish a product of nature or nurture?

is it science or emotion?

Shawn,

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here, but you can't decide to change a thread topic simply because you don't like it or don't know enough about it. Dave created the topic with a particular context, which explicitly included "screwing with nature's course". That is the thread title, after all.

Furthermore, simply stating we shouldn't discuss philosophy because its complex is extremely disingenous, considering you're asking philosophical questions. And, I'm not really sure what the fallacious nature/nurture debate has to do with the discussion, either.

If you want to start a thread about another subject, the feel free to do so. But don't hijack another thread simply because you have problems with "science", "psycho-babble", or that "philosophical BS".

Geez.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

im not speaking for dr dave......but i read the question a little bit differently.
when he asked, "are we screwing with natures course?".......i simply took that to mean...if someone in a particular environment cannot adapt to that environment, should we allow it? yes or no.
i answered yes.....things die, the world keeps turning.

should someones viewpoint on what nature is has to be taken into account? sure it does.
but instead of getting answers, there are only new questions.
people feel the need to qualify their answers with whatever makes them feel better about that answer.

im not knocking your viewpoints, nor am i hijacking this thread.
im also not stating that we shouldnt discuss philosphical viewpoints because of their complexity.

i have no problems with science, psycho-babble, or philosophical bs.


heretic, you often like to quote different philosophical viewpoints from varying schools of thought. what are your viewpoints? the study of philosophy should enable one to come to their own conclusions, not to simply reiterate the reasonings of other men.

the question asked could easily be answered with a yes or no.

 

[Marginal]

You're defining humans as part of nature and therefore anything they do is natural.

I'm looking at creatures in general and how 'nature' keeps them in check through predators, disease, geography, etc to keep their populations under control. What I see is that humans, of all creatures, have managed to circumvent many or most of those controls, and that's why I call in un-natural, not because it's 'mankind' but because it's a singular example of a species that has made itself relatively immune to forces which affect all others.

The thing of it is, nature has no checks and balances. If a population grows too large, the population consumes all available food, and then starts dying off. Nature doesn't notice that there are too many of creature X, and then sends a tidal wave to reassert "balance". Nature is not sentient. It is not an acive steward of all living things on the planet.

When things get off kilter, you see empires and civilizations fall. (This implies that humanity is not anywhere near as well insulated as you'd think. Just look at the state of Africa now. It is in part, still recovering from a rinderpest epidemic years and years ago. Many of the lost South American civilizations have strong evidence supporting a population boom which their agricultural production was unable to support which lead to famine, disease and mass deaths etc.) No different than an overpopulated deer herd with a limited food supply. Hunger, disease etc aren't reasserting any kind of balance. There is what there is, and if there isn't, things break down. Any living thing on the planet is capable of overpopulation, over consumption, or being wiped out by a quirk in the weather. None of that has to happen by any form of design outside of supply and demand.

Natural or not, the original point is that we are doing something, or capable of doing something, that no other species can. We have no predators that can keep us in check. We can move into any eco-system on earth and become the dominant life form in that eco-system. Even disease and natural disaster we can fight back against in ways that no other species is capable of.

Not that any of that's much comfort to the guy who's just had a building fall on him during an earthquake, or a few thousand people who die in a flood, epidemic victims etc.

We're also very good at dreaming up increasingly efficent ways to wipe ourselves off the face of the planet. Since in these arguments, nature invariably hates humanity, and wants desperately to excise us, shouldn't the nature as a sentient human hating entity be cheering developments of bigger, and messier nova bombs etc? Nature's natural path is kill all humans after all.