Our planet is being destroyed, does anybody care?

@Dave Allen,

We may be rendering it less habitable for ourselves, and for some other species--but that's not a certainty either, nor is the extinction of species either uncommon or axiomatically evidence of impending catastrophe.

I didn't say that those processes were mutually exclusive, as between destructive and natural, so that's a straw man on your part. And positing the results of a planetesimal hitting the earth is not the same at all as alleging that human action is destroying the planet. Whether offered as a metaphor or not, the claim partakes of an unwarranted hysteria.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I didn't say that those processes were mutually exclusive,

And I didn't say that you did - I ASKED if that what what you were saying and provided an illustration as to why positing such would be ridiculous.

You apparently agree that a natural process can be a destructive one.

Good for you - but why then did you feel the need to state that climate change was natural and not destructive?

It can be both - obviously.

Quote:

And positing the results of a planetesimal hitting the earth is not the same at all as alleging that human action is destroying the planet.

Whoever said it was? My meteor point was made merely in response to the "natural not destructive" thing.

Quote:

Whether offered as a metaphor or not, the claim partakes of an unwarranted hysteria.

Yup, but so what? It's a boring furrow that was explored and exposed well enough by page 3 or 4 I thought. No one literally believes it - so why moan more when you could spend time on an actual issue of relevence drawn from the subsequent 20 pages or whatever?

Quote:

We may be rendering it less habitable for ourselves, and for some other species--but that's not a certainty either

It's not certain that we have caused and are causing extinctions "for other species"? In other words de facto destruction of their environments one way or another?

Are you sure?

I mean, just to pluck an example from the air - what about the yellow river dolphin?

Quote:

nor is the extinction of species either uncommon or axiomatically evidence of impending catastrophe.

Hence the worthiness of the debate.

2 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

Good for you - but why then did you feel the need to state that climate change was natural and not destructive?

Because of the title of the thread--you might want to read that again. And i see no evidence that climate change threatens the existence of the planet. I also have a problem with the terms destroy and destruction, which i comment on below.

Quote:

Quote:
And positing the results of a planetesimal hitting the earth is not the same at all as alleging that human action is destroying the planet.

Whoever said it was?

It's a reasonable inference to be drawn from you offering that as an example of a natural occurence which can also be destructive. I had already pointed out (and you've offered nothing to convince me othewise) that climate change is not a destuctive process. It's just a natural process, and claiming it is destructive is imposing a false, human value on a process which is indifferent to humans. Even a collision with a planetesimal which were to shatter the earth is only "destructive" in the sense of a human value judgement. The matter of which the planet is composed would still be there, it just wouldn't be there in the same form. Even were the collision to produce forces so great that some of the matter were converted to energy, that matter would simply have been converted to a different form.

Quote:

Quote:
Whether offered as a metaphor or not, the claim partakes of an unwarranted hysteria.

Yup, but so what? It's a boring furrow that was explored and exposed well enough by page 3 or 4 I thought. No one literally believes it - so why moan more when you could spend time on an actual issue of relevence drawn from the subsequent 23 pages or whatever?

Since then, people have continued the discussion as though destruction were a valid term of discussion. It's not. That's a value judgment by humans, and that is not being discussed.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Oh, and by the way, it is not certain that our actions are causing climate change, and to that extent, there is no evidence that we are rendering the planet less habitable for ourselves or for some other species. So, once again, you offer a straw man. I didn't claim that humans have never been responsible for the extinction of any species. The disappearance of the megafauna after the last retreat of "ice age" glaciation might be an example--were it not for the fact that we don't know if they disappeared due to human predation, or due to climate change, or a combination of the two. Even were human predation responsible, it's only "destruction" from the point of view of the megafauna.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

it is not certain that our actions are causing climate change, and to that extent, there is no evidence that we are rendering the planet less habitable for ourselves or for some other species.

Most scientists today would disagree with each of these points. There is plenty of very convincing evidence that human activity is causing climate change.There is no credible scientific organization that disputes that human caused climate change is a reality.

The credible debate is about the future effects which are uncertain. There is also convincing evidence that we are rendering the planet less habitable for some species-- of course this was true before global warming. The effects of climate change on species such as polar bears is undeniable.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

It's just a natural process, and claiming it is destructive is imposing a false, human value on a process which is indifferent to humans.

Oh it's this sort of nihilistic stuff now is it?

Then I counter with:

It's just a destructive process, and claiming it is natural is imposing a false, human value on a process which is indifferent to humans.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Even were human predation responsible, it's only "destruction" from the point of view of the megafauna.

Because there's no such thing as empathy, or aesthetic appreciation, or appreciation of a resource?

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Nihilistic, huh? You're hilarious. Not very good rhetorically, and not convincing--but great free entertainment. I just checked several online dictionary definitions of destroy to be certain before making my statement. Ever last one of them entailed a value judgment. Nature doesn't deal in value judgments, it just is.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Another straw man! You may just yet take the palm for constructing the most straw man arguments in the shortest period of time. Empathy and aesthetics are human constructs which rely upon value judgments, and to which nature is just as indifferent as it is to all other things human. A resource is only a resource from the point of view of those who would exploit it--once again, you are referring to a value judgment. We don't look upon dung as a food source, we don't value it as a resource in that way. Dung beetles would wish to differ on that point, were they given to argumentation.

1 Reply

There we have it, Relativism taken to the absurd, by absurd people, in the appalling absurdity of 1 paragraph footnote...a beautifully quick summary of modern days cleverness !... Laughing

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Nihilistic, huh? You're hilarious. Not very good rhetorically, and not convincing--but great free entertainment. I just checked several online dictionary definitions of destroy to be certain before making my statement. Ever last one of them entailed a value judgment. Nature doesn't deal in value judgments, it just is.

But what 'nature' is does entail a human value judgement in the same way that 'destruction' or any other word does. The fact is that "making value judgements" is pretty much synonymous with "using language". To single out 'destruction' as "a human value judgement that ultimately means little" whilst not carrying that conviction to the rest of language as a whole is pretty meaningless and inconsistent.

It does rather reek of "at the end of the day we're all dead and nothing matters and who cares?" which is nihilistic - yeah. It may well be true enough, but if it is true for any particular concept - such as destruction - it is true for all - including nature. They are all human definitions meaning particular things to humans because concepts and names for concepts are how humans map their existence.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Another straw man!

No, not really. You said it was ONLY destruction from the point of megafauna. How then is my asking you to consider why humans might regard the extinction of the megafauna as destructive, for reasons either subjective or objective, a straw man?

Giving someone the opportunity to elaborate or explain is not the same as misrepresenting their stance.

0 Replies

Sure it's a straw man, because i did not preclude aesthetics, or empathy or an appreciation of resources--i didn't give them any consideration, nor would it have been appropriate, since only the megafauna would have considered their own extinction destructive. Appealing to aesthetics, or empathy or appreciation of resources isn't referential to that.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Well, Arjuna, i suspect that it is still true that people, by and large, neither agree with you that the planet is being destroyed, nor do most of them care.

You keep saying the planet is being destroyed, Setanta. Why should anybody believe you? Especially after your anti-Semitic statements and it's widely known that you have split personality disorder from being struck by lightning when you were six.

2 Replies

@Arjuna,

Well that explains allot...

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Sure it's a straw man, because i did not preclude aesthetics, or empathy or an appreciation of resources--i didn't give them any consideration, nor would it have been appropriate, since only the megafauna would have considered their own extinction destructive. Appealing to aesthetics, or empathy or appreciation of resources isn't referential to that.

Of course it is. If you destroy something I derive enjoyment out of for aesthetic reasons my dismay at such an act derives from it's destruction - whether or not I survive myself. Even if I'm barely inconvenienced I can still object to it on the grounds I find it destructive purely because I subjectively appreciated it.

So to say that the megafauna which disappeared around the end of the last ice age were the only things that could veiw their destruction as such is to assume that the people of the time were in no sense impoverished by the resulting lack of hunting, or the awe-inspiring sight of them, or enjoyment at riding them, or eating them, or whatever else.

A straw man is a misrepresentation of a person's position.

Yet you yourself admit you "didn't give them any consideration". You "didn't preclude" them but you "didn't consider" them - same difference as regards my question.

So how can it be a straw man to ask if you have considered such things, seeing as you clearly hadn't by your own subsequent admission?

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

True hybreds are sterile... Are these, then if so their very existnce imperiles the existence of their species...

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The main problem i see in this silly, silly thread is the assumption that the planet is being destroyed. First and foremost, climate change is not a destructive process, it's a natural process. Which leads me to the second point, which is that the alleged destruction is actually a way of saying that human beings may not like how the planet will turn out, due to climate change, due to pollution of the atmosphere and the oceans, and due to the increasing strain on agriculture thanks to competing demands for the uses of crops. But just because the enviroment might become less than all humans could wish it to be is not evidence that the planet is being destroyed.

And, once again, i suspect most people don't care--that most people (out of the six billion+ on the planet) aren't even aware of such a claim.

Again, you misunderstand the meaning of natural...

0 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Now you're getting really hilarious. How many megafauna have you met in your life? Is it experiences such as that upon which you base your aesthetic appreciation of them? Were those experiences the ones which lead you to your empathic epiphany? Are you disappointed that you can't now hunt them as a resouce?

Jesus, you crack me up.

Whether it was the immediate effects of climate change, or human predation, or both--there can be no doubt that the periglacial grasslands upon which the megafauna relied no longer exist. You won't be seeing any of them any time soon, Bubba.

But let's examine your other hilatious fantasies. You really think neolithic man went riding on wooly rhinos or aurochs? That they may have experienced awe at seeing them--right before they plunged as many spears into them as possible, preperatory to butchering the remains--now that was a real gut-buster of an image. As for a lack of hunting, you apparently assumed that as the environment changed and the megafauna disappeared, no other creatures moved in to fill those niches. You are projecting your contemporary human values on our ancestors thousands of years ago just as you were projecting human values on to a description of events in the natural world.

Yup, great free entertainment around here.

2 Replies

@Arjuna,

Jesus, bright boy, read your own thread title. You are the one who alleges that the planet is being destroyed.

As for your allegations of anti-semitism, i defy you to provide a post of mine which is unequivocally anti-semitic. And before you pee your pants: criticizing Israel, which i am more than happy to stipulate, is not anti-semitic.

3 Replies

Our planet is being destroyed, does anybody care?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know