In Defense of Human Beings: People are amazing and the world isn't about to end.

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Quote:
you are making me sad. You used to be far more reasonable

Ive been perfectly consistant in my views about my areas of scientific comptence. I disagree with all kinds of folks herein
and Ive changed my opinions biggly when some pieces of incontrovertable evidence are shown to exist.
Ive gon from an ag supporter of GMO to a person who is asking that waaay more research of "real time generational effects" be done before claiming victory.

Natures big job, as part of gaining reproductive success, is adaptation which takes the form of conferred immunity to all kinds of substances and changes in the environment. We see this ovr and over again where evolved immunity happens so quickly, the shorter the generational periods.

When entire industries are behind one spcific outcome, that outcome can easily be force fit into our technological menu because it can generate big profits. and like Charles Koch, damn the facts "even though I believe em".

I believe that religion and profit motives lead the "poor science" politics comes up a distant third , and a third place baed on the other top two.

Ive thought about this probably a lot longer than you, Im 68, and have actually been part of the "culture wars against science" here inpennsylvania. I can brush aside political beliefs because they are part of a spectrum (I always recall Setantas"s statement that "Evrybody is Conservative about certain things") Religion and profit motive are things that your opponent will argue despite what chemistry, bio, mechanics, and nuclear physics have evidenced to a 99.999% POV.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I was referring to you piling on with Izzy, Glitterbag and Edgar, something that has nothing to do with science.

I don't mind disagreeing with you about science. I am deliberately challenging the political ideology, and what I see as a focus on narrative over facts on both sides of the political divide. I am focusing my challenge on the political left because that is the dominant ideology here... and because the left tends to claim to be more factual.

I challenge a political ideology. The response is personal attacks. I expect this from Izzy, Edgar et. al.

I don't remember you being a part of this before.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

Maybe you've only just got on FM's tits. He didn't notice it before, but once you do, you can't help but notice it all the time.

Instead of alternating between Pollyanna and the crack of doom why don't you actually do something about making sure the World is still here for future generations?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

The issue should remain how Ive disagreed with your POV on this sbject. Ive maintained that financial gain and religious beliefs are the main drivers in what's behind " science or anti-science or poor science".
As far as your overly optimistic views about our planets citizenry, I do not share them at all.

If anyone here is guilty of tribal thinking it aint me. You are whining that I dont agree with you on these subjects. As I said before, Ive been in the trenches for a number of years and I would love to be greeted with this tide of greatness you confer on us. Even your beliefs in "curing hunger" based on statistical values I aint buying.
Just remember, today , in the world, there are more people suffering from food insecurity (hunger) than lived on the planet until about 1700.

Too much rose coloring in your sunglasses made you miss the obvious facts that the job aint close to being won, unless this i all a secret plan for population control.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I don't remember you being a part of this before.
TRANSLATION:" I only reserve my praises for people who fully agree with me"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I don't mind disagreeing with you Farmerman. I don't like the personal attacks.

There is a difference.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Drop the passive aggression and whinging and you should notice the personal attacks diminishing.

You bring this on yourself, always have.

0 Replies

"In Defense of Human Beings: People are amazing and the world isn't about to end."

Every time I see this title I don't know whether to laugh or puke. One single species has despoiled vast areas of the planet, drained aquifers, polluted the air and water, driven hundreds of other species to extinction, wiped out huge numbers of its own kind, ignored the warnings of its wisest members by continuing to pump thousands of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, unleashed a plague of petrochemical pollution in the form of micro-plastics, uses and wastes non-renewable resources at an astounding level, and can't even be bothered to clean up after itself — and then has the audacity to suggest that maybe we should leave this shitberg and colonize other planets.

Oh, that's one-sided? Well, yeah, there are Beethoven's string quartets, Charlie Parker's solo on "KoKo", prehistoric cave paintings, chess, Jame Joyce's "Ulysses", and table manners — all very nice but all pretty speciocentric. The idea that our offensive species needs to be defended shows just how egotistical and conceited we truly are!

2 Replies

@hightor,

I think you answered the question about why our species needs to be defended. Wink

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

You're defending it from the wrong people, it's not those with a less than Pollyannaesque view of the World, it's the industrialists and polluters.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

If the Industrialists and polluters are truly going to lead to the end of human civilization, maybe Hightor should be happy about that. The way you put it, it sounds like they are on the same side.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

No, we're not on the 'same side". Their activities are destructive to all living species. Your comment demonstrates your speciocentric bias.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

No, we're not on the 'same side". Their activities are destructive to all living species. Your comment demonstrates your speciocentric bias.

So you would like to find a way to kill all of the human race, but leave the other species intact.

I guess that is reasonable.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

What side are you on? The bury your head in the sand side that ignores facts until it's too ******* late?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I guess I am on the side that is in favor or human beings, and against extremism.

- I want a robust, fact-based response to the global climate change.

- I want practical solutions that address the needs of the climate while recognizing the quality of life for humanity. I want the price of gas to go dramatically up. I want public transportation to be heavily subsidized. I want a mix of solar and wind and nuclear power.

- I want the science to be govern the discussion, rather than political ideology. The threat of rising waters and droughts are real. The threat of the "end of human civilization" or "bones floating out of caskets" are rather ridiculous ideological propaganda.

- I don't want crazy doomsday prophecies that aren't supported by facts to impact the social discussion.

- I don't accept a Malthusian philosophy that expresses a hatred of humanity without offering any practical solutions.

I am pro-human, pro-environment and anti-extremism. That is what side I am on.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

You're on the side of looking the other way and pretending things aren't as bad as they really are.

In short you offer no solution at all and are bad as the polluters.

To avoid catastrophe urgent action needs to be taken now.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

"There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who "love Nature" while deploring the "artificialities" with which "Man has spoiled 'Nature'". The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of "Nature" -- but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the "Naturist" reveals his hatred for his own race -- i.e., his own self-hatred. In the case of "Naturists" such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate. As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. sapiens is the only race I have or can have. Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women -- it strikes me as a fine arrangement and perfectly "natural". Believe it or not, there were "Naturists" who opposed the first flight to old Earth's Moon as being "unnatural" and a "despoiling of Nature"." - Time Enough for Love (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Enough_for_Love), 1973, Robert A. Heinlein

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

In short you offer no solution at all and are bad as the polluters.

I offered a few solutions (and I offer more)

- I want the price of gas dramatically raised, and public transportation heavily subsidized.

- And I want investment in wind, solar and nuclear.

What solutions is your side offering (other than killing all the humans)?

My point is that you can have fact-based, significant solutions without the extremist ideological rhetoric.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I'm familiar with that line of argument. But if we accept it then the word "artificial" loses its meaning since everything is ultimately deemed "natural".
If Mr. Heinlein doesn't see a difference between a beaver dam and, say, the Three Gorges dam, I can understand why he can put forward his case but it seems self-serving to me. I have enjoyed Heinlein's writings but I don't share his later political philosophy.

I had no objection to the moon landing, nor have I any objection to space exploration — but not as a means for self-glorification of the species.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

So you would like to find a way to kill all of the human race, but leave the other species intact.

No. I'd rather the human race found a way to live more harmoniously with all the life systems on this planet. Currently we are in the process of making the planet unlivable. I don't support the right of industrialists and polluters to destroy the habitat we share with other species. An environment safe for plants and animals is an environment safe for humans.

Quote:

- I don't accept a Malthusian philosophy that expresses a hatred of humanity without offering any practical solutions.

Neither do I.

0 Replies

In Defense of Human Beings: People are amazing and the world isn't about to end.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know