Natural Selection

[MrSpooky]

Oh, and the preservation of species is considered beneficial for aesthetic as well as biological reasons.

[BigToe]

I am just going to comment about not growing/hunting your own food. I personally enjoy the taste of home grown or hunted food over that which is mass produced.

[chefranden]

I am just going to comment about not growing/hunting your own food. I personally enjoy the taste of home grown or hunted food over that which is mass produced.

 

And all the brothers and sisters shout Amen!

[Saviourmachine]

You didn't answer the questions.

 

Progress?  What is that?  Where is it going?  Why is it going there?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Technological progress I would call it. Technology gives us the possibilities to create freedom, more time, etcetera for humans. It's a pity that so much people don't see that. Technology isn't the beast of Revelations. The latter two questions are a bit weird and seem to come from a personification of "Progress". We're entering a new era, in which deifying isn't the norm anymore.

 

Technology gives us the opportunity to feed more people on earth. That means e.g. that you have more persons to choose your mate from. It gives also means to control birth.

 

It gives access to worldwide knowledge bases, it gives the opportunity to speak with people all over the world. That, so that we know our place in the cosmos better and better. There is progress because science works with hypotheses that can be falsified. We constantly need new data to propose theories.

[Burry The Rag]

You didn't answer the questions.

 

Progress?  What is that?  Where is it going?  Why is it going there?

 

Oh, wait, I forgot!  You are going to heaven.  God is testing you with riches that he took away from those poor wretches, to see if you are worthy.

 

Sorry. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Chefranden,

 

Actually I need to thank you. Seriously! On my drive home I thought through what you had asked and realize I must change my mind. I'm not a Sociologist. I don't know if things are getting better for most. I can only look at my life, and see an upward trend.

 

In a nutshell, I had a great childhood, but when I got into my 20s I hit a "dark night of the soul." This lasted probably, oh, five or six years, although it seemed like an eternity. Now I am much less melancholy and attribute my change in perspective to "growing out of it". I have talked with others who have described a similar process. From where I sit, my future looks bright.

 

As for my financial well being; although I do not feel wealthy, I am grateful. My wife and I have nice two cars. One is a 1993 with 140K the other is a 1994 with 190K. Our house, built in 1915, cost us slightly more then half what our friend paid for her 11-year-old town home. My wife and I attempt to live in a frugal manner. Know if I knew these riches were coming at the expense of anyone else I would cease the behavior perpetuating such.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Burry The Rag]

Burry, Science is a descriptive study.  Ethics is a prescriptive one.  What IS the case is not necessarily what SHOULD be the case.  It's a major mistake to think that what is "natural" is supposed to automatically mean "good."

 

It's perfectly natural for people to suffer from disease and die horribly, but is it okay to allow that to happen?

 

There are three major levels of any ethical evaluation such that the levels exist in a hierarchy...

 

1.  The Objective Facts (i.e. scientific descriptions of the world):  Our understanding of causes and effects that occur in nature.

 

2.  Meta-Ethics:  The more subjective field that determines WHY something is unethical.  This can range from utilitarianism to Kantian ethics to human rights theory.

 

3.  Normative Evaluation:  The formulaic combination of facts and meta-ethics to understand what action in what situation is "good" as opposed to "bad."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Mr. Spooky,

 

I'm certain you know my thought well enough to know I do not advocate disengagement. Obviously, I do not think we should allow people (or other species) to suffer. My issue was that it seemed to me environmentalism and natural selection were in conflict.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Burry The Rag]

Technology isn't the beast of Revelations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Saviourmachine,

 

I'm no opponent to technology! I see it as neutral which can be used for good or bad. As you indicated technology can yield wonderful results. But let's face it, no revelation has reeked the havoc that some technology has; WMD for example.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[MrSpooky]

I'm certain you know my thought well enough to know I do not advocate disengagement. Obviously, I do not think we should allow people (or other species) to suffer. My issue was that it seemed to me environmentalism and natural selection were in conflict.

 

Yes, it is. But what's your point?

[Burry The Rag]

Yes, it is.  But what's your point?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey Mr. Spooky, that comment was in reply to this one.

 

Burry, Science is a descriptive study.  Ethics is a prescriptive one.  What IS the case is not necessarily what SHOULD be the case.  It's a major mistake to think that what is "natural" is supposed to automatically mean "good."

 

It's perfectly natural for people to suffer from disease and die horribly, but is it okay to allow that to happen?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[MrSpooky]

I know, Burry.

 

My point was the following...

 

1. A contradiction exists when two things are in conflict at the same time and in the SAME MANNER.

 

2. Natural Selection and Ethics are NOT in conflict because the former is a DESCRIPTIVE scientific fact while the latter is a PRESCRIPTIVE field of philosophy. The "in the same manner" condition is not fulfilled.

 

In all honesty, Burry, this is a very common mistake that people make in ethics in thinking that "natural" is somehow better, or that it is preferable to regress to a state closer to "nature." This has been heavily disputed in philosophical circles, and in all honesty, I find that making cases such as this without acknowledging these facts is quite asinine.

[Burry The Rag]

Mr. Spooky that is not my perspective…

I’m not advocating disengagement. As a Christian, I feel I have an obligation to care for the Earth and its creatures.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think it's good we're involved and think we would benefit if humans were moreso.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Obviously humanity has done great and irrevocable damage to our environment. But is changing our environment necessarily bad? I would much rather go to my garden (or grocery store) for something to eat than roam the streets of my suburb as a hunter/gatherer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

…I feel we should attempt to minimize damage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I maintain our response should be that of intervention, when possible, regardless of the source of the damage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The threat should be assessed and proper the actions taken...We should strive to minimize the damage regardless if the cause is natural or generated by humans.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

…that intervention, which I maintain is a good thing, does not hold true to nature of survival of the fittest. Texas Freethinker maintained it may not be good. I understand that thinking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

…there are many things I do to insulate myself from nature.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

...I do not advocate disengagement. Obviously, I do not think we should allow people (or other species) to suffer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm no opponent to technology! I see it as neutral which can be used for good or bad. As you indicated technology can yield wonderful results. But let's face it, no revelation has reeked the havoc that some technology has; WMD for example.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[chefranden]

Technological progress I would call it. Technology gives us the possibilities to create freedom, more time, etcetera for humans.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a pity that so much people don't see that. Technology isn't the beast of Revelations. The latter two questions are a bit weird and seem to come from a personification of "Progress". We're entering a new era, in which deifying isn't the norm anymore.

Why is it that everyone I know is working longer hours to sustain the same standard of living they had 10 years ago? I know you live in Europe, but there isn't any of this extra time in the states. At least 2 billions of the worlds people are living on less than $2/day. Do you think they have this "technology"? Do they spend their $2 on an internet connection?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes they do don't they? So?

 

Technology gives us the opportunity to feed more people on earth. That means e.g. that you have more persons to choose your mate from. It gives also means to control birth.

More food = more people = more food needed = more food = more people = ... = more human misery. Besides having more women to choose from, what is the advantage of attempting to turn all available bio mass into human flesh? By the way more food is not a birth control device.

 

What is another name for unlimited growth? (hint)

 

 

It gives access to worldwide knowledge bases, it gives the opportunity to speak with people all over the world. That, so that we know our place in the cosmos better and better. There is progress because science works with hypotheses that can be falsified. We constantly need new data to propose theories.

 

The questions stand. Progress: Where is it going? Why is it going there?

[MrSpooky]

Burry, I never claimed you were "advocating disengagement" or whatnot. I was merely stating that your opening question is MEANINGLESS. Your very first post was a confused attempt at reconciling apples with oranges.

[NimbusBirdMgp]

Yes they do don't they?  So?

More food = more people = more food needed = more food = more people = ... = more human misery.  Besides having more women to choose from, what is the advantage of attempting to turn all available bio mass into human flesh?  By the way more food is not a birth control device.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I want fareness! I want fareness! We have abandand the healthy means to survive. My choice for a women, doesn't have to be for propagation. It's for healthy living! And my choice for fun! I will pest, bug and vinticate my rights for it! Aaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!

[NotBlinded]

The questions stand.  Progress: Where is it going?  Why is it going there?

 

Hiya Chefy!

 

I used to worry so much about these things that I drove myself mad (well...even more so). I finally came to the realization that humans are a part of nature and no matter what we do or don't do is only going to viewed as part of evolution. I could no longer accept that humans are somehow differentiated from all other species. I understand that we have the ability to alter evolution, but is that not also a sort of evolving? Do we have the capability of destroying the entire planet or will some life survive to evolve once again and if it's intelligent life, will they just look and see that as human evolution? And is it necessarily a bad thing to alter it? From what I understand we are due for another ice age. Is the depletion of the ozone layer a good thing when it just might very well be the case that this depletion is keeping us from entering into another ice age?

 

I just think that the unknowns are huge and the outcomes of alterations are not always bad.

[MrSpooky]

Is the depletion of the ozone layer a good thing when it just might very well be the case that this depletion is keeping us from entering into another ice age?

 

Ozone protects us from ultraviolet and other kinds of nasty radiation. It has little to do with insulating heat.

[Saviourmachine]

Why is it that everyone I know is working longer hours to sustain the same standard of living they had 10 years ago?

Stupid people. I know many of them too. The same people that strive for happiness in stead of enjoying it at this very moment.

 

At least 2 billions of the worlds people are living on less than $2/day.

That's not the fault of technology or science. That's because we are still apes in some way, struggling to survive, having territories and all kind of Desmond Morris stuff. Gene technology...

 

More food = more people = more food needed = more food = more people = ... = more human misery.  Besides having more women to choose from, what is the advantage of attempting to turn all available bio mass into human flesh?  By the way more food is not a birth control device.

Condoms are, oral contraceptives are, intrauterine devices are, sterilizations are. All of them brought to us by technology and science. Science is (until now) a human product, and people are needed to practice it. Science is important because it tries to understand nature and all what is in it. It's the way to truth: to know what exists. The ultimate goal is IMO to have a theory (or different theories) that is / are able to describe reality completely.

 

The questions stand. Progress: Where is it going? Why is it going there?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If having a 'humane' life doesn't bother you, or the concept truth doesn't make you warm inside - the two things I already mentioned - than what goal would be good enough for you!? The why-question is like asking: why evolution?

[chefranden]

Stupid people. I know many of them too. The same people that strive for happiness in stead of enjoying it at this very moment.

I see, I thought you meant that technology meant you could work less and stay in the same place economically. By the way I do not know people that have money. I'm working class. My friends are mostly those that have nothing left after paying the rent, buying food, paying utilities, buying gas for the car to get to work, and making payments on a 5 year old car. They hope to hell a kid doesn't get bad sick because they have no insurance.

 

My father was able to accomplish this much by himself back when a shovel was high tech. Now that we have all this technology, it takes two working class people to do what my father did. As an aside my dad could also pay for our medical care out of his pocket. My birth cost him $26.57 for the hospital and $15.00 for the doctor. Now that we have all this technology you couldn't get 2 aspirin for $15 in a hospital.

 

That's not the fault of technology or science. That's because we are still apes in some way, struggling to survive, having territories and all kind of Desmond Morris stuff. Gene technology...

Well sure it is. The green revolution didn't give everybody a good diet, it only allowed for the birth of more people condemned to a crappy diet. More food for a species always means more of that species.

 

Condoms are, oral contraceptives are, intrauterine devices are, sterilizations are. All of them brought to us by technology and science.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Science is (until now) a human product, and people are needed to practice it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Science is important because it tries to understand nature and all what is in it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's the way to truth: to know what exists. The ultimate goal is IMO to have a theory (or different theories) that is / are able to describe reality completely.

Sure and birth control has worked so well to keep the population in check, hasn't it?

 

Poor third world guy: Darling can we have sex tonight?

Poor third world woman: Sure sweety just go out and spend our daily $2 on condoms first!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry I don't get this

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you were plopped down into the Amazon rainforest and told you had to survive on the land, who would you like for a companion, a scientist, or a Yanomani indian? Which one knows TheTruth™ about nature?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What truth is it the way to? If you had a theory of everything, could you feed yourself with it?

 

If having a 'humane' life doesn't bother you, or the concept truth doesn't make you warm inside - the two things I already mentioned - than what goal would be good enough for you!? The why-question is like asking: why evolution?

 

Progress =/= evolution. Evolution is a natural process that has no goals in mind.

 

Progress is a human value that purports to be heading for perfection, yet appears to be as empty as belief in Christ. Not that the attempt at progress doesn't make some of us very comfortable, but only at the expense of many other life forms including other humans.

[NotBlinded]

Ozone protects us from ultraviolet and other kinds of nasty radiation.  It has little to do with insulating heat.

 

Sorry Spooky, I meant global warming (which in turn can affect the ozone). I don't think the dinosaurs cared about the amount of methane they produced everytime they rid themselves of their previous meal. Anyway...I was just giving a what-if scenario. Thanks for the correction.

[Burry The Rag]

Burry, I never claimed you were "advocating disengagement" or whatnot.  I was merely stating that your opening question is MEANINGLESS.  Your very first post was a confused attempt at reconciling apples with oranges.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Mr. Spooky,

 

It seems to me when speaking of natural selection, it is not all that kooky to at least begin with the ideas of Charles Darwin. He is who we have to thank for originally developing the concept.

 

Please consider he viewed natural selection in a positive context:

 

It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and hourly

scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting

those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good; silently

and insensibly working, WHENEVER AND WHEREVER OPPORTUNITY OFFERS, at the

improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic

conditions of life.

 

[snip]

 

Although natural selection can act only through and for the good of each

being, yet characters and structures, which we are apt to consider as of

very trifling importance, may thus be acted on.

 

[snip]

 

Natural selection will modify the structure of the young in relation to the

parent and of the parent in relation to the young. In social animals it

will adapt the structure of each individual for the benefit of the whole

community; if the community profits by the selected change. What natural

selection cannot do, is to modify the structure of one species, without

giving it any advantage, for the good of another species; and though

statements to this effect may be found in works of natural history, I

cannot find one case which will bear investigation.

 

Note: Emphasis not added, reprinted directly from source.

If you choose to not agree with Darwin, then I have no problem with that. I don't and certainly won't expect you to. But does it seem all the outlandish that, if one is acting in direct opposition to what is considered to be a good process, this might be something worth talking about?

 

Mr. Spooky, please for the benefit of myself and the other fine folks here, demonstrate why my opening question was confused and, in capital letters, meaningless.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[MrSpooky]

Burry, once again you utterly fail to take into account the major point of what natural selection MEANS.

 

Natural selection is about the biological benefit of the species in its ability to adapt to more ideally fit a specific environmental context, it is NOT about becoming "better." Furthermore, you are once again GROSSLY guilty of selective emphasis, highlighting points that have little to nothing to do with the major thesis of evolutionary biology...

 

A more accurate emphasis would be this...

 

It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and hourly

scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting

those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good; silently

and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the

improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic

conditions of life.

 

[snip]

 

Although natural selection can act only through and for the good of each

being, yet characters and structures, which we are apt to consider as of

very trifling importance, may thus be acted on.

 

[snip]

 

Natural selection will modify the structure of the young in relation to the

parent and of the parent in relation to the young. In social animals it

will adapt the structure of each individual for the benefit of the whole

community; if the community profits by the selected change. What natural

selection cannot do, is to modify the structure of one species, without

giving it any advantage, for the good of another species; and though

statements to this effect may be found in works of natural history, I

cannot find one case which will bear investigation.

 

Even then, Darwin's theory was off a little bit and has been corrected some by modern science.

 

One must remember that evolutionary biology is about ECOLOGICAL-BIOLOGICAL BENEFIT, NOT about ETHICAL BENEFIT. While yes, it's definitely great to become better suited within a specific niche, human ethics transcends these matters on many levels.

 

Again, what is DESCRIPTIVELY true is not necessarily PRESCRIPTIVELY correct.

[MrSpooky]

If you choose to not agree with Darwin, then I have no problem with that. I don't and certainly won't expect you to. But does it seem all the outlandish that, if one is acting in direct opposition to what is considered to be a good process, this might be something worth talking about?

 

Oh yes, also, please base your arguments on facts and not name-dropping.

[chefranden]

Hiya Chefy!

 

I used to worry so much about these things that I drove myself mad (well...even more so).  I finally came to the realization that humans are a part of nature and no matter what we do or don't do is only going to viewed as part of evolution.  I could no longer accept that humans are somehow differentiated from all other species.  I understand that we have the ability to alter evolution, but is that not also a sort of evolving?  Do we have the capability of destroying the entire planet or will some life survive to evolve once again and if it's intelligent life, will they just look and see that as human evolution?  And is it necessarily a bad thing to alter it?  From what I understand we are due for another ice age.  Is the depletion of the ozone layer a good thing when it just might very well be the case that this depletion is keeping us from entering into another ice age?

 

I just think that the unknowns are huge and the outcomes of alterations are not always bad.

 

Hi, Not.

 

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I'm worried about it. Nature always balances. We have some chance of becoming a sustainable species, if we wake up. However, I think that for the most part we have smoked too much oil and are lost in the oil pipe dream. But that's ok! The universe got along without us before, and there is nothing special about going extinct.

 

In between times Howler monkes must still howl.

 

chef.

 

PS A good resource.

[chefranden]

Technological progress I would call it. Technology gives us the possibilities to create freedom, more time, etcetera for humans. It's a pity that so much people don't see that. Technology isn't the beast of Revelations. The latter two questions are a bit weird and seem to come from a personification of "Progress". We're entering a new era, in which deifying isn't the norm anymore.

 

I forgot to comment on the "new era".

 

Yes we are. The economic theories that we operate under at the moment are based on cheap oil energy. Technology rests precariously on the slippery down side of the oil production curve. The idea that oil can supply endless growth is an hallucination from breathing too many gas fumes. We are about to enter in to the age of The Long Emergency. I probably won't be around to see if y'all come out the other end.

 

If I were a young person I'd be studying sustainable agriculture, instead of computer programing.

[Burry The Rag]

One must remember that evolutionary biology is about ECOLOGICAL-BIOLOGICAL BENEFIT, NOT about ETHICAL BENEFIT.  While yes, it's definitely great to become better suited within a specific niche, human ethics transcends these matters on many levels.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Mr. Spooky,

 

Cool, I agree. Demonstrate how.

 

Oh yes, also, please base your arguments on facts and not name-dropping.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Darwin? I was citing my source.

 

So, why is this thread meaningless?

 

Peace!

 

BtR