We are animals . . . but we don’t have to act like it

[VCH]

Global climate change, habitat fragmentation, pollution, and all the other human caused problems have become the new cliches of peer reviewed journal articles, popular media reports, and documentary films. One can argue that humans are simply following the natural way of the world. Make no mistake all animals on this planet are in it for themselves. Animals can and do change the environments they live in. We are not unique in our disposition to exploit world resources and other species. People often think nature is at best intentionally altruistic and at worst benign. Nature is instead composed of self replicating entities that (group selectionists aside) could not care less about the survival of a species or the world. The difference between most species and humans is the speed and scale of the change and exploitation. Humans have the power to irreversibly change the environment and at much more rapid speed than most species. Humans can change conditions so quickly that (according to who you believe) evolution may not act fast enough for other species to keep up. This power is granted to us by our immense ability to reason, learn and think. It is true that other animals have these same abilities but they are nowhere near as advanced. As I see it we have two options; 1. continue down the natural path, or 2. use our unique self awareness and intellectual powers to actually change the way nature works. We are unique in our ability to appreciate what damage we may be causing, and more importantly we have the power to prevent or repair that damage. Let’s start using our minds. We are animals, but we don’t have to act like it.

 

 

(I'm thinking of submitting the above to my University paper for a letter to the editor.)

 

Any thoughts?

Logical holes?

Awkward sentences?

 

And yes I know there are many examples of nice guys in nature but they don't do it because they want to be "good".

[Lord Safey]

Or we could find/make other environments for us to grow into.

 

Not that I would know but it looks pretty good

[Alorael at Large]

Paragraph breaks, please!

 

—Alorael, who finds the message laudable and the sentiment rather overdone right now. It's good to remind people that environmentalism is important, but who is your target audience and how likely are they to not be aware of these things?

[Enraged Slith]

You'd be better off writing about something people can do to reduce their impact on the environment and why it would benefit them to inconvenience themselves. Many people are too quick to lament our negative impact on the environment, question why the government has yet to make any sweeping changes, and then continue to live the same lifestyle they've lived their entire life. Many small changes can amount to a positive impact, so it's better to start with things we can actually control, like putting garbage in trashcans and recycling. Also, the last thing people want to read, particularly the ones who actually read, is more self-aggrandizing whining about why humans suck.

[Synergy]

I don't agree with the premise that the problem is "the way nature works." Life seems well-practiced in maintaining balance in the long haul, even as it ever shifts, adapts, evolves. Everything fills its niche and services a huge web of life outraying from its place in the order of things. So much life depends on so much other life. It's taken the degree of consciousness we have achieved to find ways to grow ourselves out of balance. I think the Matrix made a wry point not far off the truth that in a sense, human beings have become just like a virus on the planet, though even viruses have their place of balance in the web. I'd actually describe human behavior in the greater body of life as a cancer. Growth gone out of control and no longer in harmony with the needs of the body around it.

 

I also think that the nature of nature has a message for us to which we are increasingly paying attention. Despite Darwin and our obsession with fierce competition as the engine of evolution, the argument can be made that the real achievements in the development of life have been accomplished through cooperation, through collaboration. Our bodies are a colony of around 50 trillion cells. Ants, termites, and wasps, which function as an corporate individual through their choice to serve a collective good, make up a very significant percentage of the biomass on earth. Nature IS telling us something about its nature. It took our great big human brains to become the phenomenally successful organisms we have become, to the threat of all others on the planet at present, as we play haphazardly with our new toy. That was only possible through the mind-boggling degree of specialization and collaboration that you and I, as the colony of swarming cells that we each are, have become.

 

The greatest success in nature comes through cooperation, community. It will take better community as a human species for us to get through this current adolescence. We could learn something from the ants.

 

We project. We've projected our own self-centeredness and fear upon nature, just as we have upon everything else. We see ourselves fighting and scrambling to beat out our fellow human, because we are out of harmony with the principle of life itself, and conclude that that is what is to be seen as the example of nature as well. We'd do well to question our unquestioned assumptions.

 

-S-

[Ephesos]

Originally Posted By: Alorael

Paragraph breaks, please!

Good lord, this.

Originally Posted By: Enraged Slith

Also, the last thing people want to read, particularly the ones who actually read, is more self-aggrandizing whining about why humans suck.

Good lord, also this. I majored in environmental studies and even I was grinding my teeth by the end of this. Philosophical babble about humanity's place in the world is a whole lot less effective than a simple reminder to use compact fluorescent light bulbs or something.

Originally Posted By: VCH

Nature is instead composed of self replicating entities that (group selectionists aside) could not care less about the survival of a species or the world.

You are technically right with this statement, but it's not really hitting the mark for me. Why? Because it's not so much about them "caring", but about what makes the most sense for them in terms of effort vs. reward. In most cases, the amount of effort it would take to outright eliminate their competitor species is way too much compared to the reward. It's not worth it, in short.

Originally Posted By: VCH

This power is granted to us by our immense ability to reason, learn and think.

No, this power is granted to us by the huge toys we've been building for the last couple of hundred years. You make it sound like we could close our eyes, think really hard, and raise CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Originally Posted By: Synergy

Matrix, viruses, blah

I've always hated that analogy, if only for the irony of the baddies saying it. But cancer isn't much better in my book. In fact, I just hate these kinds of analogies, trying to reduce a huge situation into comically-simplified terms. Also, please stop saying harmony.

Originally Posted By: Synergy

the nature of nature

Hah. Terminology sucks. "Nature" is not telling us anything. Lovelock be damned, it is not a single entity. We can observe other organisms and try to learn from what we see. But there will not be some moment where a scientist studying chimps in the field is approached by some weird green-skinned person in a toga saying "Hi, I'm Nature, care for some impartial wisdom?"

Originally Posted By: Synergy

We could learn something from the ants.

Right, let's start capturing the young of different-colored ants, and then enslave them. Oh, wait, we already tried that once. Maybe we should eat them instead?

...yes, we are essentially a huge "colony" of cells. But you can't count the body cells as "different", because they are still part of the same whole, simply specialized for different functions. It's a different matter to talk about the mutualistic bacteria that live in our guts, because that is actual symbiosis (or at least commensalism).

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Ephesos

...yes, we are essentially a huge "colony" of cells. But you can't count the body cells as "different", because they are still part of the same whole, simply specialized for different functions.

please edit this part out before synergy sees it and writes a response, because we both already know what he's going to say and you don't want to read it any more than i do

[Slawbug]

(n_n)

 

oh thurilith

[Ephesos]

I am still entitled to refute the point.

[Dintiradan]

Curse you, Tuckersworth! I had this mock oblivious post all ready to go, and you had to snipe me with a two-liner.

[Sudanna]

A lot of species, especially plants/fungi (and just about all multicellular organisms) are heavily reliant on other species, be they bacteria in your gut or fungus on your roots.

[Slawbug]

THERE WILL BE A SPECIAL PLACE FOR YOUR HEAD-FILLED

HELMET IN MY APPROACHING WORLD OF DARKNESS

[Synergy]

Eph:

 

What's wrong with simplicity? Can we not see the nature of life as being both beautifully simple and exquisitely complex, depending on how you are looking at it? If you find anything comical about the fully zoomed out scale of observation I was making, where things become very grand and simple in statement, that's your choice. "Everything is" could be one such statement. One could say that the statement "God is Love" is a comically simple reduction. But quite a few hundreds of millions of people on the planet would probably take issue with making a mockery of the value of the statement, merely because it's too "simple" and vague. It just represents an all-encapsulating metascale of ultimate principle, like the furthest zoom out on your camera lens. The very point of such statements are the utter simplicity that exists on one level.

 

I suggest our greatest departure from "harmony" with Life occurred when we decided we somehow were separate from nature, from the rest of life, as if a cell of our body rebelled and decided it was not part of us any more. I see the principle of life reflected fractally — whatever scale you observe it on, it repeats. Subatomic particles "cooperate" to form "atoms." Atoms cooperate to form stars. All life is an aggregrate of something lesser that must "get together" in order for it to exist. That, simply, to me is the message of all Life. Life exists through cooperation, not through alienation.

 

I wager I'll use the "h" word where it seems appropriate to me. I'm not sure I understand the hostility, unless you're just expressing irritation that I've contributed a viewpoint to the dialog that you don't agree with or care to see be a part of the discussion.

 

In Thuryl's case, I understand the hostility.

 

-S-

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Synergy

I suggest our greatest departure from "harmony" with Life occurred when we decided we somehow were separate from nature, from the rest of life, as if a cell of our body rebelled and decided it was not part of us any more. I see the principle of life reflected fractally — whatever scale you observe it on, it repeats. Subatomic particles "cooperate" to form "atoms." Atoms cooperate to form stars. All life is an aggregrate of something lesser that must "get together" in order for it to exist. That, simply, to me is the message of all Life. Life exists through cooperation, not through alienation.

for the record, eph, i told you so

[Synergy]

And yet, you could not look away. Admit it, I give you pleasure, despite all your protestations. Glad to be of service.

 

-S-

[Lilith]

oh don't get me wrong, as much as i think that a lot of what you believe and do is misguided i'd be sort of sad if you left here and never came back

 

i don't feel much like having a serious argument with you right now though, i've got my own real-life stuff to deal with and adding more conflict to the mix than necessary isn't all that appealing

[Ephesos]

EDIT: Yep, I did know you were right, Thuryl, I just don't feel like retracting my viewpoints today just because someone wants to own the debate.

 

Originally Posted By: Synergy

I'm not sure I understand the hostility, unless you're just expressing irritation that I've contributed a viewpoint to the dialog that you don't agree with or care to see be a part of the discussion.

 

Oh boy. I do not resent your contributing to the discussion. I do not resent your contributing a viewpoint with which I disagree. I do resent the attempt to wrap the discussion in a layer of meaning that is largely superfluous to the discussion. With that said, bring it.

 

Originally Posted By: Synergy

What's wrong with simplicity? Can we not see the nature of life as being both beautifully simple and exquisitely complex, depending on how you are looking at it?

 

You misunderstand my point. Perhaps I should've written that as "I just hate these kinds of analogies, trying to reduce a huge situation into comically-simplified terms that end up missing the nuances of the circumstances resulting from the fact that it is in fact a very complex situation."

 

So yes, I guess I am saying that we cannot see it as simple and complex at the same time. Which doesn't seem that strange to me, actually. Not that there aren't interpretations that allow for simplicity and complexity, just not at the same time... because that would be a contradiction.

 

Originally Posted By: Synergy

It just represents an all-encapsulating metascale of ultimate principle, like the furthest zoom out on your camera lens. The very point of such statements are (sic) the utter simplicity that exists on one level.

 

...okay, the subject-pronoun confusion was messing with me for a moment, but let me try to respond anyway. I have a lot of trouble accepting that one can clearly present a multi-level argument that stands on its own on each level without a host of support.

 

Originally Posted By: Synergy

Subatomic particles "cooperate" to form "atoms."

 

First, your "abuse" of "quotation marks" is clouding your argument. What are "atoms"? But let's ignore them for a moment. Either you are reducing the idea of cooperation to a basic physical principle (which seems antithetical to the rest of your argument, as it would remove a few layers of meaning), or you are assigning motives to subatomic particles. The former is counter-intuitive, the latter is incredibly difficult to envision.

 

As for the larger point, I do not see any meaning in the fact that all stuff is made from smaller stuff.

[Swimmin' Salmon]

Why is it that I read the OP, and just knew I would find a reply from Synergy in here?

[Niemand]

Atoms are tiny, brutal societies. The leptons are oppressed by the hadrons and forced to live in the far reaches of the atom, but not allowed to leave. Occasionally one is mercilessly devoured in electron capture. Within the nucleus the hadrons struggle for dominance; sometimes cliques (alpha particles) are forced out entirely. Gamma rays are emitted by the violence of their confrontations.

[Lilith]

really tempted to start posting ludwig plutonium rants in this thread now but i don't actually want to ruin everyone else's fun

[Swimmin' Salmon]

I keep telling lepton that she needs to leave that relationship.

 

One day she'll see the light.

[Triumph]

Originally Posted By: Niemand

Atoms are tiny, brutal societies. The leptons are oppressed by the hadrons and forced to live in the far reaches of the atom, but not allowed to leave. Occasionally one is mercilessly devoured in electron capture. Within the nucleus the hadrons struggle for dominance; sometimes cliques (alpha particles) are forced out entirely. Gamma rays are emitted by the violence of their confrontations.

This wins.

[Synergy]

I have no wish or desire to own or derail this sincere subject of inquiry posed by VCH, and I'm not pretending that what I'm talking about is his or anyone else's primary point of interest. It was meant to be one contribution on one small point. I was responding to VCH's comment about changing "the way nature works." I'm suggesting that our present beliefs/assumptions about the way nature works are not the only possible or even likely explanation for how nature is actually working.

 

We're living in the zenith of "survival of the fittest" as our belief in the motivating principle of Life. Now, let's observe something. Under this mindset, we have spawned lifeforms of our own, corporations, which operate as individual creatures clearly driven by belief in this principle, to great deleterious effect to our collective life and all life. The U.S. Supreme Court just ruled to reemphasize this aggregate lifeform to be one lifeform, giving it more individual power than ever. I question the veracity of our assumption—that survival through beating everyone else out really is the underlying principle of life, what drives life, what enables life, what perpetuates life. It's not working well in our own simulation of life through our institutional creations, which behave as individual lifeforms. And yet, we are certain that this is what enabled life to develop over untold eons to arrive at its crowning achievement to date—us. How long will this world last for us with survival of the fittest being permitted to run out its full course in our own corporate creations and actions? Seriously. How long do you think it can or will last at this point? Because a few thousand years is the tiniest blip of time on the scale of the development of life on our world.

 

As to the simplicity vs. complexity issue, let me say it this way. Principles of life are beautifully—even comically—simple. The actual outplay and interplay of these principles is incredibly complex. And both are true at the same time. I believe the originally offensive simplification was that human beings can be seen to be acting like a cancer on the planet at this point. If we look at the similarities between what cancers do in a body, and what we as humans are doing in the body of the world, the resemblence is notable. I'm not for one moment saying humans are bad, are a disease, should be cut out or eradicated. I'm saying our behavior is mimicking cancer's behavior on a global scale. And our behavior at present reflects our dominant belief in survival of the fittest. That belief is proving to be cancerous to all life, I'm arguing.

 

Regarding atoms and particles, etc., I am pointing to the fractal pattern of the organization of all Life (and I consider all material in existence to be part of the ultimate quantum-physical tapestry of Life, "living" or "dead.") The pattern exists in both that which we consider living, as well as inanimate matter itself. I'm pointing to evidence of a principle that underlies the existence of everything. I find great meaning and suggestion in it. True, that is a result of believing everything is here on purpose. I put "atoms" in quotes, because our concept of matter is theoretical, keeps shifting, and gets weirder and more esoteric and complex all the time.

 

I'm "reducing the idea of cooperation" to a basic grand unifying principle that underlies everything. I think it's resounding. And astounding. And that it doesn't get enough attention. I'm obviously not hesitant to be an advocate of it, because I don't like at all the experience that advocacy for survival of the fittest has created for us on this planet for some time now.

 

And let me reiterate that all I seek to do in dialog is propose other possibilities for consideration. There's nothing to prove, but precisely because I believe we are a collective organism on this planet, what you believe and do also affects me and vice-versa. I do have an interest in making some effort to offer that which I believe may contribute to us all becoming more healthy as the corporate lifeform we as humans are on the planet. What happens to my brother happens also to me. This is the concept which flies in the face of what happens to my brother doesn't matter, only what happens to me. But I'm saying that the latter perspective is what is making us behave like what we call animals, a term which is, perhaps, insulting to all other animals.

 

-S-

 

P.S. - Is it actually possible for one person to own or derail a topic here? It's not an individual act, really now, is it? It takes a corporate action, namely, a significant number of people shifting their attention to focus on something they may otherwise claim is beside the point and not of interest to them. And yet they have chosen to give it their interest. I like to say, "People vote with their feet." I'm just sayin'...

[Randomizer]

I'll just sit here on a lepton as the bosons go by.

 

I'm waiting for Jeff to get some time and see how his board is filling up with this discussion. At least it isn't flammable, yet.

[Alorael at Large]

Nature isn't about anything. It is, instead, everything. But somehow "nature" has come to mean ecology, or biology, or something, so let's go with that.

 

Biology and evolution are not about survival of the fittest. They're about passing on genes. This is unarguably true; even if you don't believe in evolution, it is immediately apparent that things that don't pass on their genes stop being part of nature because they die and aren't replaced.

 

Now, "survival of the fittest" paints a nasty dog-eat-dog picture of the way things work. But, as you point out, it's not the whole story. Mutualism and cooperation are also great ways to get ahead. But both work. And most importantly, none of that describes what humanity, as a whole, is doing to the planet.

 

Yes, there are species against whom we outcompete for resources. That would be everything with rapidly shrinking habitats. And yes, sometimes we ruinously compete with each other, corporately and individually. And yes, there are species that have evolved mutually with humans and benefit greatly from our existence and activities.

 

But the environmental problem? We are more like a world-wide disaster than a virus or a cancer. Like an asteroid impact, we have, as a species, greatly altered the face of the Earth and its climate over a geological and evolutionary blink of an eye. We are, in fact, a mass extinction event. That's not on purpose, and that's not biological nature, and that's not even anything really like human nature. It's just what we're doing. And from the perspective of the species that die out, it's terrible. From the perspective of the species that will emerge from the ashes, it's great. We're not "inharmonious" any more than meteor strikes or volcanic eruptions are. Disruptive, yes, but that's nature.

 

The only problems are that we're sentimentally attached to the world as is and, more importantly, we're likely to collectively suffer a whole lot from our actions. There's no "natural" argument to change our ways, just practical ones. We don't like suffering, so we'll try to fix it.

 

—Alorael, who just doesn't understand the wonder at cooperation. Inanimate things don't cooperate, they exist. It's just as accurate to be dumbstruck by the fact that stuff is made up of really different smaller stuff, which starts behaving unlike any stuff humans can see. And all of that is physical laws, which has nothing to do with the mutualisms of life. The fact that they can appear the same is no more meaningful than the fact that the sky and water are both blue. It's neat, and much can be made of it, but it's a coincidence.

[Khoth]

Life has been survival of the fittest since it started. Populations expand with no thought for the consequences, until lack of resources, or predators, or environmental devastation ups the death rate to a point of "balance". If humans ever do flood the atmosphere with vast quantities of toxic gas and almost completely wipe out life on earth, it wouldn't be the first time that happened, and it probably wouldn't be the last.

 

The difference is that, unlike other lifeforms, we can look back on how things have been in the last three billion years and have a chance to decide that enough is enough and stop doing things that way. Whether we actually take that chance is another matter, though.

[Swimmin' Salmon]

Synergy - If your intent is to look at a small part of vch's post, and comment on that with 1000 words (possibly more, I didn't count read them), does that instill upon the rest of us the necessity of responding in a like manner to the balance of the post in order to re-right the thread? If so, it seems to be a rather unfair burden you are forcing on your fellow forum-goers. One thing I have noticed around here recently, is that people will actually start new threads in cases like this, in order to allow focus to be maintained in one thread, while permitting an (perhaps) active auxiliary discussion elsewhere.

 

Does this seem like a fair way to deal with this?

[Ephesos]

...Synergy, let me re-state one of my points, and explain why I cannot in good faith continue this argument.

 

You have stated your worldview here many, many times. It is deeply-rooted in a base of cooperation, unity, and harmony, and it's a solid and cohesive perspective. It is, however, largely inaccessible to the rest of us, because interacting with it in any way seems to require accepting its basic tenets. And because I find myself unable to accept those tenets, I cannot continue the discussion without treading on your viewpoint. And as Thuryl had said before, we all know how that's going to end.

 

I respect your commitment to your worldview, I just cannot argue on its terms. Also, I can't compete with the sheer freakin' volume of text.

 

I'm done.

[Lilith]

maybe i wouldn't be such a pessimist if the world didn't keep proving me right

[Swimmin' Salmon]

bad world. BAD!

[Slawbug]

Originally Posted By: Synergy

P.S. - Is it actually possible for one person to own or derail a topic here? It's not an individual act, really now, is it? It takes a corporate action, namely, a significant number of people shifting their attention...

Or, a single person editing a significant number of posts...

BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAP

[Alorael at Large]

It doesn't even require editing. Just pile enough text into one post and you can pull a one-post derailment.

 

—Alorael, who thinks War and Peace would do nicely. This thread could turn from a discussion of human nature and non-human nature to a discussion of human nature.

[Goldengirl]

I won't pretend to have any grand statements or manifestos to contribute to this thread. I only offer some criticism of the call to action, through which this discussion ultimately hinges.

 

Pleas for helping the environment often bank on morality and the "nature of nature" arguments. However, to be perfectly frank, people don't care about the sacred nature of nature that we supposedly have an obligation to defend. What people do care about is power, and survival. Any effective call that people make concerning the environment has to have a real, demonstrable impact that we must avert. This impact has to be, in effect, greater than the the inconvenience of being more green. People don't so much care about saving the polar bears, but they do care about not getting flooded out by rising sea levels.

 

Frankly, even if any of you may feel that, for personal reasons, saving nature is enough of a reason to save nature, the majority of people need something more substantial to rally behind.

[Lilith]

really there's not much chance of reducing per capita emissions so we've gotta reduce the population

 

somebody should start a nuclear war, it'd make the world a better place in the long run

[Alorael at Large]

Nothing so drastic is necessary. Stymie healthcare reform, make insurance unattainable, cut public health funding, train fewer doctors, offer pharmaceutical companies fewer incentives, and we can be dropping like flies in no time at all!

 

—Alorael, who firmly believes that this would be better for the environment than a nuclear war. Diseases are natural, after all. Radiation is entirely unnatural.

[Sporefrog]

I'd say that I am interested in hearing Synergy's mentioned underlying tenets for his beliefs, however I get the feeling there's a long history of conflict behind asking such questions

 

In the meantime, back to VHC's original post. I think there's definitely a place for both underlying moral arguments along with practical "what you can do" arguments for any topic, as others have said. I think the moral arguments are probably the most common for environmentalism, but that's not necessarily a problem. As Alorael said: who is your target audience and will they gain anything from this line of attack?

 

As for the argument itself, I have a few qualms.

Originally Posted By: VHC

Nature is instead composed of self replicating entities that (group selectionists aside) could not care less about the survival of a species or the world.

Unless you are assuming that humans are not part of nature, isn't it a little ironic that you're literally making a statement about how nothing in nature cares about the world in the middle of a call to arms to care about the fate of the biosphere?

 

As far as our ability to impact the world as a result of "thinking, reasoning, and learning," unlike someone said earlier, I think that's a perfectly fine statement. Specifically, our ability to make both physical and mental tools (the scientific method, steam engines, nuclear bombs) has given us extraordinary power, but the basis for doing so is definitely rooted in learning, reasoning, and thinking.

 

I'll stop there for brevity's sake.

[Student of Trinity]

Maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist, but my scenario for a century or two from now is this. We've stabilized the environment by finding more efficient technology, the world human population is stable at around 10 billion, and Asia is First World. Average temperatures are several degrees warmer, farmbelts have shifted around, and there are dykes around a lot of coastal cities. Life goes on okay.

 

One thing for leptons, they don't have to worry about survival of the fittest. Their survival is guaranteed by a fundamental symmetry law, and there aren't many ways they can change so as to be either fitter or less fit.

[Lilith]

i notice you didn't even bother mentioning africa

[Swimmin' Salmon]

Originally Posted By: Ferrous Oxide and Turpentine

Radiation is entirely unnatural.

Huh?

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Ferrous Oxide and Turpentine

Radiation is entirely unnatural.

We are under near constant assault from the most insidious form of radiation, solar radiation. Skin cancer is on the rise as the hole in the ozone layer increases. Now if we can just convince more people to lie out in the sun and bake their brains out we can easily reduce the population starting with the idiots.

Oh, you meant nuclear radiation. That's natural too, just less common. It gives the skin a different glow.

[Locmaar]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

i notice you didn't even bother mentioning africa

I think Europe, the Americas and Australia were also missing. I gather they'll be part of the farmbelt shift.

I fully subscribe to SoT's relaxed view of the future. After all, maybe the great chance we have is that we indeed understand that there might be a problem with how we act. Who cares if that's natural if we can act on it?

[Synergy]

I'm guessing by the response that Salmon didn't read my comment about derailing topics. I said people vote with their feet. I don't expect anything from anyone when I make a post. The fun of making any attempt to communicate is you don't know what the result is going to be. I wrote a bit in response to one sentence from VCH's post. I got some response from one person, and in good faith, responded to that. What's the problem? No one's expected to do anything in response to anyone's post. If there is no interest in my particular contribution, no one will engage it.

 

Nothing's preventing anyone from engaging any other aspect of VCH's post. I observe that not a lot of other dialog has been generated so far. Guess what? That's not my fault. Not one little bit. Every single person here is doing exactly what they choose—no more and no less. Let's not get so precious and hyper-protective and let's not feel compelled to assign paper scapegoats for a problem that doesn't even exist.

 

-S-

 

P.S. Ephesos, I respect your choice, and agree it's the healthy solution where two people have no workable basis for continuing a debate.

[Student of Trinity]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

i notice you didn't even bother mentioning africa

Nope. Alas.

[Swimmin' Salmon]

Originally Posted By: Synergy

I'm guessing by the response that Salmon didn't read my comment about derailing topics.

Not a good guess, since I specifically mentioned a part of your post which came AFTER the dérailleur section. I just didn't read the substance, as you had kindly informed your audience of your intention.

As far as not having expectations, I find that a bit disingenuous. A person who is not expecting anything from their audience will not publish at all. The moment you publish, you are expecting a person to read your words . Of course, that person can either respond in that media, or within their own brain, but there will be a response.
So yeah, you are putting words out there with the foreknowledge that you will get some kind of response.

[Alorael at Large]

Humor, people! Besides, radiation is not only natural, it's good for you!

 

—Alorael, who thinks VCH got what he came for. He knows how people will react to his letter. It's ugly, but then, it always seems to be.

[Synergy]

@Salmon: Your point about expectations might just be an issue of semantics between us. I do have a personal intention, a purpose, in choosing to share words, yes. But, an expectation of what kind of result it needs to create, I choose not to have. Expectation is like prejudice...we're already closed off to the organic in-the-moment possibilities of what can be. I trust that whatever we are each inspired to do in the moment serves its purpose adequately, and we can let it go with that trust.

 

I know that everything affects everything, so anyone who chooses to read another's words cannot help be affected. There's no need for expectation on that count—to have an effect is automatic. If I had a need for anyone to be affected in a particular way, and would be anything other than fine with them not being so affected, then it would become an expectation. Expectation is the biggest killer of relationships. I know I can live most happily with no expectation or requirement at all. It also means I get disappointed a whole lot less. : )

 

I rarely know who is affected how here. Most people on forums are lurkers.

 

-S-

[Slawbug]

C:\>unzip pants.zip

  Inflating: BUZZWRDS.DOC

[Synergy]

Regarding VCH's inquiries, I do have another thought or two I'd like to add.

 

VCH said, "2. use our unique self awareness and intellectual powers to actually change..."?

 

As has at least been skirted here so far, isn't it this unique awareness we have, which has enabled us to rapidly populate and behave "out of balance" with other Life? And that reality also now being part of our awareness, would it not be the case that we alone as the perpetrators and the only species apparently capable of stopping ourselves should be the ones to use our awareness to make a shift? No one else got us here, so no one else can be expected to make it better for us.

 

An even bigger question can be asked too, which has also been broached here somewhat also: Is it ever possible for life/nature to actually be out of balance? What if being what we call "out of balance" is merely part of a larger over-arching process of evolution as a whole? The history of this planet is one of extinction. Nearly all life ever on this planet is extinct, yet Life itself persists doggedly, and continues to fashion increasingly marvelous products. I'd say everything is right on schedule, and the very crisis we, as one part of life, have created is also the impetus for us to take another step up ultimately. Or, to put it in pop-lyric terms, "to go against nature is part of nature too."

 

There is increasing dialog in the sciences of late around the very notion that crisis itself is one of the most potent agents of evolutionary advance. For instance, with recent shakeups in our ideas of early human ancestry, the suggestion now is that it was not simply dropping from the trees and walking on two feet in the plains of Africa that inspired our brains to start growing so much larger, but the cycles of rapid climate change over scores of thousands of years in that region that inspired the development of a species especially adapted to deal with change and environmental challenge. Us. I now observe the human species to populate the furthest reaches of the planet, from frigid cold to blistering hot. It's a compelling addition to the dialog of our wonderings about where we came from and how life works.

 

So, despite our present engagement of awareness, concerns, and choices to do things differently, I trust that the overall process of life can never be violated. It will always prevail with or without us, and both are entirely possible. It's up to us whether we want to continue being part of the story on this planet. A difference I may have with others in embracing this point, is that I don't believe Life came this far on this planet to bring forth the wonder that is human beings to let us fail ourselves. I think we are going to make it, precisely because we are now facing crisis of our own making and have the means to make choices concerning it.

 

-S-

 

ADDIT: *waves fondly to Slarty*

[Lilith]

ts;dr

[Alorael at Large]

The problem with embracing crisis as an agent of evolution is the fact that evolution is not a good thing. It is especially not a good thing when you can't be sure that your genes are the ones that will survive the storm. And more importantly, you probably can be sure that, no matter whose genes survive, the ones doing the worst of the surviving will be really miserable.

 

A better Earth? Weird argument, but conceivable. Also irrelevant to the fact that I don't want to live on a planet wracked by crisis. I want to enjoy my privileged 21st-century First World existence, thank you very much.

 

—Alorael, who instead calls for everyone else to make sacrifices to enable his lifestyle. It's for the best.