UnderGround Forums
 

NatureGround >> Humans not in balance Mother Earth


7/29/06 11:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jonwell
6 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Jul-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 42866
Where does this hippy fluffy notion of earth as an entity of good come about? FIrst of all, it's mindless, it doesn't create anything for any intent, it just is. Second, the system with which nature 'creates' things, evolution, works in such a way that barbaric competition and horrible suffering are the norm and not the exception.
7/29/06 11:56 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jack Carter
864 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Jul-06 11:56 PM
Member Since: 01/25/2004
Posts: 20748
Can animals choose to make long-term plans for their grandchildren and great-grandchildren? Thus, the impact is not as great. Again, the difference is in the impact of those choices. Both humans and animals can make plans for their offspring. One is short-term and one is long-term. Can animals choose to engage in passive self-destructive behavior? Yes. Animals can't choose anything. LOL. They do make choices actually. Just because their choices are extremely limted doesn't mean they don't make choices. They eat, sleep, reproduce, and fight according to the situation. Human beings do the same. They react to the environment around them and this is called "choice". The difference there is that we are usually more conscious of our choices. The more intelligent a creature is, the greater its capacity to be more conscious of it's reactions to the environment around them. Their struggle is for survival, and our struggle is against ourselves. LOL. This is almost a joke already. Struggle for survival and inter-species struggle are not mutually exclusive. Our struggle is for survival. We've just evolved to the point where we are at the top of the food chain. At this point, our greatest threat is eachother because nothing on earth can fuck with us. That is the consequence of being intelligent and being at the top of the food chain. Humans are totally balanced on Earth. Again, we might be here because we are the only way "mother earth" (lol) can protect itself from extra-terrestrial events such as giant asteroids smashing into the earth and killing everything on it. Who are you to tell "mother earth" (lol) that her creation of man was a flop? Oh, and I'm only referring to "mother earth" and "her creation" for the sake of speaking hippy talk for the hippy here.
7/30/06 12:21 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FastAndBulbous
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Jul-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 29526
"At this point, our greatest threat is eachother"

I wasn't talking about fighting each other, I was talking about individual humans struggling with their internal conflicts. I'm not talking about humans as a species being imbalanced, I'm saying that humans as individuals are imbalanced.
7/30/06 1:35 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jack Carter
864 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Jul-06 01:36 AM
Member Since: 01/25/2004
Posts: 20749
I'm not talking about humans as a species being imbalanced, I'm saying that humans as individuals are imbalanced. Then again you are wrong & you are diving into philosophical opinion & not natue which is the discussion here. Bing evolved and complex, obviously we are going to have greater inner conflicts to overcome than ants. With that complexity of conflicts also comes the capacity to develop complex social systems that we use to create "balance". Governments, religions, families, communities, etc.
7/30/06 1:42 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FastAndBulbous
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Jul-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 29531
"you are diving into philosophical opinion & not natue which is the discussion here."

You don't think the definition of nature depends on philosophy?


"Bing evolved and complex, obviously we are going to have greater inner conflicts"

You are saying that a creature's level of complexity is defined by its level of inner conflict, which is false.
7/30/06 8:19 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
crescentwrench
308 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Jul-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18681

I'm not talking about humans as a species being imbalanced, I'm saying that humans as individuals are imbalanced.

For the purposes of the discussion humans as a species are the topic.  Afterall, a species is just a collection of individuals.  Is an individual human choosing to slaughter 2,000 buffalo more imbalanced than an individual lion killing one zebra if the long term effect is the extinction of buffalo and zebra?  A long-term outcome is just a chain of short-term events.  This was the whole discussion before. 

7/30/06 8:41 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jack Carter
864 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Jul-06
Member Since: 01/25/2004
Posts: 20761
You don't think the definition of nature depends on philosophy? Irrelevant. The definition of nature of nature does not depend on philisophical opinion. If you give scientific examples of non-humans being in balance, then you should do the same when pointing out examples of humans being out-of-balance instead of coming up with a cop-out hippy answer "they have internal conflicts". That's not an example at all. You are saying that a creature's level of complexity is defined by its level of inner conflict, which is false. No, I said the level of inner conflict a species possess is proportionate to its complexity.
7/30/06 8:42 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FastAndBulbous
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Jul-06 08:49 AM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 29552
Right...

So are we discussing how carnivores eat herbivores?

Wait, some humans choose to eat meat and some humans choose to eat only plants.

So the human species, unlike any other species, is a collection of individuals who can each act differently.


"Is an individual human choosing to slaughter 2,000 buffalo more imbalanced than an individual lion killing one zebra if the long term effect is the extinction of buffalo and zebra?"

Is this a real question?
A human killing 2,000 buffalo is an anomaly, but all lions kill zebras. So one human couldn't cause the extinction of the buffalo, but all lions could cause the extinction of the zebra.
7/30/06 8:55 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
fokket
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Jul-06
Member Since: 10/31/2001
Posts: 5454
ttt
7/30/06 8:58 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
crescentwrench
308 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Jul-06 08:58 AM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18684

Is this a real question?
A human killing 2,000 buffalo is an anomaly, but all lions kill zebras.

Yes it's a real question, read the thread.  Is it more "out of balance" for a human to kill 2,000 buffalo in a buffalo jump like the Indians used to do than for a lion to kill a single zebra if the cumulative effects of the human and lion species is the extinction of the buffalo and zebra? 

In other words, is extinction caused by humans less in balance than extinction caused by non-humans?  Does it destroy the ecosystem (Mother Earth) any more?  That's the original intent of the thread.  I don't think you've addressed that though.

Especially not by comparing the solar cycle with the biosphere.  There is no balance.  Unless you want to simplify it into simplistic day/night terms, then maybe you could say it's about advantage/disadvantage.  In which case we're still in balance because we're firmly on the advantage side.  Nature thrives on imbalance, it's the engine of evolution.  The thread addresses this. 

BTW are you playing the part of a hippy for the purposes of this thread? 

7/30/06 9:10 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FastAndBulbous
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Jul-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 29553
I thought the thread had moved past the idea of humans causing extinction as some kind of "man vs. nature" idea.

To answer the original post:
No, it doesn't matter if humans killed all 900 remaining Dodo Birds.

It wouldn't matter to "nature" if humans went extinct. So I wasn't talking about the balance of humans in nature, I was just comparing humans to other animals.

"The Earth" wouldn't know the difference if all plants and animals died off forever. What do you think would happen? The earth would explode?

The idea of balance between species in an ecosystem is really just a passing thing. If you put 1000 random species of plants and animals on a foreign planet, and if they don't all die, then whatever happens is the balance they ended up with. If half the species become extinct and the rest continue to live, then that's balance.

So that's what we have on earth right now; things are balanced for a while, and then a few species will become extinct just like the ones who went extinct millions of years ago.
7/30/06 4:05 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
crescentwrench
308 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Jul-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18686
Well that thoroughly confused me.  That post sounds 180 degrees from what I thought I understood of your previous posts.  So then...uh..yeah.  Exactly. 
7/30/06 4:49 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MR BIG1
80 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Jul-06
Member Since: 07/28/2002
Posts: 11931
So it does not matter if we extinct all forms of plankton?? What about destroying plant life in the rainforest to the point of extinction?? That to will have no effect on Father Earth
7/30/06 4:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
crescentwrench
308 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Jul-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18690

So it does not matter if we extinct all forms of plankton?? What about destroying plant life in the rainforest to the point of extinction??

The Permian extinction killed 95% of all species living at the time.  Yet somehow here we are. 

So no, it does not matter to Father Earth.  Really the only thing that matters to Mother/Father would be a planetoid knocking her/him out of orbit or the eventual swallowing of her/him when the sun goes red giant. 

7/31/06 4:29 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BushHog
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 31-Jul-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 4806
"Animals can't choose anything. LOL. They do make choices actually. Just because their choices are extremely limted doesn't mean they don't make choices." You folks do remember that we ARE animals as well?? 99.9% of our "choices" are genetically coded into us and its based on survival, power and procreation. LOL @ people have a choice...
7/31/06 5:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Redneck
95 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 31-Jul-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 22414
It's because we are an imbalanced species, a schizoid creation of alien and earthly genes. That's why we dont fit in with this planet.
8/2/06 12:29 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MR BIG1
80 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 02-Aug-06
Member Since: 07/28/2002
Posts: 12008
Redneck is correct!
10/8/06 11:16 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jack Carter
864 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 08-Oct-06
Member Since: 01/25/2004
Posts: 22276
LMFAO @ anti-human proaganda. What a load of amateur, naive garbage.
10/9/06 3:35 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BushHog
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Oct-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 4994
I was talking science so i know you dont mean me.. And just laughing my fucking ass of at "new age liberal bs". You go sparky, you tell em.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.