A Concise World-View (750 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 1.09 on 20 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by iddqd (View user info) at 2006-08-24 23:40:40 EDT
This is somewhat of a combination of other things i have either posted or said on this site. I'm writing it down more for my own benefit, so that I do not forget it.
***
My point of view is two-pronged, and indeed is made from two seemingly contradictory prongs, at least on face value.
The first 'prong' is an observation, while the second is an opinion. The observation is broad, almost to the point of redundancy, and it is this:
Humanity, that is the organism that acts as an evolutionary force on this planet, has no obligation to the planet that it inhabits, despite the unparallelled control we enjoy over it. The planet has been here for billions of years, and will be here for billions more. Whether we turn this version of the planet into a radioactive 'wasteland', or infinitely preserve the ecosystems we now have is irrelevant as far as the planet, and furthermore as far as Life, capital 'L' Life, is concerned. That is, either of the two aforementioned cases (wasteland or preserved) is equally valid: there is no 'good' or 'bad', there is merely action and consequence.
That is my observation. Contrary, or more likely, because of this I have an opinion: That we, humanity as a conscious, intelligent organism need to understand that there is a tangible cost for everything we do, an ecological cost. Everything we create uses up some part of the planet, to differing degrees. Many people if you ask them will quickly affirm that we should 'Save the Planet'. Whatever that means. Finishing this noble sentiment, they will then promptly hop into their brand new car and speed off into the stained sunset listening to the lates tunes on their I-pod. However, I am not casting moral judgement upon this behaviour - it is perfectly valid for them to do this, and I myself enjoy the luxuries my society affords me. However, I cannot help but look at the sentiment in a negative light. To me, the mantra of 'Save the Planet' is little more than lip-service we pay to expiate the guilt we feel for knowingly contributing to the degredation of the Earth's current ecosystems, for the sake of some trivial toys.
I feel that instead of paying this redundant, meaningless lip-service in saying 'Save the Planet', we should instead look at our actions under the more relevant and pertinent idea that we should 'Save Ourselves'. After all, we are the only ones that can, or will.
The planet doesn't need our help, our only obligation is to ourselves.
User Reviews
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-08-26 05:31:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
actually, they keep finding things that point to life on mars. just recently another rock was found with possible signs (yes, i know the last one was discredited). besides thas just our solar system, you cant possibly deduce that thjere is no other life elsewhere, or even that there IS life on other planets in our solar system, even the moon, we are jsut unable to detect it. so while i cant tell you why there isnt life on mars, i also cannot tell you that there isnt life elsewhere in our universe.
i did not really say that life is ubiquitous, i said that it has being doing its thing long before we showed up, and will continue to do so long after.
as for my life experience, you know nothing of me or where ive been, you fool. have you even left indiana? save the insults for someone who is better at them, and i'll save the bullshit empty mysticism and half-cocked, pea-brained, melodramatic conspiracy theories to you.
this 'anthropic principle' is merely a point of view, and not the final word, you fucking sheep. at least the idea ive written here is my own. it may be rudimentary and simple and in fact been written elsewhere by others in greater and far more sophisticated detail, but i reached it with my own thoughts. i dont give a fuck about that principle, or what you have to say.
your interpretation of my refutation of this principle displays your lack of education. the problem with this priciple is that it borders on mysticism and not upon empirical thought or evidence. it, as i said, infers that there is some sort of divine will that 'put' human thought and sense here for some sort of reason. that is nothing short of religion, and i have no respect for that sort of idea.
i dont assert that nothing humans do to their environment matters, you narrow-minded fool. i assert that the things humans do to the environment, for all intents and purposes matter only to humans. think about what im am saying before you try and rant at me. im not one of your idiot little friends that will eat your every word up.
go and get an education, and come back to me when you learn not jsut to read academically, but the behave and think as such.
Submitted by ih8u2man (user info) at 2006-08-25 22:13:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Ha!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-25 22:05:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-08-25 01:19:44 (#)
Ranking: 0
no, no, you miss my point. the ecosystems are not irrelevant, as far as Life is concerned, the relative 'state' of an ecosystem is irrelevant. i mean that life can and does find a way, no matter what.
---------------
Tell me why our rovers found no life on Mars. Tell me why there isn't life on the moon.
Your assertion that life is ubiquitous and indelibly resiliant is just ignorant.
Whether life is the result of precise conditions of a highly chanceful nature or designed by an intelligent creator, it is a tenuous and rare thing that, whether we like it or not, we have a high level of impact on as human beings.
To try and assert nothing humans do to their environment matters displays the level of your mental neglect and willingness to excuse your own negative actions. It's a nice way to rationalize...bad way to reach a perspective of actual truth.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-25 21:53:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-08-25 07:02:42 (#)
Ranking: 0
"There would be no universe that didn't contain conscious beings simply because conscious beings are required to sense and reflect upon that universe that contains them."
who says?
that statement implys that there is some force dictating that there is a reason for us to have sense to reflect upon the universe. i dont believe there is. furthermore i see no evidence to the contrary.
you can reject what you like, but what i am saying about good and bad is not a reflection upon humanity, it is merely a statement of fact. what the fuck does an amoeba care about some abstract concept, or 'thought'? all it wants is to get some hot sub-division on a friday night, regardless of what shakespeare has to say about the matter.
save your 'lost' comments for whatever mindless drones you surround yourself with. wikipedia does not a philosopher make.
----------------------
"you can reject what you like, but what i am saying about good and bad is not a reflection upon humanity, it is merely a statement of fact."
Listen to you! What a fucking idiot.
You can go to a thousand other websites besides wikipedia and find the same information on the anthropic principle. I linked to there because the definition offered is pretty concise. There is a good discussion of the subject in Paul Davies's "Mind of God" if you want to get a PhD opinion, which is pretty damned anal if you ask me, but whatever.
I suggest you come down off your cynical fucking high horse now and then and quit rejecting contradictory viewpoints simply because you can't assimilate them with the ones you've carefully chosen to suit your own limited life experiences, particularly when you can't even properly refute them.
Your attempt to refute the anthropic principle amounted to you saying, "You don't know nuthin'!"
Nice argument. I can't stand people like you...fucking know-it-all little shitheads with no real life experience but an opinion on everything.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-08-25 21:22:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Concerning Man's effect on the planet: If a corps of Engineers reroutes the path of a river,
all it takes is one good flood to put the river back to its original course. The same is true
about the Earth.
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2006-08-25 16:25:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by gank (user info) at 2006-08-25 11:00:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
As to the first part: it is difficult for me to be convinced by someone who refuses to speak in (at least some form of) absolutes.
Because I could come along and say that I am of the opinion that we don't even have an obligation to ourselves. I could say that our real goal, at the top of this thing called 'Life', is to destroy ourselves as fast as possible. That evolution gives us the false 'sense' that what we should be doing is proliferating our species and surviving. I say we go back to nothingness...
And you couldn't say that I'm wrong. Even though I am.
Submitted by gank (user info) at 2006-08-25 10:51:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
The last part of this post reminds me of people like Robert Kennedy Jr and Al Gore, flying all over the world in PRIVATE JETS to give "Save the Planet" speeches.
Submitted by VelvetElvis (user info) at 2006-08-25 07:58:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
"We" in your statement wasn't qualified, or rather was vague: we as a people or we as the superior species?
Nihilism comes to mind again, which at its core is a belief that conditions in a social organization are so bad as to make destruction or an overthrowing of existing values desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive possibility. In the Declaration of Independence we're granted the right to overthrow any governing body that goes against the majority's beliefs (to paraphrase). The U.S. passed that point this year (Bush's approval rating) yet no one w/in the states has done anything- outside of a few impotent protest marches.
This is a moot point, and makes anarchy seem all the more appropriate. This is possibly far off your point, but a point nonetheless. I'm sleepy, so it seems valid at the moment but may not be.
///
Also I agree w/ this, to a degree:
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2006-08-25 07:27:25 (#)
Ranking: 0
as though having concern for other organisms and the environment isn't often at its root a selfish motive anyway
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2006-08-25 07:27:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
as though having concern for other organisms and the environment isn't often at its root a selfish motive anyway
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-08-25 07:02:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"There would be no universe that didn't contain conscious beings simply because conscious beings are required to sense and reflect upon that universe that contains them."
who says?
that statement implys that there is some force dictating that there is a reason for us to have sense to reflect upon the universe. i dont believe there is. furthermore i see no evidence to the contrary.
you can reject what you like, but what i am saying about good and bad is not a reflection upon humanity, it is merely a statement of fact. what the fuck does an amoeba care about some abstract concept, or 'thought'? all it wants is to get some hot sub-division on a friday night, regardless of what shakespeare has to say about the matter.
save your 'lost' comments for whatever mindless drones you surround yourself with. wikipedia does not a philosopher make.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-08-25 06:55:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i dont think its nihilist. i am merely stating an observation. my actual opinion is in fact proactive.
i sadi that we need to DO something, what that thing is should not be in any way, shape or form be dictated or influenced by what we think other organisms or the environment needs, but rather what we need.
i think that we are talking about good and bad from two different perspectives. as far as humanity is concerned, yes there is certainly such a thing as good and bad, however, as far as the planet and its other, less self-aware inhabitants are concerned, they have no relevance or bearing whatsoever.
Submitted by VelvetElvis (user info) at 2006-08-25 01:48:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I didn't miss your point, but wanted to draw your attention to what others would see as a contradiction. I got it. To take it a step further, neither of us are thinking in linear terms of time, but rather cycles? (And we can and do all make a difference, whether for "good" or "bad," (subjectively speaking) and whether we want to or no.
Even a thought is a unit of energy, with far-reaching consequences beyond our own lives.
This is bong material, even tho I'm not high, vis., ETS ground- although I think he's intelligent, and shouldn't become a cliché around here. Most would disagree, I so couldn't give a final-days fuck.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-25 01:47:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2006-08-25 01:44:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
nihilism, how groundbreaking
-----------------
That's what *I* keep telling him, but I decided to go with the review below instead. I like the fact that he's thinking, but he's just...for lack of a better term...'lost'.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2006-08-25 01:44:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
nihilism, how groundbreaking
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-25 01:28:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Look, man...
I completely and unequivocally understand what your philosophy is, but I am compelled yet again to point out the fundamental flaws in such a system.
Take the follwing paragraph first:
"Humanity, that is the organism that acts as an evolutionary force on this planet, has no obligation to the planet that it inhabits, despite the unparallelled control we enjoy over it. The planet has been here for billions of years, and will be here for billions more. Whether we turn this version of the planet into a radioactive 'wasteland', or infinitely preserve the ecosystems we now have is irrelevant as far as the planet, and furthermore as far as Life, capital 'L' Life, is concerned. That is, either of the two aforementioned cases (wasteland or preserved) is equally valid: there is no 'good' or 'bad', there is merely action and consequence."
While I agree that what we do to the planet might be irrelevant from a universal point of view that takes into consideration what has come to be known as "the anthropic principle" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle), I adamantly disagree that there is no such thing as "good" and "evil" in a universal sense, precisely BECAUSE the anthropic principle is that which presides over our existence.
Let's make this clearer...
The "antropic principle" basically says: "There would be no universe that didn't contain conscious beings simply because conscious beings are required to sense and reflect upon that universe that contains them."
Now let's look at thought and the nature of good and evil... Shakespeare said, "There is no such thing as good or evil, but thinking makes it so." What he's saying here, at least to me, is self-evident. Without thought there would be no good or evil, and since thought is subjective, so must the concepts of "good" and "evil" be; however, if we take into account the nature of the anthropic principle and its relation to universes that can and cannot exist, EVERYTHING is subjective! There can be, in fact, no objective reality that is defined as being "outside" the realm of conscious perception.
Therefore, good and evil, even though irrevocably and hopelessly subjective in nature, occupy no less importance on the scale of concern of a conscious entity such as a human being than anything else. In fact, our concepts of good and evil are what create our value structures that are integral to our survival. It is the "yes/no" binary that directs our activities and ensures that our decisions get rewarded accordingly. Good and evil are an extension of our will to survive, and anything that threatens that most fundamental of human directives can be ascribed the title of "evil", for it will not be beneficial to us in the long term.
Even if our purpose can be said merely to be to breed and die, to procreate and perish, there exists an abiding consideration for the future of our progeny upon this earth. We want to see this ship of consciousness continue and not be stamped out by the cold, thankless forces of an unforgiving universe.
Think about that.
We have an OBLIGATION to keep the cycle alive. Why, you ask? Who the FUCK knows!? I'd like an answer to that question my DAMN self! I'd like for 'God' to come and tell me what the FUCK is going on here too, you know. And I am not and have never been one to throw my independent mind to the wolves in favor of blind acceptance of something, but whether we like it or not, there are certain laws in this universe, in this body, that cannot and will not be violated.
It's up to us to figure out what those are.
But you already knew all this.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-08-25 01:19:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
no, no, you miss my point. the ecosystems are not irrelevant, as far as Life is concerned, the relative 'state' of an ecosystem is irrelevant. i mean that life can and does find a way, no matter what.
I strongly feel there is no 'good' or 'bad' as far as this planet is concerned. good and bad are relevant only to us and or needs or preferences.
Also, I forgot to add a line. At the end of the second paragraph where it says 'trivial toys', i meant to add that it is valid for us to desire the toys, and to engage in whatever behaviour we desire, but we need to either accept the consequences of our actions or change our behaviour and desires, rather than merely pay lip-service, and falsely believe that we are doing anything.
Submitted by VelvetElvis (user info) at 2006-08-25 00:33:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Whether we turn this version of the planet into a radioactive 'wasteland', or infinitely preserve the ecosystems we now have is irrelevant as far as the planet, and furthermore as far as Life, capital 'L' Life, is concerned. That is, either of the two aforementioned cases (wasteland or preserved) is equally valid: there is no 'good' or 'bad', there is merely action and consequence.
//
Why did you insist on capitalizing "life" when in the same breath you say it/and our ecosystems are irrelevant? They are one and the same. Sine qua non. But, trivial point.
And there is good and bad, but such is strictly subjective. Not that I disagree w/ any of this, just a bit underdeveloped. I enjoy your mindwork.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-08-24 23:48:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
........
Submitted by Antioxident (user info) at 2006-08-24 23:43:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment