By Request: Man WINS Again...

[CMoon]

The human species isn't evolving (genetically) anyway, unless you can show there is some sort of natural selection going on. Although we can joke about the 'idiocracy' problem, that smart people are having less kids than stupid people (probably true), it is not genetically related (as far as I know, OMG!) and so there's no natural selection taking place.

The question I wonder about is why we ask 'what will humans evolve into?' or 'how are we evolving?' when in fact most species go extinct. Why aren't we asking when that will happen? That way some other species that comes in to fill our ecological void can clone us for extra meat.

[moozooh]

I thought humans were getting taller?

Anyway, in case we survive for another hundred years or so (and only in that case), our arms and feet will likely degenerate to an extent, due to rapidly decreasing need to excercise them for living. Penises too, likely.

[Acid King]

I dunno, maybe the things weren't as well-known or as "immediately" vital to their ecosystem as some others (or perhaps we just never bothered to find out), but still, y'know, doesn't it bother you even a little bit to know that humanity is solely responsible (or close to it) for the complete and utter disappearance of a creature, let alone many others besides? ?

It bothers me about the same amount as Christians being burned as torches by Nero, which is to say, not in the slightest. It has nothing to do with me, and considering that this extinction was caused by actions and history dating before the modern environmental movement and subsequent changing of attitudes, and considering the incredible lengths humans now go through to protect endangered species, doesn't make me want to engage in a circle jerk about how awful humanity is.

And come on, BM... Cheney? You could have atleast compared me to Hitler.

The question I wonder about is why we ask 'what will humans evolve into?' or 'how are we evolving?' when in fact most species go extinct. Why aren't we asking when that will happen? That way some other species that comes in to fill our ecological void can clone us for extra meat.

I don't know I'd say humans are evolving as a species, but society sure is. Niggers were killed with impunity for whistling at white women less than sixty years ago and now we have a the son of an Ethnic Kenyan and a white woman running for the most powerful office in the country. I don't know what else you call that if not evolution.

[doodude]

hmm, diploma's are overrated anyway...

In school you're only taught what is conventional.
In University however you get to think for yourself.

Personally, I didnt see a lot of 'thinking for yourself' in college.

I did see a lot of people doing the same thing everyone else was doing so as not to be too different & left out.

I saw alot of people mimicking their professors while barely comprehending what they were saying.

I didnt see people truly begin to think for themselves until they were out of school & supporting themselves in the day to day situation of finding & keeping a job so they could live without someone else's money, car & housing.

Mostly, college was a party where you only needed enough common sense to get to class on time & make passing grades. Just like high school...

[BulletMagnet]

It has nothing to do with me, and considering that this extinction was caused by actions and history dating before the modern environmental movement and subsequent changing of attitudes

Well yeah, obviously you (presumably) didn't personally club a bunch of the things to death, and things have changed on this front during the past few decades, but somehow I still find it difficult to shake the facts that 1) It took humanity this long to even begin to think of the Earth as anything other than a grab bag of resources to be emptied (and whoever empties the most, first, wins), and 2) A whole bunch of people (many of them highly influential) are still thinking, and operating, in a decidedly pre-environmentalist mindset down to this day. Do I lie awake at night shivering in response to the aforementioned? No, but at the same time I can't look at a half-rotted planet and say "eh, what's done is done, not my fault, not my business." If nothing else, I do live on said planet, even if I don't own the whole thing - and, on that note, consider it as something other than one more commodity.

On the same note, I don't guilt-trip myself day by day over those Kentucky Fried Christians, but at the same time, it's not a pleasant thing to know that my species both has done this and still does this, in varying ways...so when I see something like Darfur going on, even if there's little that I as an individual can do about it, I find it difficult to simply short-circuit my conscience and get back to whatever I was doing without a second thought. I always considered such tendencies as a vital part of what it means to be human, but perhaps I'm wrong.

And come on, BM... Cheney? You could have atleast compared me to Hitler.

Sorry, but I pull no punches.

[doodude]

It has nothing to do with me, and considering that this extinction was caused by actions and history dating before the modern environmental movement and subsequent changing of attitudes

Well yeah, obviously you (presumably) didn't personally club a bunch of the things to death, and things have changed on this front during the past few decades, but somehow I still find it difficult to shake the facts that 1) It took humanity this long to even begin to think of the Earth as anything other than a grab bag of resources to be emptied (and whoever empties the most, first, wins), and 2) A whole bunch of people (many of them highly influential) are still thinking, and operating, in a decidedly pre-environmentalist mindset down to this day. Do I lie awake at night shivering in response to the aforementioned? No, but at the same time I can't look at a half-rotted planet and say "eh, what's done is done, not my fault, not my business." If nothing else, I do live on said planet, even if I don't own the whole thing - and, on that note, consider it as something other than one more commodity.

On the same note, I don't guilt-trip myself day by day over those Kentucky Fried Christians, but at the same time, it's not a pleasant thing to know that my species both has done this and still does this, in varying ways...so when I see something like Darfur going on, even if there's little that I as an individual can do about it, I find it difficult to simply short-circuit my conscience and get back to whatever I was doing without a second thought. I always considered such tendencies as a vital part of what it means to be human, but perhaps I'm wrong.

I am in agreeance...

And come on, BM... Cheney? You could have atleast compared me to Hitler.

Sorry, but I pull no punches.

Touche...

[moozooh]

It is human to feel uneasy about the horrible horrible stuff going on around, because no other animal does so for all of its kind's faults, past and present. It doesn't mean it's any good or productive, though. You can decide what's right and what's wrong for yourself without having to feel uneasy about things you cannot personally influence, especially if they happened half a century ago.

Meanwhile, the humanity isn't going to stop that shit, because doing so would interfere with the main money-making schemes around the world (see: petroleum and other oil derivatives). Most, if not all, environmentalists still use a lot of products modern civilization brought them without questioning the price for these products. Even the activists who decide to "unite with the nature" still leave themselves the choice to opt out of such lifestyle if things get really bad for them.

In my opinion, being indifferent is better than being hypocritical.

[BulletMagnet]

In my opinion, being indifferent is better than being hypocritical.

I really don't think that those are the only two options.

[moozooh]

So, what other option is there that is actually feasible, non-hypocritical, and gets at least something done to change the situation? And are there people who actually follow this option?

[CMoon]

So do you consider everyone involved in trying to preserve biodiversity (IE the WWF, IUCN, etc.) to be a hypocrite?

[moozooh]

No, obviously not everyone. There are people who are fully committed to their ideals and are doing stuff to not let bad things happen.

Too few of them to influence the history in the long run, though. :\

Basically, so far we've only agreed on "pollution quotas" and the amount of species to be freely killed without having them considered endangered.

[Acid King]

Well yeah, obviously you (presumably) didn't personally club a bunch of the things to death, and things have changed on this front during the past few decades, but somehow I still find it difficult to shake the facts that 1) It took humanity this long to even begin to think of the Earth as anything other than a grab bag of resources to be emptied (and whoever empties the most, first, wins),

How does this surprise you? Humans only realized germs cause illness 150 years ago. The greenhouse effect was only quantified around 1900, and it took technology decades to develop to where climate models were advanced enough to develop any kind of solid predictions (remember global cooling?). With thousands of years under our belts being ignorant to how our actions affect the earth and the ecosystem and how nature works, how is that troubling in the slightest?

2) A whole bunch of people (many of them highly influential) are still thinking, and operating, in a decidedly pre-environmentalist mindset down to this day.

And those people are in the extreme minority and matter less and less as time goes on.

Do I lie awake at night shivering in response to the aforementioned? No, but at the same time I can't look at a half-rotted planet and say "eh, what's done is done, not my fault, not my business." If nothing else, I do live on said planet, even if I don't own the whole thing - and, on that note, consider it as something other than one more commodity.

And who said I think that? If you have actually read what I wrote earlier, I'm not troubled by what happened in the past because of what's happening NOW. Though we may be sitting on a half rotted planet, the same attitudes and practices that lead to the monk seal becoming extinct are becoming less and less prevalent. The fact that we're moving forward is why it doesn't concern me. We're slowly (though in the scheme of things, fairly quickly) learning from our mistakes.

I always considered such tendencies as a vital part of what it means to be human, but perhaps I'm wrong..

Obviously I'm not a human then, right?

Sorry, but I pull no punches.

Probably 90+% of the "punches" you throw at me are pathetic little swipes that never land because they are based on what you think I think and not what I am actually saying or inferring. My initial post was to draw out something more substantive than "Humanity is the devil!" style one liners (Michaelm's comment about clubbing children is by far and away the best one). The fact that I usually have to explain my posts to you so that you come to some understanding instead of spitting out some nonsensical attack on what you perceive my thinking is suggests you need to either take some english classes or just stop assuming things and quit jumping to bullshit conclusions.

[JoshF]

...and?

[Acid King]

...and?

Zing.

[JoshF]

Zing.

[BulletMagnet]

With thousands of years under our belts being ignorant to how our actions affect the earth and the ecosystem and how nature works, how is that troubling in the slightest?

What concerns me about the way humanity tends to work (or not work, your choice) is not so much that we didn't develop the science we have now sooner, but the fact that we needed said science in the first place in order to make us re-think the attitude that Earth exists merely for our personal plundering - and, as I said, despite the fact that we now have the hard data to refute that standpoint, a good amount (I'm not even sure I'd call it a minority) still choose to shrug it off and act solely in their own short-term self-interest. That view of life, not its scientific advancements (or lack thereof) at any specific point in time, is what bothers me most about our species, and no matter what sort of advances are made in science or anything else, those types of viewpoints are not going to simply fade out by default - if you ask me, thanks to the fact that in relatively recent years such a philosophy has been awarded "legitimacy" by a sizable chunk of "experts," the problem's only getting worse.

The fact that we're moving forward is why it doesn't concern me. We're slowly (though in the scheme of things, fairly quickly) learning from our mistakes.

You are aware that a chunk of the science you referred to above says that we're not learning nearly quickly enough on this front to keep said millennia of ignorance from coming back to haunt us in a big way?

Obviously I'm not a human then, right?

No (I figured you'd know that I of all people would be hesitant to resurrect that one ), but I do believe that you're discounting legitimate concerns in the interest of either questioning the status quo (which in itself isn't a bad thing) just for the sake of questioning it, or some other completely unrelated reason - I can't read your mind any more than you can read mine. Speaking of which...

My initial post was to draw out something more substantive than "Humanity is the devil!" style one liners...The fact that I usually have to explain my posts to you so that you come to some understanding instead of spitting out some nonsensical attack on what you perceive my thinking is suggests you need to either take some english classes or just stop assuming things and quit jumping to bullshit conclusions.

I apologize that I wasn't able to infer everything you just said above from a pithy, dismissive one-word post.

You and I disagree on plenty, but up until now most of our back-and-forth has been relatively civil, at least if my memory serves - as such, if I feel like saying something to you, I feel confident that I can say it without getting you (and your responses) unduly hot under the collar. I'd hope that you feel the same about whatever you say to me on here - as such, if you want to express yourself to the point where I don't have to become bothersome, I'd suggest avoiding the one-liners you criticize, for starters.

[Acid King]

What concerns me about the way humanity tends to work (or not work, your choice) is not so much that we didn't develop the science we have now sooner, but the fact that we needed said science in the first place in order to make us re-think the attitude that Earth exists merely for our personal plundering - and, as I said, despite the fact that we now have the hard data to refute that standpoint, a good amount (I'm not even sure I'd call it a minority) still choose to shrug it off and act solely in their own short-term self-interest.

If you don't have a good understanding of how what you do affects the environment around why do you have any reason to think that way? Even native cultures now considered sacrosanct for their respect for nature did things that negatively impacted the environment and their survival. The eco system doesn't give immediate feedback. If you don't have a good understanding of how nature works, how one thing affects another over the long term, even the most reverent attitude towards nature could cause problems.

You are aware that a chunk of the science you referred to above says that we're not learning nearly quickly enough on this front to keep said millennia of ignorance from coming back to haunt us in a big way?

The world doesn't pull stop on a dime turns. We have learned, but it's a monumental task and big, sweeping changes don't happen overnight, especially when you've been going down the wrong path and are dependent on it.

No (I figured you'd know that I of all people would be hesitant to resurrect that one ),

Oh come on, man, you dangled it out there, how could I not tempt you?

I do believe that you're discounting legitimate concerns in the interest of either questioning the status quo (which in itself isn't a bad thing) just for the sake of questioning it, or some other completely unrelated reason - I can't read your mind any more than you can read mine.

What concern was I discounting?

I apologize that I wasn't able to infer everything you just said above from a pithy, dismissive one-word post.

It's just a word used to express a continuation in thought. If you understand that that's what the word "and" means and does, there's nothing to infer from it, since you understand what its function is. You may think I'm a Cheney for doing it, but you're not going to infer anything.

You and I disagree on plenty, but up until now most of our back-and-forth has been relatively civil, at least if my memory serves - as such, if I feel like saying something to you, I feel confident that I can say it without getting you (and your responses) unduly hot under the collar. I'd hope that you feel the same about whatever you say to me on here - as such, if you want to express yourself to the point where I don't have to become bothersome, I'd suggest avoiding the one-liners you criticize, for starters.

It's not on me if you take something I say and add assumptions to it. It's something you've done god knows how many times and it's tiring. I'd like to think that you and the rest of the board are bright enough that I don't have to worry about shit like that when I'm writing my posts.

[BulletMagnet]

If you don't have a good understanding of how what you do affects the environment around why do you have any reason to think that way?

Again, my concern in this area is not dependent on how much or how little anyone knows about environmental impact or anything else along those lines - what bothers me is that so many people, regardless of how much or how little they know (or, more accurately, care to know) about it, or how much you explain to them, just plain don't care. It's the attitude, not the knowledge - enough of a self-serving attitude can easily ensure that mountains of information end up blissfully ignored. In my view, if the "I do what I want, and screw the rest of you" view of life doesn't change for many people, no matter what we learn, it just won't make a difference.

The world doesn't pull stop on a dime turns. We have learned, but it's a monumental task and big, sweeping changes don't happen overnight, especially when you've been going down the wrong path and are dependent on it.

Quite true, but at the same time methinks it's obvious that many of those who have the greatest ability to influence how these changes happen and how fast they happen simply aren't particularly interested in making them as efficient and immediate as is possible, even under the circumstances - once again, short-term self-interest rules the day, and perhaps I'm in the minority in thinking so, but I don't rate that as a satisfactory effort on their part. And believe that such dissatisfaction deserves to be voiced.

What concern was I discounting?

The one I was thinking of was the concern that, even though we've learned some stuff about our impact on the environment and are making some very small efforts to turn things around, just sitting back and letting things play out as they may without any real concern on our part isn't enough, either in a purely "practical" sense, or just insofar as one is "supposed to" (though, from stuff you've said previously, I'd guess that sort of phrase likely doesn't sit well with you) be concerned about such matters as these.

...you're not going to infer anything.

I suppose not, when you get right down to grammatical brass tacks, but if that's the case then apparently you didn't intend for anyone to respond to you, if you intentionally gave them so little to work with. Offhand, all I could do is give it my best guess, namely that, in simply answering "...and?" to a topic, that you simply didn't find it worth your time or concern (if nothing else, that's the way I've always heard the word used in such situations, and I doubt I'm alone). If I misread, I of course apologize, but if you do consider a certain topic worth more than a single-word response from you, just saying "...and?" isn't the best (or most obvious, for lunkheads like me) way to express it.

[Ed Oscuro]

Humanity is the devil!

[Twiddle]

In my view, if the "I do what I want, and screw the rest of you" view of life doesn't change for many people

You can thank Ayn Rand for making that philosophy popular.

[JoshF]

You can't question it because it's my individual reality.

Coincidentally, fuck faggots and abstract act.