The Earth problemthing

[Slava]

a growing human stuck inside of a box represents a highly evolved collective that is struggling for space... Maybe the answer lies within. Think inside the box :wink:

[aestrivex]

you know, i understand very few of your posts.

(which is probably a good thing. keep it up.)

[Slava]

you know, i understand very few of your posts.

(which is probably a good thing. keep it up.)

Humans = organisms that reproduce and expand across space compete for territory/resources and have relationships with one another in ther collective of collective

Cells = organisms that reproduce and expand across space compete for territory/resources and have relationships with one another in their collective of collective

Behavior of humans in a collective =* Behavior of cells in a collective

In different sciences it is important to study analogous structures to look for solutions that have already been derived for us through evolution. I hope this simplified the idea.





* - almost

[aestrivex]

i understand your analogy. i just dont totally understand what your idea was.

look at your post.

Here is my solution to this... ... ... ... well first let me figure out what the goal is and who benefits

i would instead of destroying ethics try to attack reproduction instead of living people. Allow people to live out their lives as they were promised but deny them reproduction. I would declare a fake war with a non existing entity in space and then tell the public that the extraterrestrials are using biological agents against us...

Im trying to figure out what biologically happens to a fat person who is stuck in a small box and is getting fatter...... This may yield a solution

who ever wins will most likely be the fittest... although that fitness may have a dependency that is now dead.... errr... this is a tough one.

find me one coherent sentence that has some actual meaning.

[Slava]

i understand your analogy. i just dont totally understand what your idea was.

look at your post.

Here is my solution to this... ... ... ... well first let me figure out what the goal is and who benefits

i would instead of destroying ethics try to attack reproduction instead of living people. Allow people to live out their lives as they were promised but deny them reproduction. I would declare a fake war with a non existing entity in space and then tell the public that the extraterrestrials are using biological agents against us...

Im trying to figure out what biologically happens to a fat person who is stuck in a small box and is getting fatter...... This may yield a solution

who ever wins will most likely be the fittest... although that fitness may have a dependency that is now dead.... errr... this is a tough one.

find me one coherent sentence that has some actual meaning.

I was trying to imply that the problem was much harder than I thought and that I was overwealmed by it, by spitting out some internal Ti dialogue. I guess its an inside reference.

[FDG]

i understand your analogy. i just dont totally understand what your idea was.

look at your post.

Here is my solution to this... ... ... ... well first let me figure out what the goal is and who benefits

i would instead of destroying ethics try to attack reproduction instead of living people. Allow people to live out their lives as they were promised but deny them reproduction. I would declare a fake war with a non existing entity in space and then tell the public that the extraterrestrials are using biological agents against us...

Im trying to figure out what biologically happens to a fat person who is stuck in a small box and is getting fatter...... This may yield a solution

who ever wins will most likely be the fittest... although that fitness may have a dependency that is now dead.... errr... this is a tough one.

find me one coherent sentence that has some actual meaning.

I can actually understand what he's talking about, but I cannot communicate it.

[UDP]

There is actually a scientist who gave a talk at a conference (I'll find a link later if I can) whose solution was to infect the greater population with a serious disease, sort of like the bird flu, but make sure that a holy chosen few were given an antedote. His long speech was met with vast amounts of cheers, apparently from people who believed that they were in the antedote crowd.

It's sort of scary to think that way, but if the projection is to be believed, lots of people are going to die either way. I think I might prefer natural selection though.

You're probably thinking of Dr. Pianka, he's a professor in Texas.

(someone should blow up texas.... when the bushes are at their ranch)

[Creepy-bg]

THE PREVIOUS POST HAS BEEN LOGGED!

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-bg]

Have you seen some those posters they put up on the subways, trains, and buss stops after 9/11. Very creepy, done with this Soviet propaganda style artwork with these trippy messages on them

hmmm I can't find any now, there's too many fakes in the google image search...

wait, here's one that was for real

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Enters Laughing]

I'm glad I live in the UK so I don't have to deal with over-vigilant conspiracy type people...though that van from the Florists and Botanists Internationale has been outside my house for a week now...

[Capitalist Pig]

how would you say nature is capable of adjusting to the damage we cause it?

I think you answered your own question:

yes, nature has adjusted continuously and life has adjusted with it. what has generally happened as a result of radical changes, is the destruction of most of the organisms on the planet.

(I would add here that life continued, in spite of this. Mass extinctions, like what occurred at the P-T boundary, and mass migrations simply give rise to a new cycle of life, much like failing businesses give rise to new entrepreneurs.)

humans place themselves in a similar situation; nature will adapt. it may not necessarily mean the end of the human race. it will, however, mean a significantly decreased standard of living

with regards to technology, no, the alteration of the earth can be combated. so far, humans haven't done jack shit about it. if humans aren't willing to contribute the necessary resources to prevent this disaster now, why would they later? and why would new technology necessarily solve our problems without creating new ones?

Niffweed, the fact of the matter is, I'm not convinced we are headed for disaster. I am not convinced that our impact on the environment is significant enough to affect our way of life. The Earth is still growing and changing, you can't speak with any certainty that humans are directly or indirectly responsible for this and that. In certain cases, perhaps, like the drying of wet lands or deforesting zones for construction. Have we affected our atmosphere? Probably, to some extent I'm sure. But taking that and saying we caused X, Y, Z is pure conjecture.

If you're going to bitch about the problems with new technology, then you might as well bitch about the problems of every single technological advancement since our contemporaries figured out how to bang two rocks together to make a sharp edge. We can kill prey with it, but we can also commit murder with it. There were never any automobile fatalities before automobiles were invented, therefore to stop automobile fatalities we should get rid of automobiles. Guns are great for sport, hunting, and defense, but then there's the risk of shooting yourself in the foot and getting held up at the bank or conveinance store. There will always be drawbacks, the key is when the pros outweigh the cons.

Cogsci - you say that the process of evolution is flawless, and yet humans could destroy all life on earth to prove you wrong.

Ah, but we can't. Nature will just start over at the molecular level. :wink:

but really evolution should be taken in a human context - if we don't want to preserve the planet to ensure the survival of our species, then some species will survive without us - but if we want to ensure our survival, we should maintain the equilibrium roughly as it is (if nature has adverse effects in the future by its own ends, we could alter it, but in the course of events (the universe) it's irrelevant.

The Earth will not remain in a permanent stasis, Sub. Sorry to break it to you. The continents will shift again someday. Rivers will dry, new rivers will form, glaciers will carve more valleys and new mountains will spring up. The Sahara may return to being a lush jungle -- or not. Japan may sink into the sea -- or not. Hawaii may become a part of the Bering Strait -- or not. South America can become its own independent island -- or not. Volcanoes will erupt, earthquakes will ripple the land, tsunamis will wreak havoc, tornadoes will sweep the Earth and cause whatever mayhem they can, lightning will cause fires, meteors will strike the planet, erosion will widen the sea bodies and shape the landscape.

The point is, the Earth will change, whether we have a hand in it or not, and certainly without regard to our bliss in the status quo. Why fix what ain't broke?

In your previous post you said what right do humans have to take over mother nature, and yet you admit we can both destroy it and maintain it ...

Let's not take what I said out of context, please. You said the biodiversity needs to be maintained, I said why bother? Nature has and will continue to do the job for us.

... You are saying that we should do a bit of this and a bit of that with no objectivity in what we do - a bit like the evolution process you say is better.

I did not make any suggestions insofar as what we should do, I made suggestions as to what one could do if they really think there is a problem that must be addressed.

So. . . buy that nature preserve yet? :wink:

Homo sapiens has been around for a few tens of thousands of years and yet we already have the power to manipulate evolution through selective breeding of animals and genetic engineering - things that evolution cannot do - although the product of that process can.

Yep, and we can keep populations alive with those same techniques. The thing is though, we don't have a use for every single animal. We're never worried about shortages in meat when we're grocery shopping, and I am terribly unconcerned for the welfare of that which is nonhuman and nonessential.

[Enters Laughing]

It's not so much the problems of new technology as to the lack of it. Also, I have more of a neutral position to banging two rocks together when compared to nuclear weapons - I'm sorry but that's just my opinion.

It's great that you have faith in evolution - but do you have any interest in the survival of humans at all. I know once your dead, that's it - you have no future concern, but evolution doesn't instinctively have the desire to protect humans. Your approach is ''it doesn't how much we mess up the earth, there will always be something left''.

We may not have a use for every single animal, but less than one per cent of species in the Amazon rainforest have been used by scientists in some way for research - there could be many benefits, including more than twenty species of potatoes.

You may have never worried about shortages in meat at the grocery store, I'm very glad that you are so privileged.

The best humans can do is try to keep the status quo, or at least let nature take it's cause - this is the safest strategy when we do not have all the facts. Maybe you think messing up the world will be some exciting evolutionary experiment - with natural selection killing off those humans who are most deprived and all the people who can get meat at the grocery store miraculously surviving.

[aestrivex]

yes, nature has adjusted continuously and life has adjusted with it. what has generally happened as a result of radical changes, is the destruction of most of the organisms on the planet.

(I would add here that life continued, in spite of this. Mass extinctions, like what occurred at the P-T boundary, and mass migrations simply give rise to a new cycle of life, much like failing businesses give rise to new entrepreneurs.)

life occurred, of course, or else we wouldn't be here. nonetheless, it is of importance that, most of the creatures inhabiting the planet died during these mass migrations. will life continue as a result of the environmental destruction today? undoubtedly. however, if one assumes that the environmental destruction of the present will provide the same effects as those mass extinctions of the past (granted, not an entirely fair assumption), it is impossible to conclude that it will not affect humans simply because life will continue. yes, life will continue, but more likely than not humans will not be among the lucky species, since the majority of life is likely to die out. this, of course, is all speculation.

Niffweed, the fact of the matter is, I'm not convinced we are headed for disaster. I am not convinced that our impact on the environment is significant enough to affect our way of life. The Earth is still growing and changing, you can't speak with any certainty that humans are directly or indirectly responsible for this and that. In certain cases, perhaps, like the drying of wet lands or deforesting zones for construction. Have we affected our atmosphere? Probably, to some extent I'm sure. But taking that and saying we caused X, Y, Z is pure conjecture.

no, it cannot be determined with absolute certainty that humans have effected all of the environmental change. nonetheless, based on our present understanding of the environment, and the magnitude of the effects that we are presently seeing (i.e. the severe recession of the greenland glaciers, the vastly growing deserts of africa, the destruction of the rainforest for the diverse organic and inorganic materials that are produced in that locale), it is really unreasonable to say that we have caused no damage, or even to say that we have caused minimal damage. it remains to be seen exactly how this affects humankind, but few of the consequences of environmental damage will be beneficial.

If you're going to bitch about the problems with new technology, then you might as well bitch about the problems of every single technological advancement since our contemporaries figured out how to bang two rocks together to make a sharp edge. We can kill prey with it, but we can also commit murder with it. There were never any automobile fatalities before automobiles were invented, therefore to stop automobile fatalities we should get rid of automobiles. Guns are great for sport, hunting, and defense, but then there's the risk of shooting yourself in the foot and getting held up at the bank or conveinance store. There will always be drawbacks, the key is when the pros outweigh the cons.

how is this relevant? saying that guns should not be purchased simply because one might accidentally shoot themselves in the foot is obviously foolish reasoning, and has nothing to do with the problems that the earth is facing.

i imagine that you would argue that, for example, cars are a much more efficient method of transportation than, say, the horse-drawn carriages they replaced, which is obviously true; cars are much faster and allow for faster transit times. however, assume now that the prolonged use of cars will necessarily lead to environmental damage which will adversely and proportionally affect humans; the more people ride their cars the more damage is caused. under these conditions, (again, they are obviously not entirely representative of the situation) at what point do we decide that the use of cars is no longer more efficient because of the destruction it causes? how much damage will have been caused by then? how much damage would we prevent by ceasing the use of cars at any given time?