Science and/or Nature...

Post Reply New Topic

That is completely wrong, nothing more than an anthropocentric myth. By far the most disruptive organism is the cyanobacteria. Some have argued that humans are currently the most disruptive, and that is probably true, but we are nowhere near claiming the all-time record.

Sand, I'm not even going to bother responding to your pathetic straw man.

As you cannot see my point and misunderstand the nature of the tragedy pretty much totally I cannot say more. It's a pity.

I have never for one moment in my life believed that people are compassionate by default, and I find it a ridiculous belief when I hear others espouse it.

Obviously the Human animal is far too disturbed not to leave a footprint on nature. What I'm wondering is if Human beings can leave a footprint on nature, without stomping nature on the throat, i.e. have a more conservationist and agrarian society, and still progress socially and scientifically--or is the suicidal urge to totally rape and ultimately destroy our planet just another of our biological mandates.

We are a part of nature. We are hardly some foreign thing that is destroying nature. And to claim that we are somehow "disturbed" while Nature is pure and beautiful and perfect is a wild fantasy. We are products of nature, and whatever we do to Nature she has done to herself.


The urge is to reproduce as much as possible, and this is the only mandate which biology gives us. All else is subordinate to that ultimate goal. And we will not destroy our planet. It is quite possible that we will destroy a great number of species currently living, and upset entire ecosystems, but we will not destroy the planet. So long as the sun shines and the cyanobacteria photosynthesize, there will be life on Earth. It may not be life we find particularly interesting or beautiful, but when we are dead no one will bother to consult our opinions.

of course. the scientific process is not inharently destrutive to nature

But humans are different. They are far more aware and have the potential to evaluate the beauties and marvels and accomplishments of the machineries of evolution that other creatures do not. It is a huge gift and to disdain it is to toss away marvelous treasures. Humans are better than ants and tigers and dinosaurs and all the proclaimed mental superiorities of the species are worthless if not acknowledged and utilized.

If precedence were justification for stupidity intelligence would never have developed.

Ok, fine. But we're still pretty successful for a variant of multicellular organism. I mostly made the point rhetorically.

It depends upon how you measure success. The cockroach has been around quite a few million years and is still doing quite well. Humanity has been here about two million years and we are rapidly destroying the ecology that supports us. We may overcome that problem or, as seems evident by our non-efforts, we may not. What signifies success?

Our species, homo sapien sapien has been around for less than a million years. Before us there were other kinds of human being, the last of which was the Neanderthal who disappeared maybe 20,000 to 30,000 years ago. We are the New Kids on the Block.

ruveyn

About 99% of all species that have ever evolved on Earth are extinct. We are only responsible for a tiny fraction of them. Natural engineering is varied and fascinating, but has no inherent "worth" beyond what we give it, and thinking that we should stop species being wiped out in some insane concept of conservation is rather silly. Tigers are pretty, but where are they supposed to live when their habitat disappears?

Just wondering since you've spouted a percentage value, but what percentage of genera are extinct? What percentage of families? What percentage of orders? What percentage of classes? What percentage of phyla? What percentage of kingdoms?

Everything we do is part of nature. Everything that exists is natural.

Presumably, your concern is about the relationship between scientific/technological progress and environmental problems. Although it's fairly obvious that technological progress has caused serious problems, I think the best way of resolving those problems is through more progress. Science and technology have vastly improved our quality of life. Instead of trying abandon these potentially wonderful things - that would be both a bad idea, and probably impossible to put into practice - I hope that we focus on developing our understanding of the various physical and biological systems in the world, so we know what not to do, then adapt our technological production accordingly.

I get my percentages from Concoctastat Ltd, along with most of the media - did you know that 73% of statistics are simply made up on the spot?

As for your point, it isn't really valid - terms like species, order, class, kingdom and phyla are all human terms used to group things together. They aren't clearly defined. Hell, we can't even clearly differentiate between life and non-life.

What's the difference between a cat and a dog?

If a dog or a cat can tell the difference between a dog and a cat it should not be beyond human capability.

Humans have never had a good relationship with nature. Even 'primitive' people destroy nature--the megafauna of Australia and North America disappeared around the same time as humans arrived there, and the early settlers of Madagascar and New Zealand wiped out the wildlife there for certain. Our relationship with nature varies, and it would be wrong to assume that scientific progress leads to destruction of nature.

I think we can prevent the destruction of nature in rich, developed countries. But in Third World countries, where most of the interesting animals are unfortunately, there is little hope. Conservation is a great hassle with little tangible reward, and until people stop worrying about much more important things like feeding their family it is probably impossible to carry it out. In the end it all comes down to a problem of poverty.

Humans are nature. We are every bit as natural as the giraffe, and Manhattan is just as natural as a beaver dam or an ant colony.


"Interesting" animals? I still don't understand why lions and other big mammals are somehow more important to conserve than the vast diversity of microbial life. Frankly, the microbes are probably far more important in forming the backbone of the planet's ecosystem.