Page 2 of 2 [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Mockingbard
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

Joined: 9 Mar 2022
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 4
Location: Massachusetts, USA

11 Mar 2022, 8:46 am

shlaifu wrote:
Mockingbard wrote:
. Humans may have had a greater impact on our environment than any previous species, [...]




HAVE YOU EVEN SEEN WHAT THE PLANTS HAVE DONE???

Plants are an entire kingdom, not a single species.



Mockingbard
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

Joined: 9 Mar 2022
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 4
Location: Massachusetts, USA

11 Mar 2022, 9:00 am

shlaifu wrote:
joke aside, French philosopher Bruno Latour, whosecmethods have been highly influential in the humanities for decades has been doing a "Parliament of things"-exercise with students occasionally: it's a mock parliament in which somemithng mundane like fishing quotas would be negotiated - only that individual species of fish as well as then ocean would have representatives negotiating with the representatives of fishing corporations and national ministries.
He says it's quite a productive experiment when there's not just one environmentalist, argueing on behalf of the environment as a whole, but actual representatives for individual entities, which argue only on behalf of their "constituency".

Oops, missed the second post.

That's a really interesting angle that I think could be much more actionable; part of my problem with "rights of nature" is that our concept of nature is so broad that nature itself would essentially be constantly infringing on its own rights.

Part of the problem with "nature" being lumped together as one entity is abundantly clear reading some of the posts within this thread; aspects of nature themselves are vulnerable, including ecosystems that we depend on for survival, but people will claim that since "nature" applies to the holistic concept, it simply can't be considered vulnerable or open to opposition. "Rights of nature" is not just an issue about environmental protection, but I'd argue is a demonstrable problem with the holistic concept of "nature" as we currently understand it. Nobody actually thinks "nature," in and of itself, requires any sort of protection, obviously. However, not everything in nature is all playing for one team that includes everything other than us.

Invasive species like kudzu in the southern U.S. (as discussed above), the brown tree snake in Guam, and cheatgrass in the western U.S., and cattail in Hawaii and Australia are prime examples of this; their spread may have been enabled by humans, but I feel like if you asked most folks these species are squarely on "team nature." I really only see rights of nature as a valid proposal due to how stuck many folks are in our current understanding of nature; it's a transition to getting humans to actually look at our environment more complexly.



ronglxy
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 7 Apr 2021
Age: 78
Gender: Male
Posts: 142
Location: Rocky Mts

13 Mar 2022, 11:01 pm

A Conjecture: Nature's Laws, eg Russel and Darwin, have living interacting parts of niches, species mixes and environments. A right to life then is a right to niche continuation and "fittest-ness" for survival of the species in, and part of, any niche. The same may be said of trading partners in economies. These are rights of parts of Nature, and in that sense of Nature, and of economies.



ronglxy
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 7 Apr 2021
Age: 78
Gender: Male
Posts: 142
Location: Rocky Mts

16 Mar 2022, 7:51 pm

That conjecture says something about the rights if AS/ASD niches, if they can be identified. Every bunch if living anythings has a noche associated with it. But things are not looked at that way. So niches are not to well explored, especially unusual ones. They should be tho.



shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,556

16 Mar 2022, 8:53 pm

ronglxy wrote:
A Conjecture: Nature's Laws, eg Russel and Darwin, have living interacting parts of niches, species mixes and environments. A right to life then is a right to niche continuation and "fittest-ness" for survival of the species in, and part of, any niche. The same may be said of trading partners in economies. These are rights of parts of Nature, and in that sense of Nature, and of economies.


yeah, but if economics- and Darwinism- worked so well we wouldn't be having this conversation, I guess.
What I mean is: a species might not deserve it's "right" by fittness, yet its loss might being down the whole ecosystem. Another might be exceptionally fit, but its niche can't survive, and finally: the whole economy might be destroying the fundament on which it is built, even if -by economic logic- that only means the fundament wasn't "fit".
...
I find it difficult talking economics/darwinism, when we're hurling through space on a mudball that's covered with a thin layer of gas, secreted by some species and consumed by others, while some species consume others etc. ... it feels a little too fragile to go "nature started the fight and now she's losing it. maybe nature wasn't fit enough"


I don't want to imply that's what you meant, it's just what I associated with the terms


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


ronglxy
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 7 Apr 2021
Age: 78
Gender: Male
Posts: 142
Location: Rocky Mts

17 Mar 2022, 11:57 am

Well, I like your associations, quite a lot!

I've been told that conjectureing is cowardly, and should not ever be used ????



kitesandtrainsandcats
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2016
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,331
Location: Missouri

17 Mar 2022, 5:01 pm

ronglxy wrote:
I've been told that conjectureing is cowardly, and should not ever be used ????

It would be interesting to know why the teller found it necessary to say that and what specifically it was said about, since conjecture is a legitimate tool in reasoning, math, and writing, 3 references,

Making and Testing Conjectures
This material is replicated on a number of sites as part of the SERC Pedagogic Service Project
Compiled by Shirley J. Alt at The University of Minnesota - Twin Cities
https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/cause/conj ... index.html

and

How to Use the Conjecture Method for Your Writing
Don’t show, don’t tell. Demonstrate.
https://medium.com/swlh/how-to-use-the- ... 687f47b381

and

Taking on the Great Mathematical Conjectures
03.10.2020, by Anaïs Culot
https://news.cnrs.fr/articles/taking-on ... onjectures


_________________
"There are a thousand things that can happen when you go light a rocket engine, and only one of them is good."
Tom Mueller of SpaceX, in Air and Space, Jan. 2011


ronglxy
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 7 Apr 2021
Age: 78
Gender: Male
Posts: 142
Location: Rocky Mts

18 Mar 2022, 2:16 pm

For KTC:
Your post is tough to "answer." I'll try anyway!

When not totally on the "hard" or "soft" side of Snow's two cultures but in the borderlands betwixt, then both {reasoning, math, writing} & {intuiting, art, singing}, and many similarly "seemingly opposite pairs," must get equally compared & contrasted.

A "conjecture" is "thought to be" too logic sided, my not named critics say, and cowardly cuz it biases too much toward one side.

"Life topics" are borderland betwixt topics, so should be "courteously avoiding" biases loadings like, they contend, conjectures are.



ronglxy
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 7 Apr 2021
Age: 78
Gender: Male
Posts: 142
Location: Rocky Mts

18 Mar 2022, 10:01 pm

For schlaifu: IMO your associations probe the 2 different meanings of fit & fittest:

1. Fit for you and your gene line to physically survive without help-aid from any others (and maybe some against you others), no matter what. It's you against raw nature niches.

2. Fit for you and your gene line to physically
survive with help-aid from others no matter what. It's you & "agreements (making & enforcing)" with others re niches.

Lots of problems and pitfalls like you listed.
But I thought ensuring "niches as living" life widened the fit/fitting problem issues more than just species/ecology does. It's then :roll: law, economics, education, etc.