Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > the Jewish people believe the Kingdom of God is right here, on Earth. No
> > reincarnation involved, just the dead being given their previous bodies
> > back at Judgement Day and Earth turning back to its divine garden state.
>
> God can damn well fix anything we mess up, then, if he's gonna be doing
> that s__t.  ;-)

of course God will be sending sinners to Venus. ;)

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> the Jewish people believe the Kingdom of God is right here, on Earth. No
>>> reincarnation involved, just the dead being given their previous bodies
>>> back at Judgement Day and Earth turning back to its divine garden state.
>> God can damn well fix anything we mess up, then, if he's gonna be doing
>> that s__t.  ;-)
> 
> of course God will be sending sinners to Venus. ;)

Venus City? :) :) :)

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:11:33 EST, "gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

>
>That has got to be the most fascinating sociological idea I've run across this
>year: that a belief in reincarnation could lead to a basis for ethics, in a
>sort of self-interest for one's lot the next time around.  I'm neither calling
>you crazy nor say I concur completely, it's just a new idea in my head.
>

Maybe you should get out more :) After all Buddhism is one of the world's major
religions. Not that I am religious my self. I just think it is good manners. 

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:03:18 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> However it is also true to say that we evolved within a particularly  
>> stable ecosystem.
>
> Bzzzt. Thanks for playing.
>
> Which ecosystem is that? Arctic? Africa? Polynesian islands? Europe?  
> South America?
>
> Many of the disparities between human societies came about exactly  
> because of the differences in ecosystems. Europe had metal ore near the  
> surface and the eurasian continent was broadly east-west, so Europe got  
> a big jump over Africa when humans moved there.  (The latter allowed  
> people to take domesticated animals and plants with them when they  
> moved, since it was in the same temperate zone.)
>
> People have colonized everyplace in the world, wiped out most big  
> dangerous animals they came across (again, outside of Africa), and lived  
> through both heat waves and ice ages.  It's been far from stable.

Over the long term it has been stable it's only been recently (long-term)  
that we've been wiping out species and domesticating both fauna and flora  
and carrying them with us; and look at the consequences. Talk to some of  
the Australians here about the introduction of non-native species to their  
country, look at how vulnerable our crops are to disease due to their  
uniformity.

I'm not saying we can't, and haven't, adapted to short-term alterations  
what I'm saying is that logically our best chances of survival is to  
maintain a system that we know we can survive in.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
> But there were volcanoes, the natural decay of vegetation, the
> weathering of carbonate rock, and other natural processes.  Those
> processes exist today, as well.  And that's just for carbon dioxide.
>
> The number one greenhouse gas, more potent and existing in far greater
> quantities than anything we make, is water vapor.  Water vapor is
> responsible for the vast majority of the greenhouse effect.
>

Unless your intent was to deceive, you should also state the greenhouse forcing
of those relative components existing at percent vs. ppm levels.  (I guess your
actual intent was not to deceive, but that you trusted someone who trusted
someone who trusted someone whose actual intent was to deceive: there's a
problem in judgment somewhere in that chain).


As far as biofuels and CO2 emissions: Here's a shameless plug to my blog's
article on "Who was really in favor of biofuels?"

http://pterandon.blogspot.com/2008/02/who-was-really-in-favor-of-biofuels.html

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:11:33 EST, "gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>
> >
> >That has got to be the most fascinating sociological idea I've run across this
> >year: that a belief in reincarnation could lead to a basis for ethics, in a
> >sort of self-interest for one's lot the next time around.  I'm neither calling
> >you crazy nor say I concur completely, it's just a new idea in my head.
> >
>
> Maybe you should get out more :) After all Buddhism is one of the world's major
> religions. Not that I am religious my self. I just think it is good manners.
>
> Regards Stephen


Perhaps. I've only perceived Buddhism as having a world view steeped in
fatalism, passivity, and denial of the illusion of suffering around us.

I have not met many folks who say, "Because I'll be reincarnated, I better make
sure I clean up this place. "

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:14:14 EST, "gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

>
>Perhaps. I've only perceived Buddhism as having a world view steeped in
>fatalism, passivity, and denial of the illusion of suffering around us.

In my last job I was working with a Hindu {who after working in the US and
enjoying Western ways for five years decided that the old way was best (make
what you will of that)}. I mentioned Buddhism as it is probably better known in
the US than Hinduism. (No offence intended) In Britain we have become very multi
cultural and many of us know about Eastern religions through friends, neighbours
and work colleges.  

>I have not met many folks who say, "Because I'll be reincarnated, I better make
>sure I clean up this place. "
>
To tell the truth, neither have I but it is a logical extrapolation (I think)
The respect for all life is basic in these beliefs. You might find the wiki
article interesting if a bit cluttered with different words and concepts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Beliefs

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> Over the long term it has been stable

I'm not sure what you mean by "long term."  Is 10,000 years "long term"?

> (long-term) that we've been wiping out species and domesticating both 
> fauna and flora and carrying them with us; and look at the consequences. 

OK, so you're talking about pre-human evolution, apparently.

> Talk to some of the Australians here about the introduction of 
> non-native species to their country, 

Yes, because the Australians destroyed huge numbers of the native 
species, but that doesn't count. :-)

> I'm not saying we can't, and haven't, adapted to short-term alterations 
> what I'm saying is that logically our best chances of survival is to 
> maintain a system that we know we can survive in.

I'll grant you this is a possibility, if you can't easily steer the 
whole system.  I.e., this is true due to our ignorance of what would be 
better and how to get it there.  If we were in a more-controlled 
environment, it might not make sense.  Certainly a primitive lunar 
colony could figure out ways of radically reworking the environment to 
something more likely to long-term survival.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

As an aside and talking about Karma. I've just finished watching the 3rd DVD of
"My name is Earl" IMO a good American comedy It reminds me a bit of SOAP.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:36:20 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> Over the long term it has been stable
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "long term."  Is 10,000 years "long term"?

No.

>> (long-term) that we've been wiping out species and domesticating both  
>> fauna and flora and carrying them with us; and look at the consequences.
>
> OK, so you're talking about pre-human evolution, apparently.

200,000 years minimum for the first 'humans'

>> Talk to some of the Australians here about the introduction of  
>> non-native species to their country,
>
> Yes, because the Australians destroyed huge numbers of the native  
> species, but that doesn't count. :-)

I note the smiley, but I didn't say that didn't count; we have no idea  
what alterations the destruction of these species had. We just didn't know  
any better at the time.

>> I'm not saying we can't, and haven't, adapted to short-term alterations  
>> what I'm saying is that logically our best chances of survival is to  
>> maintain a system that we know we can survive in.
>
> I'll grant you this is a possibility, if you can't easily steer the  
> whole system.  I.e., this is true due to our ignorance of what would be  
> better and how to get it there.  If we were in a more-controlled  
> environment, it might not make sense.  Certainly a primitive lunar  
> colony could figure out ways of radically reworking the environment to  
> something more likely to long-term survival.

Agreed, but the original discussion was in relation to JVS "I never could  
understand the logic behind the insistence that ecosystem of the world,  
which has shifted radically in the past, should either globally or locally  
remain in any particular fixed state." I was simply trying to provide the  
logic.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message