I often think about what life will be like for our descendants in the future.
Say a thousand years in the future after we've used up all the reserves of
petroleum and precious metals and helium and even road salt.  What will life be
like?

I often eat an apple during my half-hour commute to work down semi-rural roads.
I live in a county that 50 years ago was probably purely rural and is turning
into one giant suburb.  Also on the east coast of the US, every patch of
untended property ultimately turns into a forest.

I think about what those people 1000 or 10000 years from now will eat. It's said
that modern man is eating petroleum.   So when I'm through with my apple, I
throw the core out the window into a section of unkempt trees I pass by. I'm
guessing most of it is ultimately private property, whether a 10-acre plot of
forest owned by a real estate company or a single-family homeowner with a big
lot, but I try to stay clear of anyone's actual living space where children
might play.

Now I'm sure the Sierra Club probably wouldn't be entirely happy that I'm
spreading a non-native plant into the woods.  I'm sure militant property rights
folks wouldn't be happy that I'm deciding how someone else's property should be
landscaped.

The fascinating thing is I wonder if there's even the slightest chance of those
apple seeds feeding anyone ever in any moment in all time.   I even wonder if
there's some scenario where it could do some kind of harm. (Besides offending
property owners who figure it out or the green's gripe with invasive species.)
If humanity is to survive here 1000 years after petroleum and platinum is used
up, will pine forests serve an ecological purpose that apple forests won't.

Post a reply to this message

Seems like Andrew is not the only one making blog posts here... ;)

  (No, don't get me wrong. I liked your post. There's nothing wrong
with it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:
> The fascinating thing is I wonder if there's even the slightest chance of those
> apple seeds feeding anyone ever in any moment in all time.   I even wonder if
> there's some scenario where it could do some kind of harm. (Besides offending
> property owners who figure it out

It's just another weed if the space is tended, and ignored if it's not.

> or the green's gripe with invasive species.)

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.  It is as 
unrealistic as demanding that your wife not grow old.

For most of the earth's history plants and animals have invaded 
neighboring areas whenever the opportunity has presented itself, and the 
global climate shifts of the past indicate that the present warming 
trend signals a return to normal conditions, and not a departure from them.

If man is changing the earth, big deal; Mother Nature was changing the 
earth for millenia before we showed up, has done so during our time 
here, and if she outlasts us will continue to do so when we are gone.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

"gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote

> I often think about what life will be like for our descendants in the
future.
> Say a thousand years in the future after we've used up all the reserves of
> petroleum and precious metals and helium and even road salt.  What will
life be
> like?

I don't care. A thousand years is as meaningless to me as 100 billion years.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:48:03 -0700, somebody wrote:

> I don't care. A thousand years is as meaningless to me as 100 billion
> years.

You don't think we owe it to future generations to leave them a habitable 
planet?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> For most of the earth's history plants and animals have invaded
> neighboring areas whenever the opportunity has presented itself, and the
> global climate shifts of the past indicate that the present warming
> trend signals a return to normal conditions, and not a departure from them.

yeah, I can imagine all those big dinoussaurs certainly contributed much more to
global warming via farts than we do via carburetors (and farts)...

> If man is changing the earth, big deal; Mother Nature was changing the
> earth for millenia before we showed up, has done so during our time
> here, and if she outlasts us will continue to do so when we are gone.

so we should continue adapting to new environment conditions -- this time around
largely contributed by us -- rather than plan and adapt our environment to our
needs?

Post a reply to this message

"gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> I often think about what life will be like for our descendants in the future.
> Say a thousand years in the future after we've used up all the reserves of
> petroleum and precious metals and helium and even road salt.  What will life be
like?

no petroleum and precious metals means less greed, at least. :)

I hope your apple seedlings grow.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> yeah, I can imagine all those big dinoussaurs certainly contributed much more to
> global warming via farts than we do via carburetors (and farts)...

  I highly doubt there was ever as many dinosaurs big enough to produce
as many greenhouse gases as cars (plus people) today.

  The worst case scenario is that we could be facing an ice age, which
would not be very nice.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>I often think about what life will be like for our descendants in the 
>future.
> Say a thousand years in the future after we've used up all the reserves of
> petroleum and precious metals and helium and even road salt.  What will 
> life be
> like?

I'm sure there will be both metal and salt in a thousand years,
where would it go away to? Beyond a few diminished salt flats that is.

> ...The fascinating thing is I wonder if there's even the slightest chance 
> of those
> apple seeds feeding anyone ever in any moment in all time.

Johnny "Appleseed" was a real guy, they still have trees descended from
trees he spread through the USA. Though it's hard to get the story really 
correct
when mythos has attached itself.

> ...I even wonder if
> there's some scenario where it could do some kind of harm. (Besides 
> offending
> property owners who figure it out or the green's gripe with invasive 
> species.)

Apple core -> Tree + windstorm = *splat* dead baby.
It's the butterfly effect, you can't predict if a small change will do real 
harm
someday.

> If humanity is to survive here 1000 years after petroleum and platinum is 
> used
> up, will pine forests serve an ecological purpose that apple forests 
> won't.

Platinum is an element, there's no way to really use it up, it'll just be 
reclaimed
eventually, if someone is willing to pay for it.

If oil runs out they'll switch back to paper bags, made out of
firs and pines, but it looks to me like gas in some form is here to stay,
since they've figured out how to turn cellulose into sugars with bacterial
enzymes occurring naturally in geysers. That may be part of the
reason behind the recent increases in corn and wheat prices lately...

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:48:03 -0700, somebody wrote:

> > I don't care. A thousand years is as meaningless to me as 100 billion
> > years.

> You don't think we owe it to future generations to leave them a habitable
> planet?

No. I never signed a contractual agreement with future generations one way
or the other. But more importantly, I won't exist after I die, much as I did
not before I was born. It's superstitious to contemplate outside of one's
existence. Future guilt is the modern day equivalent of original sin - both
are religious nonsense.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> No. I never signed a contractual agreement with future generations one way
> or the other. But more importantly, I won't exist after I die, much as I did
> not before I was born. It's superstitious to contemplate outside of one's
> existence. Future guilt is the modern day equivalent of original sin - both
> are religious nonsense.

Ah, hedonism.  The (dare I say?) logical conclusion of atheism*.

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

*Of course, the existence of an afterlife does not imply a moral duty 
any more than the lack of one.  Theoretically, it's just as likely** 
that God exists, and doesn't care how we treat other people or our planet.

**From a verifiable standpoint.  You can't prove God exists, and you 
can't prove his nature.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood wrote:
> If oil runs out they'll switch back to paper bags, made out of
> firs and pines, but it looks to me like gas in some form is here to stay,
> since they've figured out how to turn cellulose into sugars with bacterial
> enzymes occurring naturally in geysers. That may be part of the
> reason behind the recent increases in corn and wheat prices lately... 

It's greatly behind it, and in fact is a contributor to global warming.

1) Corn used for fuel now
2) Increased demand for corn, prices go up
3) More corn harvests going to fuel
4) Shortage of corn on foreign markets
5) Local forests in SE Asia and SA slashed to make room for corn fields

Note that I read this in the local paper, so I can't vouch for its 
accuracy, but the statement was made that this is already a real effect.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:27:23 -0800, Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:

>Ah, hedonism.  The (dare I say?) logical conclusion of atheism*.

No it's not.

>-- 
>...Ben Chambers
>www.pacificwebguy.com
>
>*Of course, the existence of an afterlife does not imply a moral duty 
>any more than the lack of one.  Theoretically, it's just as likely** 
>that God exists, and doesn't care how we treat other people or our planet.

Just as likely? Is it not obvious if He, She or It does exist?

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> yeah, I can imagine all those big dinoussaurs certainly contributed much more to
>> global warming via farts than we do via carburetors (and farts)...
> 
>   I highly doubt there was ever as many dinosaurs big enough to produce
> as many greenhouse gases as cars (plus people) today.

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.

It must also be remembered that doubling the concentration of greenhouse 
gases will not double the amount of radiation absorbed and/or scattered 
by the atmosphere; at most frequencies in the IR band absorption and 
scattering by the atmosphere is already at 100%, and no increase in gas 
concentrations will have any effect at those frequencies.

>   The worst case scenario is that we could be facing an ice age, which
> would not be very nice.

The geological data indicates that for most of its history the Earth has 
been about three to five degrees warmer then it presently is now.  There 
was a Little Ice Age that began sometime from 1200 to 1600 and ran until 
about 1850, and it substantially and negatively impacted the quality of 
life in both Europe and North America.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> "gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>> I often think about what life will be like for our descendants in the future.
>> Say a thousand years in the future after we've used up all the reserves of
>> petroleum and precious metals and helium and even road salt.  What will life be
like?
> 
> no petroleum and precious metals means less greed, at least. :)

It just means that greed will have to focus on other things.

When the natural mines run out, we'll simply turn to mining landfills.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote
> > On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:48:03 -0700, somebody wrote:
>
> > > I don't care. A thousand years is as meaningless to me as 100 billion
> > > years.
>
> > You don't think we owe it to future generations to leave them a habitable
> > planet?
>
> No. I never signed a contractual agreement with future generations one way
> or the other. But more importantly, I won't exist after I die, much as I did
> not before I was born. It's superstitious to contemplate outside of one's
> existence. Future guilt is the modern day equivalent of original sin - both
> are religious nonsense.

I see you're not a parent, just an inconsequential juvenile.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote
>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:48:03 -0700, somebody wrote:
> 
>>> I don't care. A thousand years is as meaningless to me as 100 billion
>>> years.
> 
>> You don't think we owe it to future generations to leave them a habitable
>> planet?
> 
> No. I never signed a contractual agreement with future generations one way
> or the other. But more importantly, I won't exist after I die, much as I did
> not before I was born. It's superstitious to contemplate outside of one's
> existence. Future guilt is the modern day equivalent of original sin - both
> are religious nonsense.
> 
> 

I've signed no contract either. However, while I may not have kids, I
see no reason to ruin the world for my friends, family, and their
descendants either.

Guilt? Nah, more like the desire to see the world still usable for as
long as possible. I don't see us getting off of it any time soon, might
as well make sure we have a few more chances.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote
>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:48:03 -0700, somebody wrote:
> 
>>> I don't care. A thousand years is as meaningless to me as 100 billion
>>> years.
> 
>> You don't think we owe it to future generations to leave them a habitable
>> planet?
> 
> No. I never signed a contractual agreement with future generations one way
> or the other. But more importantly, I won't exist after I die, much as I did
> not before I was born. It's superstitious to contemplate outside of one's
> existence. Future guilt is the modern day equivalent of original sin - both
> are religious nonsense.
> 

I think that is going to get you in serious trouble if you want to 
behave ethically. For ethics a longterm view is necessary. Either by 
believing in something that transcends your life in the form of a god or 
e.g. an obligation to add to the survival and happiness of humanity. The 
way you put it any ethical consideration is external. As in: "I don't 
steal or murder because I might get in jail for that". Implying also 
that it is OK if you don't get caught. So, would you rob someone if you 
know for sure that you won't get caught? If not, I would be interested 
in the fundamental reason why you wouldn't.

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:47C### [at] hotmailcom...
> somebody wrote:
> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote
> >> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:48:03 -0700, somebody wrote:
> >
> >>> I don't care. A thousand years is as meaningless to me as 100 billion
> >>> years.
> >
> >> You don't think we owe it to future generations to leave them a
habitable
> >> planet?
> >
> > No. I never signed a contractual agreement with future generations one
way
> > or the other. But more importantly, I won't exist after I die, much as I
did
> > not before I was born. It's superstitious to contemplate outside of
one's
> > existence. Future guilt is the modern day equivalent of original sin -
both
> > are religious nonsense.

> I think that is going to get you in serious trouble if you want to
> behave ethically. For ethics a longterm view is necessary. Either by
> believing in something that transcends your life in the form of a god or
> e.g. an obligation to add to the survival and happiness of humanity.

I don't care about humanity without me. It's an extremely absurd notion, if
you think about it.

> The
> way you put it any ethical consideration is external. As in: "I don't
> steal or murder because I might get in jail for that". Implying also
> that it is OK if you don't get caught. So, would you rob someone if you
> know for sure that you won't get caught? If not, I would be interested
> in the fundamental reason why you wouldn't.

First, how would I know *for sure*? Second, a perfect crime requires much
effort. There are probably legitimate (ie less risky, less complicated) ways
to make money. Finally, speaking of legitimate ways to make money, have you
not ever charged for, let's say a contract work you did for somebody, or a
good or second hand product that you sold to somebody more than what you
would think is fair? How is that different from robbery? Do you go to your
local police headquarters and pay a fine each time you drive over the speed
limit whether you get caught or not? We all take what we can get away with,
and mostly, it's habitual, following the path of least resistance. If I were
brought up and lived in a society where people voluntarily paid fines for
infringements they committed, I would probably do that too. If I lived in a
society where stealing was the norm, I too would steal. Right now, deviating
from the norm takes extra thought and effort.

Ethics is way overrated. Nobody would act ethically (not the least because
there's no such thing as universal ethics) if it weren't enforced. Being
caught (whether by the fellow humans or the invisible all-seer in the sky)
is the only reason we act *ethically*. Of course getting caught death is
highly irrational, but nobody said humans were rational to begin with.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:31:18 -0500, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:

>
>Guilt? Nah, more like the desire to see the world still usable for as
>long as possible. I don't see us getting off of it any time soon, might
>as well make sure we have a few more chances.

There is also the chance that we may have to come back.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:47C### [at] hotmailcom...
>> somebody wrote:
>>> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote
>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:48:03 -0700, somebody wrote:
>>>>> I don't care. A thousand years is as meaningless to me as 100 billion
>>>>> years.
>>>> You don't think we owe it to future generations to leave them a
> habitable
>>>> planet?
>>> No. I never signed a contractual agreement with future generations one
> way
>>> or the other. But more importantly, I won't exist after I die, much as I
> did
>>> not before I was born. It's superstitious to contemplate outside of
> one's
>>> existence. Future guilt is the modern day equivalent of original sin -
> both
>>> are religious nonsense.
> 
>> I think that is going to get you in serious trouble if you want to
>> behave ethically. For ethics a longterm view is necessary. Either by
>> believing in something that transcends your life in the form of a god or
>> e.g. an obligation to add to the survival and happiness of humanity.
> 
> I don't care about humanity without me. It's an extremely absurd notion, if
> you think about it.
> 
>> The
>> way you put it any ethical consideration is external. As in: "I don't
>> steal or murder because I might get in jail for that". Implying also
>> that it is OK if you don't get caught. So, would you rob someone if you
>> know for sure that you won't get caught? If not, I would be interested
>> in the fundamental reason why you wouldn't.
> 
> First, how would I know *for sure*? Second, a perfect crime requires much
> effort. There are probably legitimate (ie less risky, less complicated) ways
> to make money. Finally, speaking of legitimate ways to make money, have you
> not ever charged for, let's say a contract work you did for somebody,
no
> or a
> good or second hand product that you sold to somebody more than what you
> would think is fair? 
no, besides I tend to give things away.
> How is that different from robbery? Do you go to your
> local police headquarters and pay a fine each time you drive over the speed
> limit whether you get caught or not? 
I did everytime I did it deliberately.
> We all take what we can get away with,
> and mostly, it's habitual, following the path of least resistance. 
No, definitely no.
> If I were
> brought up and lived in a society where people voluntarily paid fines for
> infringements they committed, I would probably do that too. If I lived in a
> society where stealing was the norm, I too would steal. Right now, deviating
> from the norm takes extra thought and effort.
> 
> Ethics is way overrated. Nobody would act ethically (not the least because
> there's no such thing as universal ethics) if it weren't enforced. 
If you think so, you have met only the wrong people. I know a lot of 
people that act ethically because they want to behave like that. I also 
know that us atheists and the christians, muslims, taoists, buddhists, 
etc. have slighly different ethics, but that does not mean that we don't 
agree on most things.
> Being caught (whether by the fellow humans or the invisible all-seer 
 > in the sky) is the only reason we act *ethically*.
If you want to put it that way, you should add 'being caught by 
oneself'. And even then, you miss an important aspect. Fear of getting 
caught is only a phase of it, later it becomes second nature. For me it 
is out of the question to rob someone of even deliberately drive too 
fast, I am simply incapable of doing so. I even feel stressed and 
slightly physical unwell if my wife drives too fast or parks at a 
prohibited spot. That said, I know that I live in a country where I can 
afford to live this way.
> Of course getting caught death is
> highly irrational, but nobody said humans were rational to begin with.
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:47C### [at] hotmailcom...
> somebody wrote:

> > Ethics is way overrated. Nobody would act ethically (not the least
because
> > there's no such thing as universal ethics) if it weren't enforced.

> If you think so, you have met only the wrong people. I know a lot of
> people that act ethically because they want to behave like that.

Did you investigate why? Simply saying they want to behave that way doesn't
explain why they want to behave that way, or why they are conditioned to
behave that way.

>I also
> know that us atheists and the christians, muslims, taoists, buddhists,
> etc. have slighly different ethics, but that does not mean that we don't
> agree on most things.

It's inevitable to agree on some things to be able to live together. There
has been enough disagreement, however, to cause many conflicts and wars.

> > Being caught (whether by the fellow humans or the invisible all-seer
>  > in the sky) is the only reason we act *ethically*.

> If you want to put it that way, you should add 'being caught by
> oneself'.

No, it goes back to outside influences. There's nothing inherently ethical
or unethical about, say, killing and eating pigs or dogs as opposed to
killing and eating cattle and deer, and if born to isolation and brought up
without outside conditioning, one would not necessarily prefer one or the
other on ethical grounds. After tasting the meat, one can prefer cattle meat
to dog meat, but that's not ethics but practicality.

> And even then, you miss an important aspect. Fear of getting
> caught is only a phase of it, later it becomes second nature.

That I agree on. I did use the word "habitual" in that context.

> For me it
> is out of the question to rob someone of even deliberately drive too
> fast, I am simply incapable of doing so. I even feel stressed and
> slightly physical unwell if my wife drives too fast or parks at a
> prohibited spot.

Prime example of conditioning and fear (not about the increased risk, the
increased risk between 55mph and 56mph is negligable, but fear from
authority).

> That said, I know that I live in a country where I can
> afford to live this way.

> > Of course getting caught death is

This should have read "... after death".

Anyway, the point is, for a rational person, there's nothing to be afraid of
after death, so ethics becomes irrelevant. Those who worry about the
environment 1000 years from now do so because they are afraid of the
repercussions they will from their fellow men *now*. An example where mob
mentality is at play - for none of the people alive will actually be able to
feel the effects in such a long term, but irrational behaviour can be
contagious and develop a momentum of its own (as demonstrated in many
studies involving variants of prisoner's dilemma).

> > highly irrational, but nobody said humans were rational to begin with.

Post a reply to this message

"Sabrina Kilian" <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote in message
news:47c20c56$1@news.povray.org...

> I've signed no contract either. However, while I may not have kids, I
> see no reason to ruin the world for my friends, family, and their
> descendants either.

Well, I too see no reason to go out of my way to ruin things. But I see no
reason to go out of my way to "fix" things either. I'd rather spend my short
existance to simply enjoy being as much as I can.

> Guilt? Nah, more like the desire to see the world still usable

You won't be seeing anything after you die, unless I miss the whole point of
death.

>for as
> long as possible. I don't see us getting off of it any time soon, might
> as well make sure we have a few more chances.

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:47c1c52f@news.povray.org...

> Ah, hedonism.  The (dare I say?) logical conclusion of atheism*.

I'd say both are logical conclusions, period. If you want an -ism as the
source, maybe rationalism is better.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Sat, 23 Feb 2008 22:37:05 -0000, John VanSickle  
<evi### [at] hotmailcom> did spake, saying:

> gregjohn wrote:
>
> If man is changing the earth, big deal; Mother Nature was changing the  
> earth for millenia before we showed up, has done so during our time  
> here, and if she outlasts us will continue to do so when we are gone.

However it is also true to say that we evolved within a particularly  
stable ecosystem. To increase the probability of our survival maintenance  
of the status quo is the most logical route to take rather then to allow  
it to mutate and possibly throw something at us we wouldn't be able to  
survive.

Without complete knowledge of how one part affects another we have no  
basis for deciding whether something is inconsequential if removed and  
thus can only act to save everything. That's not to say we couldn't  
isolate ourselves completely; except that we would still be attempting to  
maintain control, but merely over a smaller environment.

-- 
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

somebody wrote:
> You won't be seeing anything after you die, unless I miss the whole point of
> death.

but my seed will.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 05:38:50 -0700, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote
>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:48:03 -0700, somebody wrote:
> 
>> > I don't care. A thousand years is as meaningless to me as 100 billion
>> > years.
> 
>> You don't think we owe it to future generations to leave them a
>> habitable planet?
> 
> No. I never signed a contractual agreement with future generations one
> way or the other. But more importantly, I won't exist after I die, much
> as I did not before I was born. It's superstitious to contemplate
> outside of one's existence. Future guilt is the modern day equivalent of
> original sin - both are religious nonsense.

I'm glad you're not making the policy decisions, then...

I have a kid, and I certainly want him to have a world to live in.  
That's not "religious nonsense", it's a known fact.

So similarly, you probably don't contribute to funds that help feed 
starving people, since it's "not your problem"?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:31:18 -0500, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
> >Guilt? Nah, more like the desire to see the world still usable for as
> >long as possible. I don't see us getting off of it any time soon, might
> >as well make sure we have a few more chances.
>
>
> There is also the chance that we may have to come back.
>
> Regards
>  Stephen


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.


"Chambers" <ben [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:47c1c52f@news.povray.org...

> Ah, hedonism.  The (dare I say?) logical conclusion of atheism*.


I happen to subscribe that **the actual**, biblical, traditional orthodoxy of
Christianity opposes hedonism and motivates toward selfless humanitarian
concern. In discussing that idea with a number of Christians, from a Campus
Crusade missionary to those waving the flag of biblical conservatism within
Lutheranism, I get flak.  To these folks, the Gospel supports Social Darwinism
and certain forms of hedonism.

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:
> Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
>> There is also the chance that we may have to come back.
> 
> 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.

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.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:47C### [at] hotmailcom...
>> somebody wrote:
> 
>>> Ethics is way overrated. Nobody would act ethically (not the least
> because
>>> there's no such thing as universal ethics) if it weren't enforced.
> 
>> If you think so, you have met only the wrong people. I know a lot of
>> people that act ethically because they want to behave like that.
> 
> Did you investigate why? 

I can only speak for myself ...

> Simply saying they want to behave that way doesn't
> explain why they want to behave that way, or why they are conditioned to
> behave that way.

... and in my case it is simply that I though long and hard about, tried 
to develop my own ethics from ground up and started to behave in 
accordance. The last bit surprised me, but that is what happened.

>> I also
>> know that us atheists and the christians, muslims, taoists, buddhists,
>> etc. have slighly different ethics, but that does not mean that we don't
>> agree on most things.
> 
> It's inevitable to agree on some things to be able to live together. There
> has been enough disagreement, however, to cause many conflicts and wars.
> 
>>> Being caught (whether by the fellow humans or the invisible all-seer
>>  > in the sky) is the only reason we act *ethically*.
> 
>> If you want to put it that way, you should add 'being caught by
>> oneself'.
> 
> No, it goes back to outside influences. 

That is the point I am making: it doesn't. I.e. for me it doesn't. And I 
recognize the symptoms in others. Although I cannot prove it I assume 
they have gone through the same process. Ethical behaviour has been 
internalized, as it should be IMHO. I know that quite often that fails, 
most often in males. One more reason to hand the countries and companies 
over to the women.

> There's nothing inherently ethical
> or unethical about, say, killing and eating pigs or dogs as opposed to
> killing and eating cattle and deer, and if born to isolation and brought up
> without outside conditioning, one would not necessarily prefer one or the
> other on ethical grounds. After tasting the meat, one can prefer cattle meat
> to dog meat, but that's not ethics but practicality.
> 
>> And even then, you miss an important aspect. Fear of getting
>> caught is only a phase of it, later it becomes second nature.
> 
> That I agree on. I did use the word "habitual" in that context.
> 
>> For me it
>> is out of the question to rob someone of even deliberately drive too
>> fast, I am simply incapable of doing so. I even feel stressed and
>> slightly physical unwell if my wife drives too fast or parks at a
>> prohibited spot.
> 
> Prime example of conditioning and fear (not about the increased risk, the
> increased risk between 55mph and 56mph is negligable, but fear from
> authority).

nope. And I should know it, it happens in my head.

>> That said, I know that I live in a country where I can
>> afford to live this way.
> 
>>> Of course getting caught death is
> 
> This should have read "... after death".
Ah, now it makes sense.
> 
> Anyway, the point is, for a rational person, there's nothing to be afraid of
> after death, so ethics becomes irrelevant. 

Only if you are complete selfish. Which indeed you may consider a 
rational choice, but so is solipsism and suicide for that matter.

> Those who worry about the
> environment 1000 years from now do so because they are afraid of the
> repercussions they will from their fellow men *now*.

Again, no, no, no. I *want* the earth to be inhabitable for humans for 
the next million years. And I want them to go out and marvel at what 
nature has to learn us.

> An example where mob
> mentality is at play - for none of the people alive will actually be able to
> feel the effects in such a long term, but irrational behaviour can be
> contagious and develop a momentum of its own (as demonstrated in many
> studies involving variants of prisoner's dilemma).

Again I disagree. Of course mob mentality plays a role, but only in the 
sense that big companies pay large sums to the media to spread the idea 
that the earth is there for us to ravish without any obligation to those 
that will come after us.
;) (sort of)

Post a reply to this message

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.

Brigham Young once said something to the effect of, "If we are ever to 
live in a kingdom paved with gold, it will be because we have mined the 
the gold, formed bricks of it, and laid it in the streets ourselves."

Whether or not you subscribe to it, I like the Mormon idea that the 
paradise is paradise because we work to take care of it*, and not 
because some nebulous God waved his hands and said so.

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

*Yes, I know there's a lot more to it than that, but you get the point...

Post a reply to this message

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.

-- 
   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

somebody wrote:
> Ethics is way overrated. Nobody would act ethically (not the least because
> there's no such thing as universal ethics) if it weren't enforced.

On the contrary, acting ethically is acting on a certain conviction, 
whether or not you could be caught.  The only enforcement that comes 
into play is self enforcement.

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

Post a reply to this message

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.  ;-)

-- 
   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

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