 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"triple_r" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message
news:web.49fa639c4f7b835863a1b7c30@news.povray.org...
> "somebody" <x### [at] y com> wrote:
> > I find it irrational for people to care about realities they are not,
and
> > cannot be, part of.
> You don't have kids, do you? Of course I don't either, but that's beyond
the
> point. I mean, really? Stewardship? Altruism? Responsibility? Are
these
> foreign concepts?
Even if I were altruistic and responsible to a fault, I don't see how I'd
know whether the extinction of coelacanth (or homo sapiens, for that matter)
would be a good thing or bad in the long run. It doesn't make sense to view
far future through our extremely limited and egocentric self-righteous
goggles. Do you mourn the extinction of dinosaurs? Do you mourn the red
dwarf sun enfulging earth? On evolutionary, geological or astronomical
timescales, our values based on scales of a lifetime at most are
meaningless.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:49fa3813$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > death? Well, a human being living on this universe but 500 years from
now
> > (in either direction) is just as, if not more, detached from my reality.
I
> > don't care one way or another.
> Emphasis on *your* reality.
>
> And I'll keep that in mind the next time you complain about the LHC.
> You're not a part of their reality, so I'll remind them not to listen to
> your complaints.
What makes you think they listen to me (or you, for that matter)? I may not
be a part of LHC's reality, but LHC is a part of mine. Besides, consistency
is not a virtue.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> Even if I were altruistic and responsible to a fault, I don't see how I'd
> know whether the extinction of coelacanth (or homo sapiens, for that matter)
> would be a good thing or bad in the long run.
Well, no. Not the coelacanth. No one likes the coelacanth.
> It doesn't make sense to view
> far future through our extremely limited and egocentric self-righteous
> goggles.
No, it doesn't. But on the other hand, neither does it make sense to resign
ourselves to fatalism and assume that since we can't know what's best for the
future, we can wash our hands of all responsibility. In fact, I see taking
some of this responsibility as the antithesis of egocentrism and
self-righteousness. Of course we can't comprehend the future, but why can't we
do our best to understand it and put future generations in a position to decide.
The coelacanth may not be so important, but you're right--how can we know?
Preserving it is reversible; destroying it is not. Unless the future looks
like Jurassic Park.
> Do you mourn the extinction of dinosaurs?
No.
> Do you mourn the red dwarf sun enfulging earth?
No.
> On evolutionary, geological or astronomical
> timescales, our values based on scales of a lifetime at most are
> meaningless.
I still mourn the intermediate scales. I mourn the fact that our selfish and
careless excesses may one day make the comfortable life we've enjoyed
impossible. Sure. Technology will prevail, we'll overcome the challenges, and
in the end all humans will die. In the mean time though, our careless attitude
may, for example, be enough to displace resources and cause people to starve.
If these values are really meaningless, then we could just save people the
headache of suffering and kill them off. I come to the opposite conclusion,
though, and find that since we're inevitably doomed, we have to do what we can
to maximize both our own fulfillment in life and that of the people around
us--both in time and space. And in my eyes, the destruction of species and the
environment seems to be contrary to that goal.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/30/2009 4:24 PM, somebody wrote:
> "nemesis"<nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
>> This argument of "well, that's a problem for our sons and grandsons"
>> really bothers me. We may well have no descendants to handle that kind
>> of responsability.
>
> I find it irrational for people to care about realities they are not, and
> cannot be, part of.
I find it irrational not to plan for sustainability.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/30/2009 8:58 PM, somebody wrote:
> Besides, consistency is not a virtue.
?
It isn't?
At the very least, isn't inconsistency a vice?
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/30/2009 8:55 PM, somebody wrote:
> On evolutionary, geological or astronomical
> timescales, our values based on scales of a lifetime at most are
> meaningless.
Shouldn't you sit up and take notice, then, when mass extinction occurs
within a much smaller scale than a single lifetime?
If a species has been dying out for several hundred years, and we're
here to witness the end, it's one thing.
If a flourishing species suddenly drops dead one day, that's completely
different.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:49fa9ae4$1@news.povray.org...
> If a species has been dying out for several hundred years, and we're
> here to witness the end, it's one thing.
>
> If a flourishing species suddenly drops dead one day, that's completely
> different.
Why?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:49fa99cb$1@news.povray.org...
> On 4/30/2009 4:24 PM, somebody wrote:
> > "nemesis"<nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> >> This argument of "well, that's a problem for our sons and grandsons"
> >> really bothers me. We may well have no descendants to handle that kind
> >> of responsability.
> > I find it irrational for people to care about realities they are not,
and
> > cannot be, part of.
> I find it irrational not to plan for sustainability.
Sustain what exactly? If you don't exist, there's nothing to sustain,
nothing to break.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:49fa99fe$1@news.povray.org...
> On 4/30/2009 8:58 PM, somebody wrote:
> > Besides, consistency is not a virtue.
>
> ?
>
> It isn't?
No. Would you like to be consistently wrong, for instance?
> At the very least, isn't inconsistency a vice?
No again. See above.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> What makes you think they listen to me (or you, for that matter)? I may not
> be a part of LHC's reality, but LHC is a part of mine. Besides, consistency
> is not a virtue.
Yes, so don't preclude something happening 500 years down the road
being someone's reality.
And lack of consistency always works when pointed out...
--
Why do so many foods come packaged in plastic? It's so uncanny.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
