On 1-5-2009 23:40, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
>> In this case I don't think that is what somebody was meaning. I think he
>> meant that it is a way of thinking that is completely alien to him.
> 
> I used "irrational" to mean "not benefiting (or even damagaing towards) the
> self". As in "jumping from a plane without a chute is irrational", or
> "(voluntarily) voting in a general election is irrational". It's neither
> meant as a moral judgement, nor a redundant and/or rude declaration of the
> falsity of the previous poster's views.
> 
Well, now you know other people use that word with a different meaning 
;) Ah, the joys of a multicultural newsgroup.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Something in me want to suggest neo-capitalism but that might result in 
> a flamewar, so I won't. ;)

I would suggest objectivism as a pretty good term to use for this sort 
of ethical position (which is not too far off of neo-capitalism in some 
ways).

Post a reply to this message

"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:49fb2399$1@news.povray.org...
> 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.

It cannot be *my* reality. And if it is not my reality, I cannot possibly or
honestly make the claim that it's anybody else's reality. Thus it's nobody's
reality.

> And lack of consistency always works when pointed out...

I'm consistently inconsistent. But in this case, I'm not even inconsistent.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:49fb60ef@news.povray.org...
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

> > I am an atheist who is firmly
> > rooted in the stewardship school and you're attitude frankly gives me
> > the creeps.

>   Well, someone could have a philosophy like: "I'm only an individual,
> I cannot affect the grand scale of things. I'm poor and I don't have
> children, there's nothing I can leave them as inheritance, not even a
> better world, both because I don't have children and because I can't make
> the world better. The world will follow its course regardless of what
> I do, so stressing about the world being destroyed would be useless,
> even if this destruction happened in my lifetime, much more useless if
> it happens hundreds of years after I'm dead."

More or less, but without the undertones of desperation or self-pity.

>   I personally wouldn't say I absolutely abhor that type of thinking in
> my case.
>
>   (I wonder which school of philosophy this most closely conforms to.
> Maybe nihilism?)

Not quite. But let me ask you this: What philosophical school of thought
would you say that the average Joe on the street belongs to?

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
>> Rational implies that 'ratio' i.e. reasoning was applied. As such the
>> use of irrational when applied to the position of another person in a
>> discussion is a bit like suggesting that that person did not think
>> everything through. Which is of course not a fruitful position to take
>> in a discussion. Used like this it probably needs an identifier, yes.
>>
>> In this case I don't think that is what somebody was meaning. I think he
>> meant that it is a way of thinking that is completely alien to him.
> 
> I used "irrational" to mean "not benefiting (or even damagaing towards) the
> self". As in "jumping from a plane without a chute is irrational", or

	And how do you suddenly declare that being concerned about the universe
a few hundred years from now is "not benefiting the self".

	It may not benefit you, but don't assume it's irrational (by your
definition) for others.


-- 
(Ice rocks hit the hull)  "Captain, we are being hailed."


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> Not quite. But let me ask you this: What philosophical school of thought
> would you say that the average Joe on the street belongs to?

Depends on the area, but probably one based on a religion or whatever is 
espoused by the state.  Other than that, probably apathy, but some might 
not consider that a "school of thought".

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 	It may not benefit you, but don't assume it's irrational (by your
> definition) for others.

I think there's two different definitions of "rational" at play here. 
You seem to use the one relating to logical consistency, where as 
somebody seems to use it more in the economic sense:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory

In this case "rational" is more of a synonym from "greedy" of "selfish" 
(only less of a loaded term), which seems to be the most natural way of 
interpreting his use of the word.

Post a reply to this message

On 5/1/2009 7:28 AM, somebody wrote:
> "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?

Because, in the past, so called "extinction events" didn't happen that 
quickly.

I'm not saying we're the cause, I'm only saying that these extinctions 
are different (which they are - at least, the timescale is different).

And, if the events now are different in some fundamental way from the 
events of the past, we should pay attention to them.  If we don't, we 
risk be surprised by our own, sudden, extinction event.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 5/1/2009 7:29 AM, somebody wrote:
> "Chambers"<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom>  wrote in message
>> 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.

Simply put, continued existence of as many species as possible.

While ego would dictate that I am more important than You, 
philosophically I've progressed beyond that.  I'm currently at the point 
(consciously, if not unconsciously yet) where I value your life the same 
as my own, for the simple reason that, according to chance, your life 
could have been mine and vice versa.

Put another way, from an outside perspective there is no difference 
between one human and another.  Both lives are equally valid, therefore 
both are equally important.

Taken even further, there is no difference between one form of life and 
another.  All are equally valid expressions of their own fate.

Given this, I value all life, and I would like to preserve as much as 
possible.  I am not speaking of preserving individual lives, but of 
kinds of life, here.

Since I recognize that I cannot preserve all specimens, I think the best 
course of action would be to preserve as many unique types of life as 
possible.  Given that preservation is my goal, sustainability is a key 
part of that.

Note that, in this case, I'm much more of a pragmatist than an idealist. 
  I'm perfectly willing to eat meat, and eliminate certain wildlife from 
urban areas, et cetera.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 5/1/2009 1:51 PM, Warp wrote:
>    (I wonder which school of philosophy this most closely conforms to.
> Maybe nihilism?)

I think so.  It's certainly pessimistic enough.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message