I am somewhat fascinated with the coelacanth fish. This family of fish
is a true survivor: It has survived for something like 360 million years
and has withstood basically everything nature has thrown at it, including
several ice ages and at least three mass extinction events (including the
Permian-Triassic extinction event which killed off about 96% of all marine
species of the time). It's one of the oldest families of animals with living
specimens today. Where basically everything else was killed by natural
disasters and mass extinction events, the coelacanth was unscathed.

  Then enter the most powerful natural disaster of them all: Humans.

  Thanks to humans the coecalanth is critically endangered and bordering
extinction. There are some species of coecalanth that have an estimated
less than 500 specimens alive, and dropping.

  Forget about mass extinction events, meteors smashing the Earth, ice
ages and other massive natural disasters. Leave it to humans to kill off
even the toughest of survivors.

  It's sad, really. Maybe the only consolation is that we will eventually
kill ourselves in the same way we are killing other animals, so after we
go extinct maybe other animals will once again have the chance to survive
the milder natural disasters such as ginormous meteorite impacts and other
astronomical events.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  Then enter the most powerful natural disaster of them all: Humans.
>
>  Thanks to humans the coecalanth is critically endangered

Why do you think it is because of humans?  Populations of species go up and 
down pretty violently even without human involvement:

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/nats104/00lect21lynxhare.gif

Does a similar graph for coecalanth exist?

Post a reply to this message

On 30-4-2009 16:37, scott wrote:
>>  Then enter the most powerful natural disaster of them all: Humans.
>>
>>  Thanks to humans the coecalanth is critically endangered
> 
> Why do you think it is because of humans?

An educated guess?

>  Populations of species go up 
> and down pretty violently even without human involvement:
> 
> http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/nats104/00lect21lynxhare.gif

Such large fluctuations can happen if there is just (effectively) one 
food source that determines survival of the hunter (or vice versa). If 
there are many independent prey animals the curves do not fluctuate as much.

> Does a similar graph for coecalanth exist?

I don't know exactly what the coelacanth eats of what eats it but I 
guess that is not very likely.

A possibly more relevant criticism might be that for a species where we 
don't really know in what habitat it lives it is very hard to estimate 
how many there are and if the number are declining. BTW I can not find 
an estimate for the current population with a superficial google search.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Why do you think it is because of humans?

  Hundreds of species have been confirmed to have gone extint in the
past 100 years. Because only the most prominent species are noticed to
go extint, the true amount of extint species in the last 100 years is
estimated to be in the tens of thousands. This speed of mass extinction
is completely unprecedent (even the dinosaurs were not extinct even
nearly that fast). The amount of critically endangered species is
probably even larger. Also plants are going extint at an unprecedent rate.

  This phenomenon even has a name: The Holocene extinction event.

  Most of these extinctions have been directly attributed to human
intervention, such as destroying natural habitats, hunting and pollution.
It's not a coincidence that this mass extinction is happening at the same
time as the industrial revolution.

  Could the population loss of coelacanths happening right now be caused
by completely unrelated phenomena and its timing a complete coincidence?
Maybe. Rather big of a coincidence, though.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:49f9c66b@news.povray.org...

>   Could the population loss of coelacanths happening right now be caused
> by completely unrelated phenomena and its timing a complete coincidence?
> Maybe. Rather big of a coincidence, though.

Why?

Post a reply to this message

>  Could the population loss of coelacanths happening right now be caused
> by completely unrelated phenomena and its timing a complete coincidence?
> Maybe. Rather big of a coincidence, though.
>
> -- 
>                                                          - Warp
Not really. I wouldn't be surprised though if we found that the coelacanth 
has been in danger for centuries or even thousands of years. They have never 
been known to be common, not during recorded history. If people are 
responsible for their current status, I can't imagine how it happened. If 
they were over-fished we would probably know about it. I don't think we have 
deprived them of a habitat- not yet. Their food supply has always, and still 
is, plentiful. It may sound like a dumb question, but, in what way has 
mankind contributed to the dissapperance of the coelacanth?

-- 
H²

Post a reply to this message

Halbert wrote:

> It may sound like a dumb question, but, in what way has 
> mankind contributed to the dissapperance of the coelacanth?

For a moment there, I thought you were called Halibut.

That would be kinda fishy though...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>
> For a moment there, I thought you were called Halibut.
>
> That would be kinda fishy though...
>

I kind of like the idea.


"I wonder where that fish did go? A fish, a fish, a fishy, oh!"

-- 
H²

Post a reply to this message

Halbert <hal### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Not really. I wouldn't be surprised though if we found that the coelacanth 
> has been in danger for centuries or even thousands of years. They have never 
> been known to be common, not during recorded history.

  They were rather known in the Comoros by local fishermen because they
would occasionally get one in their net, so it's not like it has been a
completely unknown fish in recent history. Nowadays Comorians are trying
to preserve the coecalanths by returning them to the sea when they catch
one by mistake, because of their endangered status.

> If people are 
> responsible for their current status, I can't imagine how it happened. If 
> they were over-fished we would probably know about it. I don't think we have 
> deprived them of a habitat- not yet. Their food supply has always, and still 
> is, plentiful. It may sound like a dumb question, but, in what way has 
> mankind contributed to the dissapperance of the coelacanth?

  Large-scale commercial fishing has shifted from continental shelves to
their slopes, endangering many deep-sea fish species (because deep sea fish
reproduce very slowly).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

No prob.  Pigs will avenge them all. ;)

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   It's sad, really. Maybe the only consolation is that we will eventually
> kill ourselves

I don't know how consoled I feel by this possibility.

Post a reply to this message

"Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message
news:49f9fa2b$1@news.povray.org...
> Warp wrote:

> >   It's sad, really. Maybe the only consolation is that we will
eventually
> > kill ourselves
>
> I don't know how consoled I feel by this possibility.

I'm pretty sure you both will be dead long before humanity expires one way
or the other, so I fail to see why one could either be consoled or
non-consoled.

Post a reply to this message

somebody escreveu:
> "Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message
> news:49f9fa2b$1@news.povray.org...
>> Warp wrote:
> 
>>>   It's sad, really. Maybe the only consolation is that we will
> eventually
>>> kill ourselves
>> I don't know how consoled I feel by this possibility.
> 
> I'm pretty sure you both will be dead long before humanity expires one way
> or the other, so I fail to see why one could either be consoled or
> non-consoled.

Well, I'm pretty sure the last man on Earth far off in the future will 
say the same careless thing as you now, but is about to die from a 
terrible tragedy anyway. :P

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.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> I'm pretty sure you both will be dead long before humanity expires one way
> or the other, so I fail to see why one could either be consoled or
> non-consoled.

I believe it's an artifact of caring about things which don't directly 
impact me.  I suspect you agree with this, so perhaps there's some term 
that we're reading different meanings in to?

On a bit of a tangent, I do agree that it's highly unlikely that 
humanity as a whole is in any danger of actual extinction in the near 
future.  I don't think it's an important point though, since there's 
plenty enough bad things that can happen to both us and other species 
without any need for our total extinction, and there is at least the 
possibility of some of those obtaining during our lifetimes.

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote:
> On a bit of a tangent, I do agree that it's highly unlikely that 
> humanity as a whole is in any danger of actual extinction in the near 
> future.

  Yeah, humans are rather good at surviving too. Where other uber-survivor
species are tough, humans have really good brains, and those are rather
useful for surviving, so even a really enormous (human-caused) ecocatastrophe
is most probably not going to kill every single person on Earth. In the
worst case scenario it might be that modern civilization as we know it
might crumble and humanity will return to the middle ages (in an environment
much less hospitable than back then), but it most probably won't kill them
all out. If because of nothing else, it will be because at some point the
modern civilization will be so destroyed that it will be incapable of
continuing the destruction of the ecosystem, which will allow the ecosystem
to slowly start recuperating (during the next few thousands of years or so).

  If the human species some day goes extinct, it will most probably be
something not caused by humans themselves (such as for example a world-wide
lethal pandemia or similar).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> If because of nothing else, it will be because at some point the
> modern civilization will be so destroyed that it will be incapable of
> continuing the destruction of the ecosystem, which will allow the ecosystem
> to slowly start recuperating (during the next few thousands of years or so).

Exactly.  That and the fact that the resource requirements for a 
smallish population of humans scraping by is vastly less than that for a 
massive global civilization, so even a pretty wrecked environment could 
probably support a small civilization of sorts for an indefinite amount 
of time (although, as you point out, the environment would certainly 
recover in reality).

It's an interesting (and potentially disheartening) thought experiment 
to try to think of what the probable steady-state modes for our 
civilization might be, assuming that we avoid collapse and assuming 
nothing else completely changes the rules (aliens, the singularity, FTL 
travel, etc).  I do think that the rather consistently low birth rates 
in first world countries give some cause for hope here though.

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:49fa1463$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody escreveu:
> > "Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message
> > news:49f9fa2b$1@news.povray.org...
> >> Warp wrote:
> >
> >>>   It's sad, really. Maybe the only consolation is that we will
> > eventually
> >>> kill ourselves
> >> I don't know how consoled I feel by this possibility.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure you both will be dead long before humanity expires one
way
> > or the other, so I fail to see why one could either be consoled or
> > non-consoled.
>
> Well, I'm pretty sure the last man on Earth far off in the future will
> say the same careless thing as you now, but is about to die from a
> terrible tragedy anyway. :P
>
> 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. Assume parallel universes, for a moment. Should I care
that in one of those universes, "my" counterpart dies a horrific and painful
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.

Post a reply to this message

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.

-- 
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

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. Assume parallel universes, for a moment. Should I care
> that in one of those universes, "my" counterpart dies a horrific and painful
> 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.

Which is why we can trash this world so badly within a human lifetime: 
there are no consequences.

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> 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?

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

"triple_r" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message
news:web.49fa639c4f7b835863a1b7c30@news.povray.org...
> "somebody" <x### [at] ycom> 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

Chambers wrote:
> 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.

	You know all these laws we have about Internet arguments? Godwins Law, etc?

	I need to come up with a catchy sounding phrase that points out the
meaningless throwing around of the word "irrational". It almost always
has no value when it comes to the argument.

-- 
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

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> > I find it irrational not to plan for sustainability.

>         You know all these laws we have about Internet arguments? Godwins Law, etc?

>         I need to come up with a catchy sounding phrase that points out the
> meaningless throwing around of the word "irrational". It almost always
> has no value when it comes to the argument.

  I honestly fail to see how the use of the word "irrational" was meaningless
and without value in his post. It looks to me like a perfectly valid opinion,
which makes a point.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>> I find it irrational not to plan for sustainability.
> 
>>         You know all these laws we have about Internet arguments? Godwins Law, etc?
> 
>>         I need to come up with a catchy sounding phrase that points out the
>> meaningless throwing around of the word "irrational". It almost always
>> has no value when it comes to the argument.
> 
>   I honestly fail to see how the use of the word "irrational" was meaningless
> and without value in his post. It looks to me like a perfectly valid opinion,
> which makes a point.

	The problem with the word rational is that it's typically used with
assumptions that are not commonly shared.

-- 
Isn't it counterproductive to have incandescent bulbs in a fridge?


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

Post a reply to this message

On 1-5-2009 16:29, somebody wrote:
> "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.
> 
There are a couple of theological and philosophical schools about what 
the fact that we as a species 'rule' the earth means. One is that we are 
given the power to do what we want and another stresses the concept of 
'stewardship'. I know a fair number of small 'left wing' churches that 
strongly support the latter but it is also important for big parts of 
the main protestant churches in the Netherlands. The 'après moi le 
déluge'  school of though seems (at least from this distance) to be 
rather typical for the sort of born again Christians that were in the 
previous US administration. Or at least those within that church that 
supported this view were given more money and other support to spread 
these concepts by those that had earned lots of money by not thinking of 
their grandchildren. It might be that part of this difference may be 
attributed to a different value of the Buxton index* on the two sides of 
the Atlantic, but whatever the cause, I am an atheist who is firmly 
rooted in the stewardship school and you're attitude frankly gives me 
the creeps.

* The Buxton Index is a prospective measure of individual or 
institutional persistence, defined as the time horizon over which an 
entity makes its plans. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buxton_Index )

Post a reply to this message

On 1-5-2009 20:57, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>>> I find it irrational not to plan for sustainability.
>>>         You know all these laws we have about Internet arguments? Godwins Law,
etc?
>>>         I need to come up with a catchy sounding phrase that points out the
>>> meaningless throwing around of the word "irrational". It almost always
>>> has no value when it comes to the argument.
>>   I honestly fail to see how the use of the word "irrational" was meaningless
>> and without value in his post. It looks to me like a perfectly valid opinion,
>> which makes a point.
> 
> 	The problem with the word rational is that it's typically used with
> assumptions that are not commonly shared.
> 
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. As 
long as he is aware that other positions are possible and that his POV 
is just as alien to others there is no problem. When he thinks that his 
position is the only one that is logical and well though through there 
would be a problem. At least in the sense that he would not be high on 
my list of people to meet IRL. Then again somebody probably very much 
likes his privacy anyway.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
>>     The problem with the word rational is that it's typically used with
>> assumptions that are not commonly shared.
>>
> 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. As
> long as he is aware that other positions are possible and that his POV
> is just as alien to others there is no problem. When he thinks that his
> position is the only one that is logical and well though through there
> would be a problem. At least in the sense that he would not be high on
> my list of people to meet IRL. Then again somebody probably very much
> likes his privacy anyway.

	Yes, but now you're making assumptions on why (either of the two)
declared something as irrational.

	As you said, rational implies reasoning. Assumptions were not stated on
the input to the reasoning. Declaring something to be irrational without
knowing those assumptions is faulty.

	If someone is not at all concerned with what happens after his death
(quite understandable), then his position is quite rational, because it
wasn't devoid of reason. If Chambers cares quite a bit about future
generations (also quite understandable), then his position is quite
rational.

	Given the lack of certainty on people's assumptions, and that two
completely opposite viewpoints can be rational, I fail to see the point
of labeling things as rational or irrational. It doesn't add anything of
value to the discussion, and while perhaps not here, is often used more
as an (often faulty) ad hominem.

	Instead of stating whether something is irrational or not, just state
your argument and your assumptions and let people decide the merits of
the argument. As a reader, seeing anyone declare something as irrational
is a waste of space and of my time. I care not whether anyone thinks
others are being rational or not, or whether others think *I'm* being
rational. I care only about whether someone is making a meaningful case.

	(And no, I don't see the validity of using the word "irrational" to
mean the other side is not making a meaningful case - if that's how you
feel, just focus on pointing out the flaws).

-- 
What kind of electricity do they have in Washington? D.C.


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

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:53:03 -0300, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

>No prob.  Pigs will avenge them all. ;)

Napoleon, a Berkshire boar, Rulz  :)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

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."

  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?)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 1-5-2009 22:07, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>>>     The problem with the word rational is that it's typically used with
>>> assumptions that are not commonly shared.
>>>
>> 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. As
>> long as he is aware that other positions are possible and that his POV
>> is just as alien to others there is no problem. When he thinks that his
>> position is the only one that is logical and well though through there
>> would be a problem. At least in the sense that he would not be high on
>> my list of people to meet IRL. Then again somebody probably very much
>> likes his privacy anyway.
> 
> 	Yes, but now you're making assumptions on why (either of the two)
> declared something as irrational.

Merely pointing out that he is using the word irrational when he means 
(fundamentally) ununderstandable. Which is not the meaning you or I 
would attribute to it, but not really uncommon either. Perhaps he is not 
really aware of the original meaning of the latin word 'ratio' and its 
history. But then I am speculating again.
To support that: if you ask wikipedia you'll only find fraction as the 
meaning. With a link to a philosophical meaning of 'reason' in the 
disambiguation part, suggesting that 'ratio' may not be used by the 
common English speaking man with a meaning of 'reason'. I don't know, 
English is not my first language and ratio does have this meaning in Dutch.
So, perhaps 'irrational' is not always used as an ad hominem, depending 
on the cultural background. Other than that I agree with what you said. 
But you knew that already ;)

> 	As you said, rational implies reasoning. Assumptions were not stated on
> the input to the reasoning. Declaring something to be irrational without
> knowing those assumptions is faulty.
> 
> 	If someone is not at all concerned with what happens after his death
> (quite understandable), then his position is quite rational, because it
> wasn't devoid of reason. If Chambers cares quite a bit about future
> generations (also quite understandable), then his position is quite
> rational.
> 
> 	Given the lack of certainty on people's assumptions, and that two
> completely opposite viewpoints can be rational, I fail to see the point
> of labeling things as rational or irrational. It doesn't add anything of
> value to the discussion, and while perhaps not here, is often used more
> as an (often faulty) ad hominem.
> 
> 	Instead of stating whether something is irrational or not, just state
> your argument and your assumptions and let people decide the merits of
> the argument. As a reader, seeing anyone declare something as irrational
> is a waste of space and of my time. I care not whether anyone thinks
> others are being rational or not, or whether others think *I'm* being
> rational. I care only about whether someone is making a meaningful case.
> 
> 	(And no, I don't see the validity of using the word "irrational" to
> mean the other side is not making a meaningful case - if that's how you
> feel, just focus on pointing out the flaws).
>

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:49F### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 1-5-2009 16:29, somebody wrote:
> > "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.
> >
> There are a couple of theological and philosophical schools about what
> the fact that we as a species 'rule' the earth means. One is that we are
> given the power to do what we want and another stresses the concept of
> 'stewardship'. I know a fair number of small 'left wing' churches that
> strongly support the latter but it is also important for big parts of
> the main protestant churches in the Netherlands. The 'après moi le
> déluge'  school of though seems (at least from this distance) to be
> rather typical for the sort of born again Christians that were in the
> previous US administration. Or at least those within that church that
> supported this view were given more money and other support to spread
> these concepts by those that had earned lots of money by not thinking of
> their grandchildren. It might be that part of this difference may be
> attributed to a different value of the Buxton index* on the two sides of
> the Atlantic, but whatever the cause, I am an atheist who is firmly
> rooted in the stewardship school and you're attitude frankly gives me
> the creeps.
>
> * The Buxton Index is a prospective measure of individual or
> institutional persistence, defined as the time horizon over which an
> entity makes its plans. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buxton_Index )

I'm an atheist too, and this is how it works: I care about what happens
during my lifetime, nothing else. Someone 20 years my senior cares about
what happens during *his* lifetime, which falls 20 years short of my period
of interest. Someone 20 years my junior has a vested interest in an
additional 20 years after my expiry. In the end, if everybody is selfish, as
they should be, it forms a continuum and it all works out - well, as
smoothly as anything works out in nature, which may not be saying much.
While recognizing that different people have different expactations, it
would be foolish of me to trade mine for someone else's. Just as I don't
expect a 15 year old to care for the types of things I care, you cannot
expect me to care for the things that a 15 year old should.

Buxton index for individuals is simple. $1M to a person at age 20 is the
same worth as $10M to a person at age 60 and $inf to a person in
deathbed/grave. It's the aforementioned overlap across generations is what
makes institutions or corporations behave unlike individuals. But, to state
what should be painfully obvious but apparenty is not, I am not an
institution. Those who accuse me of inconsistency miss the obvious that my
personal expectations and even values can, and should be, different from
what I expect from institutions, corporates or governments. I don't need to
do as what I lobby for the government to do, for instance.

Post a reply to this message

On 1-5-2009 22:51, Warp wrote:
> 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."

That could be the case if he had said 'If *I* don't exist...' but he 
said 'If you don't exist...' meaning either Chambers or any human 
person. So that won't work.

>   I personally wouldn't say I absolutely abhor that type of thinking in
> my case.

I'd say that this kind of reasoning is untypical for law abiding, god 
fearing poor people. I would more associate this with rich people and 
desperados. But it is a reasonable position.

>   (I wonder which school of philosophy this most closely conforms to.
> Maybe nihilism?)

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

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   It's sad, really.

If man is merely a product of nature, then his predation of other 
species is perfectly natural.  I am quite sure that many of the species 
to go extinct before the time of man were doing quite well, until 
another species came along and bumped them off.

The history of the planet indicates that none of its natives have any 
right to any particular conditions prevailing for any period of time. 
Adapt to the change or make way for something that can.

As others have pointed out, there have been many mass die-offs during 
the time of the earth's existence, from many causes.  This time around, 
man happens to be one of those causes.  That is no more wrong than for a 
shift in the earth's tilt, a sudden Ice Age, or the end of the same, to 
cause a massive die-off as well.

And in fact, if no species ever went extinct, there would be no place 
for any other species to arise.  We owe our own existence to the fact 
that our niche was vacant when we came along.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 1-5-2009 23:20, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:49F### [at] hotmailcom...
>> * The Buxton Index is a prospective measure of individual or
>> institutional persistence, defined as the time horizon over which an
>> entity makes its plans. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buxton_Index )
> 
> I'm an atheist too, and this is how it works: I care about what happens
> during my lifetime, nothing else. Someone 20 years my senior cares about
> what happens during *his* lifetime, which falls 20 years short of my period
> of interest. Someone 20 years my junior has a vested interest in an
> additional 20 years after my expiry. In the end, if everybody is selfish, as
> they should be, it forms a continuum and it all works out 

I assume you would not be surprised if I told you that that is not true 
and the only symmetrical (but non-stable) solution is for everybody to 
be non-selfish.

> - well, as
> smoothly as anything works out in nature, which may not be saying much.
> While recognizing that different people have different expectations, it
> would be foolish of me to trade mine for someone else's. Just as I don't
> expect a 15 year old to care for the types of things I care, you cannot
> expect me to care for the things that a 15 year old should.
> 
> Buxton index for individuals is simple. $1M to a person at age 20 is the
> same worth as $10M to a person at age 60 and $inf to a person in
> deathbed/grave. 

The buxton index is about planning not about money.

> It's the aforementioned overlap across generations is what
> makes institutions or corporations behave unlike individuals. But, to state
> what should be painfully obvious but apparently is not, I am not an
> institution. 

I don't remember anyone suggesting that you are.

> Those who accuse me of inconsistency miss the obvious that my
> personal expectations and even values can, and should be, different from
> what I expect from institutions, corporates or governments. I don't need to
> do as what I lobby for the government to do, for instance.
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:49F### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 1-5-2009 20:57, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> > Warp wrote:
> >> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:

> >>>> I find it irrational not to plan for sustainability.
> >>>         You know all these laws we have about Internet arguments?
Godwins Law, etc?
> >>>         I need to come up with a catchy sounding phrase that points
out the
> >>> meaningless throwing around of the word "irrational". It almost always
> >>> has no value when it comes to the argument.
> >>   I honestly fail to see how the use of the word "irrational" was
meaningless
> >> and without value in his post. It looks to me like a perfectly valid
opinion,
> >> which makes a point.
> >
> > The problem with the word rational is that it's typically used with
> > assumptions that are not commonly shared.

> 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
"(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.

Post a reply to this message

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