Obviously you fail to realise that we have little real understanding of these ecosystems or the impacts our actions have upon these systems. Therefore how can we hope to shape them for the good of humanity.
You try, and you hope...
During the experiments for the first fusion bomb, there was a concern that the high temperatures produced by the explosion could ignite the atmosphere. Today we know that was never a real possibility, but at that time we were guessing at the forces involved. The thing is, without the data collected from the explosion we might never have been able to create the formulas that we now use for fusion. Without these formulas, we would never be able to create a stable fusion reaction. With them, someday we will, and that will result in a great deal of benefit for humanity, and even the world. It's the trickle down theory of well being.
At last, a reply that doesn't have to degrade into insults... Thank you!:-)
I will concede that in the short term that lions would not do as I proposed. What I won't concede is that the lions wouldn't kill off the last antelope, just because it was the last.
Organisms do what they need to survive. If it comes down to it the lion will kill everything today that it might survive today and never be concerned that next week it will have nothing to eat. If a lioness could ensure that every one of her offspring would survive just by collecting zebra hides, how long would there be zebras with hides?
Prey only gets nervous around predators that are in hunting mode
Tell my cat that. A sleeping dog makes him so upset that he will run to the farthest corner of my apartment to avoid it.
I don't advocate wholesale destruction of resources. The ecology of this planet is a resource, and it should be used efficiently. I just will not be squeamish when it comes to spending these resources, even if it would exhaust them.
I had a nice counter argument all written out, but then I realized that I was an idiot.
SO SPEAKS SealBeater!!!! THROW OFF THE CHAINS OF CIVIL DEBATE AND RAIN DOWN INSULTS ON ALL WHO SPEAK NOT WITH HIS WORDS, NOT WITH HIS VOICE.
You see SealB, so long as you and yours cannot even debate issues without resorting to insults, you do more to hurt your cause than help it. Rant on SealB, lest a small voice with wise words be heard.
What do you mean by "constructive"? Does this mean doing something "good" for the planet?
If this is your definition, then I submit that no organism on the planet has ever done anything constructive, with the exception of humans.
Organisms are inherently selfish. Why is it such a surprise that humans are to? Do you think that the "goal" of an antelope is to feed the lion so that beautiful species can live on? Do you think that the lion, given the chance, wouldn't kill every antelope in Africa? If you do then you are quite simply wrong. The antelope wants to eat, sleep,notdie; the lion wants the same things.
Only humans have the capacity to self sacrifice. It is this ability, over any other that should define what it means to be a "human". No, not every human would sacrifice him(her)self, but for most there is a reason. (morals, offspring, mate, country, god)
What you must realize is humans are part of the ecosystem. Therefore our actions are as much the actions of the ecosystem as are the antelope and lion. Species DiePeriod.Climates ChangePeriod. What humanity will (and should) do is attempt to control these vast systems for our benefit. If that happens to assist the fly, then so be it.
Since we don't believe in attacking someone for no reason, we don't need any weapons.
Since when has not having a gun behind the counter prevented the QuickyMart from getting robbed? "The best defense is a nuclear weapon." --Me
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.
     John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873), "On Liberty", 1859
You say global warming like its a proven fact. Its not even a scientific theory, only a hypothesis. Any impartial scientist will say that we just don't know enough one way or another. Yes we should not waste resources and we should attempt to improve the quality of life for people. if this includes some reduction in heave poluting then sure, lets do that. But don't parrot your grade school teachers, THINK.
Well, lets look at it this way: Humans have always been stupid, it was only the genius of the few that has elevated man to his present condition. The average person cannot comprehend how modern technology works. So soon we will begin talking about the comprehension divide. Any evolution that occurs generally results in the replacement (death) of the prior mutation and the rise of a new one. The human race will not evolve, it will be replaced. By cyborgs, or computers, or gentech babies I don't know, but it won't be human.
As for not procreating, when exactly did I volunteer for that? I said "screw'm" not forget them. I happen to believe that by the time its a problem it won't matter anymore.
I think that you and I happen to have about the same chance of that working. As for your government, well all I can say is I'm sorry but if your government is corrupt would it be better if there was another revolution? It goes back to the order of importance I listed before (us, friends, everybody else) your country keeping the fighting at low simmer is good for the US. Think of the trouble if there was a revolution and some missiles were launched or nuclear power plants were torched, etc... We tried isolationism before, two world wars happened. Now we have to put our finger in everybody's pie. I won't fight and die for your country's peace, I will do it for the safety that your peace ensures for mine.
Lets try turning this around on you. How many successful ICBM attacks have there been? Now how many Biological attacks? (on US soil now) by your logic then we should be defending ourselves against indi^H^H^HNative Americans and the redcoats cause they have attacked us far more than ICBMs and Biological.
all I'm saying is that ICBMs are dangerous and could have nukes, chem, Bio, or (god forbid) Pauly Shore Clone Warheads. the same could come through the Air Port, who is to say which is more likely.
oh really? Please write my Congressman (or any) and tell them that it is ok not to ship me overseas to fight and die on some foreign soil. lxnt said he(she? sorry not sure, no offense) said that I wasn't wanted. If your country doesn't want us to defend them, why does it ask for our support and aid? (this is general, but probably true as no country has not received our support in some form or another)
As for the environment, well screw the grandkids (or my kids for that matter) I'm going to drive and have AC and god forbid I WILL (and do) own a gun (three rifles, a shot gun, and 6 pistols). Do you know that a good volcanic eruption can effect the global average temp? as much as one degree, and humanity can do the same.... hmmm well I think that I will just fall back on the words of Lewis Black "We've got rockets! We've got saran wrap! FIX IT!"
where are the Russians? Dirty REDs!!! I say we all just finally get around to the only solution to all of our problems: nuke the planet, the dead have no worries.
we know who attacked the Cole. (Bin Laden claims the attack and the CIA confirmed it) We have retaliated against him before (20 or so cruise missiles into a training camp) and it stopped him for a time.
What your post seems to say to me is that we should wait until we are hit by a ICBM before worrying about it... Also consider that few nations in the world would attack the US because we would beat the sh*t out of them. But Bin Laden would just love to attack us, and the former USSR has bombers and missiles for sale by the dozen.
And what if purple elephants falling from the moon were the only threat that the US faces? You can keep coming up with "what-ifs" and "maybes" until/. collapses from the massive weight of all of the postings.
The fact is that the US can and should and will defend itself, its allies, and the world. (In that order) In the mandate that initiated the US military it says that "[the armed forces] shall defend the United States vs. all enemies, foreign and domestic."
What do you think will happen, considering the dismissal of the Kyoto Accords? Actions speak volumes...
What does the Kyoto Accords have to do with this? I know that life will go on until it stops. I believe that no one can predict the future. And I feel that for all of our stupidity humanity will be around for a while longer. If only cause we are to dumb to give it up.
So we should stop worrying about ICBMs cause there is another threat? Maybe we should focus ALL of our efforts to safeguard the USA on only one threat. Sure the ABM system is not full proof, but nothing is.
So we try our best to protect ourselves from every threat. Everything from ICBMs to terrorists with the cold. Before you can protect your people you must first realize there is a threat, this should help Congress to do that.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously you fail to realise that we have little real understanding of these ecosystems or the impacts our actions have upon these systems. Therefore how can we hope to shape them for the good of humanity.
You try, and you hope...
During the experiments for the first fusion bomb, there was a concern that the high temperatures produced by the explosion could ignite the atmosphere. Today we know that was never a real possibility, but at that time we were guessing at the forces involved. The thing is, without the data collected from the explosion we might never have been able to create the formulas that we now use for fusion. Without these formulas, we would never be able to create a stable fusion reaction. With them, someday we will, and that will result in a great deal of benefit for humanity, and even the world. It's the trickle down theory of well being.
At last, a reply that doesn't have to degrade into insults... Thank you! :-)
I will concede that in the short term that lions would not do as I proposed. What I won't concede is that the lions wouldn't kill off the last antelope, just because it was the last.
Organisms do what they need to survive. If it comes down to it the lion will kill everything today that it might survive today and never be concerned that next week it will have nothing to eat. If a lioness could ensure that every one of her offspring would survive just by collecting zebra hides, how long would there be zebras with hides?
Prey only gets nervous around predators that are in hunting mode
Tell my cat that. A sleeping dog makes him so upset that he will run to the farthest corner of my apartment to avoid it.
I don't advocate wholesale destruction of resources. The ecology of this planet is a resource, and it should be used efficiently. I just will not be squeamish when it comes to spending these resources, even if it would exhaust them.
I had a nice counter argument all written out, but then I realized that I was an idiot.
SO SPEAKS SealBeater !!!! THROW OFF THE CHAINS OF CIVIL DEBATE AND RAIN DOWN INSULTS ON ALL WHO SPEAK NOT WITH HIS WORDS, NOT WITH HIS VOICE.
You see SealB, so long as you and yours cannot even debate issues without resorting to insults, you do more to hurt your cause than help it. Rant on SealB, lest a small voice with wise words be heard.
What do you mean by "constructive"? Does this mean doing something "good" for the planet?
If this is your definition, then I submit that no organism on the planet has ever done anything constructive, with the exception of humans.
Organisms are inherently selfish. Why is it such a surprise that humans are to? Do you think that the "goal" of an antelope is to feed the lion so that beautiful species can live on? Do you think that the lion, given the chance, wouldn't kill every antelope in Africa? If you do then you are quite simply wrong. The antelope wants to eat, sleep, not die; the lion wants the same things.
Only humans have the capacity to self sacrifice. It is this ability, over any other that should define what it means to be a "human". No, not every human would sacrifice him(her)self, but for most there is a reason. (morals, offspring, mate, country, god)
What you must realize is humans are part of the ecosystem. Therefore our actions are as much the actions of the ecosystem as are the antelope and lion. Species Die Period. Climates Change Period. What humanity will (and should) do is attempt to control these vast systems for our benefit. If that happens to assist the fly, then so be it.
Since when has not having a gun behind the counter prevented the QuickyMart from getting robbed?
"The best defense is a nuclear weapon." --Me
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.
     John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873), "On Liberty", 1859
Why do I get the funny visual of someone asleep in his bed. Oblivious to the world around him.
You say global warming like its a proven fact. Its not even a scientific theory, only a hypothesis. Any impartial scientist will say that we just don't know enough one way or another. Yes we should not waste resources and we should attempt to improve the quality of life for people. if this includes some reduction in heave poluting then sure, lets do that. But don't parrot your grade school teachers, THINK.
Well, lets look at it this way: Humans have always been stupid, it was only the genius of the few that has elevated man to his present condition. The average person cannot comprehend how modern technology works. So soon we will begin talking about the comprehension divide. Any evolution that occurs generally results in the replacement (death) of the prior mutation and the rise of a new one. The human race will not evolve, it will be replaced. By cyborgs, or computers, or gentech babies I don't know, but it won't be human.
As for not procreating, when exactly did I volunteer for that? I said "screw'm" not forget them. I happen to believe that by the time its a problem it won't matter anymore.
I think that you and I happen to have about the same chance of that working. As for your government, well all I can say is I'm sorry but if your government is corrupt would it be better if there was another revolution? It goes back to the order of importance I listed before (us, friends, everybody else) your country keeping the fighting at low simmer is good for the US. Think of the trouble if there was a revolution and some missiles were launched or nuclear power plants were torched, etc... We tried isolationism before, two world wars happened. Now we have to put our finger in everybody's pie. I won't fight and die for your country's peace, I will do it for the safety that your peace ensures for mine.
Lets try turning this around on you. How many successful ICBM attacks have there been? Now how many Biological attacks? (on US soil now) by your logic then we should be defending ourselves against indi^H^H^HNative Americans and the redcoats cause they have attacked us far more than ICBMs and Biological.
all I'm saying is that ICBMs are dangerous and could have nukes, chem, Bio, or (god forbid) Pauly Shore Clone Warheads. the same could come through the Air Port, who is to say which is more likely.
oh really? Please write my Congressman (or any) and tell them that it is ok not to ship me overseas to fight and die on some foreign soil. lxnt said he(she? sorry not sure, no offense) said that I wasn't wanted. If your country doesn't want us to defend them, why does it ask for our support and aid? (this is general, but probably true as no country has not received our support in some form or another)
As for the environment, well screw the grandkids (or my kids for that matter) I'm going to drive and have AC and god forbid I WILL (and do) own a gun (three rifles, a shot gun, and 6 pistols). Do you know that a good volcanic eruption can effect the global average temp? as much as one degree, and humanity can do the same.... hmmm well I think that I will just fall back on the words of Lewis Black "We've got rockets! We've got saran wrap! FIX IT!"
where are the Russians?
Dirty REDs!!!
I say we all just finally get around to the only solution to all of our problems: nuke the planet, the dead have no worries.
we know who attacked the Cole. (Bin Laden claims the attack and the CIA confirmed it) We have retaliated against him before (20 or so cruise missiles into a training camp) and it stopped him for a time.
What your post seems to say to me is that we should wait until we are hit by a ICBM before worrying about it...
Also consider that few nations in the world would attack the US because we would beat the sh*t out of them. But Bin Laden would just love to attack us, and the former USSR has bombers and missiles for sale by the dozen.
And what if purple elephants falling from the moon were the only threat that the US faces? You can keep coming up with "what-ifs" and "maybes" until /. collapses from the massive weight of all of the postings.
The fact is that the US can and should and will defend itself, its allies, and the world. (In that order) In the mandate that initiated the US military it says that "[the armed forces] shall defend the United States vs. all enemies, foreign and domestic."
What do you think will happen, considering the dismissal of the Kyoto Accords? Actions speak volumes...
What does the Kyoto Accords have to do with this? I know that life will go on until it stops. I believe that no one can predict the future. And I feel that for all of our stupidity humanity will be around for a while longer. If only cause we are to dumb to give it up.
So we should stop worrying about ICBMs cause there is another threat? Maybe we should focus ALL of our efforts to safeguard the USA on only one threat. Sure the ABM system is not full proof, but nothing is.
So we try our best to protect ourselves from every threat. Everything from ICBMs to terrorists with the cold. Before you can protect your people you must first realize there is a threat, this should help Congress to do that.