A Witnessing by 'orbust (iii)

Great Debates
1

In an earlier witnessing ('orbust ii), I stated that I believed in “angels” and that they were actively involved in [“our”] Earthly affairs. In an even earlier witnessing ('orbust i), I stated that I believed that angels and other spirits, (as well as certain “intellectual entities”), lived in dimensions other than our 3[sup]+[/sup]-space (3D space and the usual time); spaces which, in fact, are nearly orthogonal to our 3[sup]+[/sup]-space and are, perhaps, described by the modern physics called “SuperString Theory”.

I believe that we are the product of neither “evolution” nor “creation” but a melding of the two: Initially a “genetic management” creation by certain specialized angels followed by a natural engineering-style evolution to allow further, naturally-occuring, successful genetic modifications.

The two core arguable/debatable statements which I want to witness here and which follow from my beliefs just stated above are, (1), humanity’s place in the general scheme of things and, (2), “Why?” humanity: "That is, “What is humanity’s purpose in life?”

There are more (hydrocarbon, “living”) species that you can shake a stick at in an entire lifetime of stick-shaking. (I believe that rocks, minerals, and even atoms are also “lifeforms”, designed and created by angels.) Based on many years of observation of various species’ ethics, I do not think that we humans are at the “top of the species pile”, perhaps not even close to the “top”. Still, even if we humans, as a species, are dozens of species away from the “top of the species pile”, that position is still very respectable. It does, however, raise the issue of ¿how should we, the Powerful, deal with those species which are more [ethically] advanced than us? (And, of course, ¿what will be the result should we abuse our physical power and injure members of species superior to us?)

As to the reason for our existence as a species**:** I believe, based on our [human] fundamental ethical, intellectual, and physical characteristics, that we were meant to be the Planet’s (surface’s) healers, scientists, and engineers. For example, we can repair many species injury and sickness; we can, in fact, keep the Planet Earth, itself, from serious injury (or even fatality!) caused by an impacting asteroid.

It is, I believe, this status as healers and scientists for the various species on the Planet’s surface that should give us, as a species, our direction in Life.

2

Man, I bet you’re a blast at parties Sorburst

chill. Have some eggnog. It’s christmas. Leave the SuperStrings for January

3

I give you a gift and you ignore it and offer me some eggnog (–knowing, I suppose, that it’s my favorite drink :wink: ).

No wonder I never go to parties and avoid party-goers like the plague.

4

Well, before we can debate our relationship with the more advanced earthly species, we’ll need your take on what they actually are. I know my cat thinks he is the head of the household. Is he actually correct?

Oh, and can I have some eggnog?

5

From all the evidence I have seen, I believe we were meant to drink heavily and howl at the moon. You may have other eveidence.

6

Hmmm. I see a potential solution to all of your troubles. If you simply stop believing in angels and spirits, your difficulties will melt away. It’s your belief in imaginary entities that clouds your perception of the role and place of humanity.

7

A verrrry interesting point of view, UncleBeer. Especially since I suspect the mathemematics of spirits includes (an edition of) the Imaginary Field !

(A technical aside: The Complex Field, widely used for electronic things, is just the cross product of the Imaginary Field with the Real Field. :smiley: )

8

Hey, what about my question, SS? I’m trying to debate ya here! Right now, I’m leaning towards tradesilicon’s POV.

9

Sorry, Ferrous. I got caught up by your last word (“eggnog”: I’m REALLY hungry!) and missed your question.

Ahhhh. I’m still not sure what you’re asking for me to take a take on. (?)

10

Okay, allow me to clarify. In the OP, you stated:

So my question is: What are the superior species? It seems that you are referring to physical beings, since we have the power to physically harm them, so which non-human terrestrial species do you believe are above us on “the species pile”?

11

Dang, how’d the poor old Earth ever stagger along for those five billion years or so before we showed up?

The above’s a charming thought, but from any evolutionary standpoint I’ve ever read, survival of indviduals, or even whole species, is more or less irrelevent.

And surface healers? What, are you kidding? Ever seen a strip mining operation?

Besides that, not only does the above not account for the vanishing of far more species prior to man’s arrival than currently exist, it does not account for man’s deliberate extinction of certain species. Or are we about to start debating how the angels arranged for us to bump off the passenger pigeon because they were getting underfoot?

Sorry to be Captain Bringdown. Enjoy your eggnog.

12

Ferrous, I’m not sure what Sea Sorbust’s answer is, but I believe the Walrus is superior to man. I mean, have you seen the size of their , uh, tusks?

13

I am the eggman.

Goo-goo-goo-joob.

14

Your question is as hard as (titanium) steel. I see now what you mean by “my take”.

I think that our “position” in the spiritual/ethical realm would be a many-dimensional problem (–with “dimension” used as a mathematical psychologist would use the word in a Factor Analysis model). In one [ethical] dimension, we humans might shine; in another we might be in the pits. (It is a proven mathematical fact that you cannot order things which are [numerically] measured in more one attribute. Bummer! But true.) So are cats ethically “superior” to we humans? They kill and eat meat whereas we seldom do that. (What meat we eat is most-always killed by someone else. A nit-pick to an ethicist, I grant.)

How about the ruminants? I, just this morning, stopped by and “communed” with some hay-eating horses. Does that make them “superior”? What about the “Cavies” or, as they are more commonly called “Guinne Pigs”? They are a very, very polite species, trying extremely hard not to offend anyone. (The ones living at my house let the dogs in their cave and eat their food, with nary a wimper or shriek.) Does that make them ethically “superior” to, say, we humans? Or to the dogs who seem to live in a world of never-ending squabble and constant bickering? (Like your cat, Ferrous, the Cavies think so. The dogs disagree, contending–based on my observations and their actions–that they hold a “superior” place to both the pleasant, docile Cavies and to me, the human.)

And what about the placid, harmless Manatee? Or where do the heavens place the Mighty Brown Bear, who mostly subsist on vegatation and fruits, with honey being their near-favorite food? Or the shy Wolves, who only cull the rodents and, Kevorkian-style, quickly end the lives of the already-dying? (Yes, yes! I haven’t forgotten “White Fang” and “Call of the Wild”: We all do terrible things when we’re starving.)

My answer, Ferrous, is, alas, pitiful**:** I don’t know which species are “superior” nor which, “inferior”.

Even worse. I believe that if things were so easily determined, that the ethical/religious thinkers would have found those things out long, long ago.

Nonetheless. I consider the European Bears. There are none left. I consider the Middle Eastern Lions. There are none of them left either. Yet, plainly, both were highly blessed by the heavens. We, humans, exterminated them, and many, many others.

I think of what we humans almost did to the Eagles; of what we almost did to the Vultures (–who NEVER kill or eat anyone who hasn’t already died–) and the Bats (–who mostly eat pollen and enable the reproduction of many plants–), both of which species we just KILL–not eat–for no better reason than ignorant superstition. Real bummer!

In my most generous moments, I can only hope that there are off-worlders here on Earth who have prompted us to accomplish these horrible deeds; that, down deep, we humans are really a nice, kindly bunch, fit to be the Planet’s healers.

15

Er…okay…so what is under debate here? You posited a scale of ethical development, not me.

So let me restate:
On what basis do you conclude that humans are not the most “ethically advanced” species on the planet?

And in what way is the concept of ethics even relevant to animal behavior?

16

http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html

17

“Is this going somewhere?”, quoth Ferrous. Probably not since it was, after all, a witnessing and you picked out a small, peripheral part of the OP to querry.

Being a witnessing: Given that species vary in ethical stature (–and Given that there angelic supervisors watching–), what might be the effect of our actions against
[li]other species, (whether “superior” or “inferior”) andour own Planet’s surface?[/li]
I dunno!

I don’t think that we (but does it really matter?) are the most ethical/spiritual species based, simply, on our actions. (OH! If only someone would find proof of some vile off-world species which “has made us” do our vile deeds!) Our treatment of other species (to say nothing of our own fellows) is, to be generous, ethically reprehensible. Our treatment of our own Planet is barbaric. Ghastly!

NO!, I don’t believe that we are the most ethical species on the Planet and don’t see how anyone could even entertain such a thought!

You say with apparent sincerity, Ferrous,

thus proving my point.

18

Thanks. I am a member of Sagan’s Planetary Society. Would that there were off-worlders!!! But I don’t try to say there are----beyond ever-looking for proof. :slight_smile:

19

The Library chases me off the computer. :frowning: I shall return. :smiley:

20

Sorry, I thought it was a rather central point in your OP. Since you seemed to want a debate, I was trying to clarify the basis of your conclusion.

But if you’re going to insist that your statements are GIVEN, and not subject to debate…well, okay then. Witness away. Don’t let me stand in the way.

See you on Mars.