Oh, thank you so much. Was getting a little desperate there. And frustrated… sorry bout that. Im ok now.
Oh, I’ve been there before. GD does have a tendency to devolve into Great Definitions. 
I hear ya. Of course, an analogy can only go so far before it dissolves into nonsense.
Perhaps the OP was a vague and presumptuous opening argument (I’ve been guilty of the same), but Consensus has demonstrated his ability to adapt his arguments and thinking in light of concise debate from others in this thread. So, while the OP may be flawed, the true argument is beginning to crystalize, and is interesting to ponder and discuss. I hate to see a good point get lost in the muddied waters of locked-down criticism or vague definitions that take pages upon pages to clarify.
As for global solutions to our current dilemmas, I agree. We’re just not mature enough to deal with the consequences we’ve already set forth. For another analogy, we’re like kids wielding our dad’s loaded gun.
I have been vague in my OP. I wasn’t exactly sure where to start this debate and what direction it was going to take. For the most part I was out to get a reaction and take it from there.
It’s hard enough taking a few steps back from your own POV and trying to come up with a half-decent objective observation without adding confusing labels like good or bad on them. Just being aware of it, long before we label it, is a big step.
Still, there is nothing objectively good or bad about any given species going extinct. It is only our reaction to it that gives it a value judgement of good or bad, and that is subjective, not objective. Mostly, we worry about how our impact on the planet will affect our own lives (or those of future generations).
So, yeah, I hate to see polar bears go extinct, but not because I think there is some objective goodness about polar bears. It’s because I like to know that polar bears are out there.
And like I said earlier, you can choose to look at the negative impact we have had or your can look at the positive impact that we have. In both cases, that impact could not have been caused by any other species other than us. Positive and negative here being use in the subjective context.
And all internet spawned debates circle to either Nazis or Jurassic Park; I give you…
There is nothing more natural than change. You are absolutely wrong that this is an unprecedented amount of change. Are concrete cities and roads more disruptive than the Cambrian explosion? Asteroid collisions? Dinosaur extinction? Ice ages? Magnetic field shift?
I agree that we should absolutely dwell on the consequences of our actions. But are you saying we don’t? Or that you don’t like when people choose a different course than you would have taken?
And I don’t think there is anything “artificial” about influencing nature with our desires. That’s what every life form has done since the beginning. If anything, we simply have the capacity to examine our actions more, and therefore have a greater effect.
And I would argue that we do examine our actions. We have a vastly greater amount of forethought than even the second most intelligent apes, let alone lions or algae. Just because it isn’t perfect doesn’t mean it is bad. At least we’re heading in the right direction, towards MORE examination rather than less. That’s what science IS.
Who had a bigger effect on the earth: Homo Sapiens or blue-green algae?
Doing stuff that hastens the demise of the environment that allows us to live is not a good strategy in the long run, but the idea that the earth is “in balance” and would continue unchanged without us is simply incorrect. There will be mega-eruptions of volcanoes, meteorites and comets impacting the earth, reversals of the magnetic field that will disrupt the ozone layer that protects us from deadly UV, ice ages, warming spells, etc., etc.
The kind of change civilization has brought about is vastly short-term to understand any consequences. It’s only been 100 years since the proliferation of the industrial age and fossil fuels, but it’s already clear what a danger to the entire ecosystem dumping that amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is doing.
I haven’t ascribed any labels of “good” or “bad” to such change, nor have I implied that humanity isn’t contemplating our technological influence on our planet, but I’d argue that in the past, we’ve shot first and ask questions later. It’s in our nature to do so, and is it inevitable until we shoot first, and won’t be around to ask questions later because we’ll all be wiped out?
I know full well what science is, and am a huge endorser of it. Nonetheless, we’ve made mistakes that affect the entire globe. Our technology is advancing at a mind-blowing rate. I hope we can keep up; that’s all.
So we talked about mankind and nature, we mostly agree on the fact that man is a part and product of nature. There is some gray area as to where nature stops and mankind takes over. But it is clear that mankind has (aquired) a unique role that has a profound impact on its surroundings. We are not yet fully aware of the impact we have on our surroundings. We could be aware, but changes happen so fast we can barely keep up with them.
Does this sound objective enough to pass as a valid argument?
*carbon monoxide
No, you were right first time.
Blue-green algae for sure.
And you’re kind of making my point. My point is the imbalance is what is natural, and striving for some kind of immutable stasis is what’s unnatural.
We made it through an ice age and we’ll make it through the coming era of climate change. Is it optimal? No, but what is? We deal with reality, not what we wish reality was.
Anyway, the boat sailed on climate change long ago. It’s happening, and there’s nothing we can do to stop it. And even if we could go back and stunt our society’s growth at pre-industrial levels to prevent this catastrophe, it’s highly debatable whether the cure is worse than the disease. Again, reasonable minds can differ, and that’s a good thing.
And this is precisely why we must continue to advance our technology. Unlike any other species, we know full-well what kind of natural events can wipe out a species; including ourselves.
Nature might not have rules to follow, or a game-plan, but life certainly does: Survival. Humans don’t just seek better living, but ways to survive despite the odds. Because we know. Algae and dinosaurs had no such luxury. The irony being, the very technology we’re using to employ our ensured existence, could bring about an unforeseen complication that actually might lead to demise.
I believe this to be highly unlikely, but not out of the question.
:smack: thanks. Although the human contribution of CO certainly isn’t helping.
Sure, but either we make the changes to undo the stuff we’ve done, the climate stabilizes, and the world goes on spinning, or we don’t, the temperature increases, there are massive floods, we either go extinct or fall back into barbarism, or at the very least, we run out of fossil fuels, the life that can adapt adapts, the life that can’t dies, and the world goes on spinning.
It’s the same game, whether we’re in it or not. We can change our environment more than most animals…so good for us, but all living things try to change their environment to try to suit themselves. We’re not special. If we go extinct, the world won’t end. There are other living things out there…other plants and animals that will go on living long after the memory of man is no more.
Most assuredly.
But being a human, I tend to care whether or not our species and the species we happen to share this sphere with survives, and doesn’t take a step backwards due to Yellowstone blowing its lid, or more unsettling and unpredictable yet, all-out thermonuclear war.
It’s one thing to solve any global crisis we might be dealing with natural or artificial, and another to introduce new and novel things this planet has never known, like irradiated oceans and crust.
All species have either evolved into something else, or gone extinct. I’m of the belief that our species can actually avoid the natural pitfalls that have undone countless others. This is something no other life form has been capable of ever doing before. This is our legacy, should we choose to seek it. How very profound.
We can’t avoid extinction. It’s not possible. At the very end, if somehow nothing kills us before it, the sun will go out. If we somehow survive that, eventually the universe will wind down. You’re still under the belief that humanity is somehow special; that we have some sort of special destiny that a slime-mold doesn’t. It’s not true. We are utterly insignificant; just one more organism on a planet filled with them, around a small star in a small galaxy.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m under no such belief that were special in any cosmological sense. I do think were special in that slime-mold hasn’t built rockets to send itself to the moon just because it can.
Also, I get that the sun will bloat into a red giant in about 5 billion years, swallowing the earth. The era of stars will come to an end, shrouding the universe in ever increasing darkness and cold, and in a trillion, trillion years all atomic activity will come to a halt, entropy at maximum, and the heat death will finally squelch whatever remains; if there isn’t a Big Crunch.
But this isn’t extinction so much as it is The End of All Things.
Our tools have cracked the atom. Recreated conditions not seen since nano-seconds after the Big Bang. Launched machines beyond our solar system. Peered into deep space to see what else is out there. I certainly don’t think Earth will be our first and last home, considering what we only just begun to embark upon.
It’s funny how many see life as mundane and trivial, when, in fact, it’s quite the opposite.
Dead is dead.
I see it as both. On a cosmic scale, it’s mundane. On a personal level, it’s… the most important thing there is.