erichK wrote:
Jorginho wrote:
Creatures become extinct because they are no longer fit enough to survive. it is irrelevant whether it is us or anything else: 99.9% of all creatures that have ever lived became extinct. No one misses the Shortfaced bear, the cave lion, the mamuth, megaceros etcetc.
We only appear to miss what we have lost and loved. While we lost species for sure recently on a global scale, we have won a lot of diversity on a regional scale. It is a human trait to adhere a lot of value to what is rare. Whether it is gold, a special kind of food or an animal. What is abundant doesn't count and "too" abundant and it is a pest.
In reality some species are at the end of the line and no longer fit to survive whereas others are doing much better because of the changes in their surroundings. Some have found new homes via human dispersal and also are doing very well.
The Siberian tiger supresses wolvenumbers significantly. Wherever human predation of tigers diminshes their numbers, wolves start to thrive. Wherever wolves enter, coyotes disappear. So in this case one takes the place of the other. Some things change. Larger ungulates have no problem with a coyote, but a pack of wolves is a serious danger. So they are more weary, less productive and forests start to grow...or prairie is lost...Whatever you like.
Change is a constant in the Universe. We will lose friends, species etc. I am human too an do not like it but I then realise that there is no good or bad reason for it. It is just the way it is. Sooner or later that tiger will become extinct. we probably too.
As it is, the tiger is just not competitive enough. It does not need to become extinct if it would be more clever etc. Foxes, raccons, wolves, bears, pigs, coyotes etc: they do well with humans around.
Wrong and wrongheaded. Even the mechanistic, deterministic oversimplification of Darwinism that you propound could only obtain in a closed, essentially static, system.
No. the view of a static system also known as an ecosystem is static. Since it needs to be in some sort of balance and external forces disrupt it which according to some is fine as long as it isn't for one species doing this...
My view is a dynamic system in which things constantly changem become extinct and new species evolve at different rates. Such is demonstrably the case.
"It is just the way it is." Is a cop-out indeed!
There is no need for a cop out when you accept all moral views as equally valid. which would equate to no moral, since one could argue that in reality none can be valid. AFAIK nature has no moral, it is a human concept. You can take this concept as a reality as a human but would unable to determine which concept is the right one since it is no more a thought which seems reasonable to you, to some or many but it is not a reality nor a universal truth.
We could all agree there must be a God but it would never add a single thing to proving it actually exists. Same sort of thing.
You are being wilfully blind to a record of human effects on the environment that go back to the beginnings of agriculture. William F Ruddiman's PLOWS, PLAGUES, AND PETROLEUM.
Again; not at all. But these are all natural. For sure. Whether these changes are good or bad is again a personal stance. Suppose you do not like whatever that will become extinct: to that person it probably will be seen as "good". Someone who holds the opposite view, will say the opposite. there can be no judge other than a majority being in favour of some of the views.
More importantly, you are ignoring the mountain of evidence that NOW we humans, with our destructive practices,
There willl never be any science that can prove "destruction". Destruction is a view by humans on a certain development. We will agree that humans significantly change states of climate, ecology, biosphere etc. Sure. No climatologist will ever say, in a scientific paper, that the warming is bad, unnatural etc. it is significant and anthropogenic, each individual can determine whether it is good or bad. Arrhenius found out in 1895 that a doubling of Co2 would warm the Earth by up to 4 K. And he would love it, since it would make Sweden a nicer place to live in in his Swedish view...
are having major effects on the environment we share with such animals. In the particular of the Siberian Tiger, the are being slaughtered not by any natural process,
that is when you exclude humans as being part of nature. Now may be you believe in metaphysics and some God like creature that created humans as this and ALL other animals like that. If not: humans are a species that have very significant effects on their surroundings in a new way. But nothing supernatural about them. We have developped on earth out of other primates.
I think your morals are dictating over your slogic here. Also it seems you think i have no personal feelings or stance on this development. I do. But I do not think my view are the truth at all. A look at our Earth and species shows our morals are different in time and space and time and time again many have thought their morals must be the right ones. I do not think I agree. I have seen the outcome than and now, just look at the massslaughter of some species because they are considered not in the right place on planet Earth...Very nice.
but because the erectile anxieties and superstitions of aging men create a high-margin market for unscrupulous gangsters (not unlike the drug trade).
Ironically, the power of Sabine's beautiful pictures is enhanced by the reality that this species has almost been extinguished by such activity.
Many have gone before it. By a meteorite for instance; thousand and thousands of dinosaurs became extinct in a blink of an eye. Would you describe that as bad. a disaster? Yes, if you were a dinosaur probably. But mammals if they could be conscious of it and know what would happen many millennia after this they would see this as a fantastic miracukous gift of mother earth.
If we do not want this to happen, we must probably not teach our kids to become achievers in the way society wants us. But achievers as altruisitic beings. So we should may be give marks for sharing, caring, thinking for oneanother. Mindfulness and other forms of meditation are very capable of getting even 7 yrs olds rid of discrimination and egoitistic thoughts. Yes: this has been proven in a scientific sound way. this empathic view of kids and later people easily or ideally should spill over to all living things. Accepting reality, ourselves, others, so called errors, so called failures etc opens us up as much more empathic and understanding beings.
In stead of thinking and being focussed of being good at something like maths, writing, history, physics, Me I me I I me me me me I....We should start thinking about us, we, them, you and me as a part of all of us. Would also be nice if people would be less judgemental, a trait moralism seems to introduce invariably with all sorts of outcomes not too healthy fdor others in extreme cases...
Spending money subsidising nature with a natural movement in another direction, like conservation in Europe tends to want to conserve vast amounts of heath and pastures, is mostly making "nature" dependent on economics.....Acceptance of change and letting go seems a far more productive thing todo. We would get woods. May be would could spend money to let kids meditate and get good at becoming social and empathic beings...
The altruist revolution is a nice documentary to start with, even though I dislike the title. I think that is the way forward for our species, but that is just me.
