Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (52039)	8/19/1999 12:04:00 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

But I think you're engaging in circular reasoning. If man is part of the ecology, which he is, then, by the argument I am presenting without liking, whatever he does becomes part of the balance. After all, TB claims that 99% of all species which ever existed are extinct. I don't believe it, but certainly a large number of species ceased to exist before man ever came along. Presumably those were "natural" losses and part of the ecological balance, even when major numbers of species died out in a small time frame. And how about the ice ages, when ice sheets covered the island where we just had an 80 degree summer day (at last!). Which temperature is natural and fits in the ecological balance? Presumably both. If such dramatic changes as that are still part of the ecological balance, the amount of change mankind causes (or, in deference to those who don't believe man causes it, I will say mankind is accused of causing) certainly fits within a new ecological balance. Logically, this makes perfect sense. Commonsensically (if there is such a word, and if there isn't there should be!) it strikes me as highly suspect. But I can't defeat it logically.

To: jbe who wrote (52039)	8/19/1999 12:23:00 AM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

I suggest that the hinge here is "sapience". The tool-using animals are not sapient, even though tool use is often a combination of instinctive and learned behavior. Man is unique in that he forms and communicates a concept of self and other. This allows the construction of ideas and testing them against the measure of nature. The construction of cities and bombers and spacecraft is not instinctive and thus not "natural" in the intuitive sense. But with the legacy of the communicated idea - we can work together and teach our children in the traditions of technology. The gorilla and chimpanzee are near-sapient; the language experiments suggest a concept of self and other. Dolphins - they seem to be a tantalizing red herring - pardon the expression - until we have a way of parsing their "language" the jury is out on whether they are sapients without hands.

To: jbe who wrote (52039)	8/19/1999 3:59:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

The distinction can be made in terms of Nature and Culture: man is the only species that depends upon the symbolic transmission of its "ways" to survive. Every other species is instinctual, and any learning that may take place is incidental. Culture is grounded in nature, but it is not "natural", but invented. Culture imposes its own order upon nature, adapting it to human ends. Human history is a record of the changes wrought upon the Earth by those determined to tame and shape it. The main fear is of the traumatic effects on nature of so much manipulation, since culture depends upon a reliable background of natural processes. A great deal depends on how resilient nature is. If we take the analogy of a garden, it would appear that nature is quite resilient, and will merely adopt a new ecological pattern in the wake of human contrivance. If we take the analogy of a polluted stream, it would appear that merely going about our business can wreak havoc. The question is, which analogy is more relevant to judging the effects of culture upon nature? I would say that of the garden....

To: jbe who wrote (52039)	8/19/1999 4:51:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

There is no such thing as "an ecological balance." All equilibria are dynamic and it is only by chance that the distributions of species in a system remains constant more than a few seconds. Ecological succession, forests moving to climax, etc. A contemporary view is "punctuated equilibrium" in which systems move from one equilibrium to the next. As long as we consider a system to be composed of all entities and energy that influence each others' development, then any entity or energy is endogenous and "natural." It is sheer romanticism (pathetic fallacy) to imagine "nature" without man and his works -- man and his works exist -- for good or evil. No getting around that. Unless you want to introduce god or some unnatural force like that.