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: Neocon who wrote (52115)	8/19/1999 7:40:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

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.... I find the analogies a bit deficient. A garden represents a conscious effort to nurture, frequently at the cost of considerable effort. A polluted stream is used as a convenient device for disposing of waste. Both are results of a conscious choice, in most cases with possession of enough information to predict the consequences of that choice. We can choose to nurture, we can choose to wreak havoc, we can choose a wide range of options between. In any event, the effect of culture on nature is a result of our choices, not of any inherent quality possessed by nature.

To: Neocon who wrote (52115)	8/19/1999 10:09:00 AM
From: epicure	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.< This is simply not true- the same can be said of many of your other "pronouncements"- but this happens to be a particularly bald example. Have you even studied biology or ecology beyond a survey class in college (if that?).