Do we? - and how would that establish any favor...that we still haven't explained the search for.....?

Rhythm, I wouldn't expect you to recognize any responsibility for stewardship of the planet.

We don't have much to brag about on that score.

(April 4, 2013 at 6:02 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Rhythm, I wouldn't expect you to recognize any responsibility for stewardship of the planet.

You're right, you shouldn't expect it. I don't recognize that it was somehow conferred to us, or that some facet of our biology dictates its assumption to us. The only way to figure out if someone feels any responsibility is to ask whether or not they assumed it upon themselves.

I guess I can't give you shit on this one (because I haven't really pumped it in awhile)...but.....I used to be a research assistant for the Florida West Coast Resource Conservation and Development Council.....mostly pulling weeds and eating tomatoes - digging holes and filling them in...that sort of thing, and I'm trying to get a little sustainable research site funded up here in Kentucky now. So.........guess that one backfired.

(April 4, 2013 at 5:47 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Now, personally, I can't see why human civilization - or any civilization -would be a better example of favor than the plethora of beetles - or the range of birds...

Well, fine then. I understand your perspective, I think. I hope I've been clear with you on mine. Unless there's any more exploring of this issue, we just have a fundamental disagreement in philosophy and it's agree-to-disagree time.

Well, I was hoping to figure out why civilization seemed to be a good yardstick to you. Like I said - even if anthro was involved that wouldn't mean that it wasn't a good yard stick, just gives me pause (and just because anthro could be involved - just because I have that moment of pause - doesn't mean that it is). For example, sometimes inhuman things -do- share some common attribute, motivation, behaviour,what have you with human beings. In some areas, human beings -are- the central or most important species. These two terms only apply as criticism or caution when they cannot be substantiated.

I'm not sure if I understand what we'd be agreeing to disagree on, or whether we have a fundamental disagreement in philosophy.

(besides, I'm starved for a decent convo with a person who I don't loathe, )

The thing with Rhythm, is that he will keep asking you "why" till you are reduced to some properly basic beliefs. Then he will demand proof for them or explanation for them. There is no beating him. At one point, with whatever explanation, you will be reduced to properly basic beliefs. We can't go back and back with explanations forever and ever.

Am I wrong Rhythm? Your way of keeping us real.

(April 4, 2013 at 7:14 pm)Rhythm Wrote: ...'m trying to get a little sustainable research site funded up here in Kentucky now. So.........guess that one backfired.

Yeah it did. Good for you though. Keep up the good work and thanks for sharing (I know that's a cliche but I mean it)

(April 4, 2013 at 10:03 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: The thing with Rhythm, is that he will keep asking you "why" till you are reduced to some properly basic beliefs. Then he will demand proof for them or explanation for them. There is no beating him. At one point, with whatever explanation, you will be reduced to properly basic beliefs. We can't go back and back with explanations forever and ever.

Am I wrong Rhythm? Your way of keeping us real.

Well, I do like to keep hearing the explanations until a point is reached where it's a hard limit. I like to hear it all, that's all. I suppose I'm always wondering a - what the next thing is, and b, if the next thing is the thing that might help me to see something with new eyes.

(April 4, 2013 at 8:59 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'm not sure if I understand what we'd be agreeing to disagree on, or whether we have a fundamental disagreement in philosophy.

(besides, I'm starved for a decent convo with a person who I don't loathe, )

I have no problem with digging until we reach the core of an issue but I think we arrived at it when we got to how I value civilization as a goal.

It's kind of like how in my Consumer Behavior class I took in business school, a customer/consumer has a core value that he/she is trying to fulfill in buying a product. One survey I remember was where customers were asked about a brand they buy and there was a series of "Why is that important to you? ...and why is that important to you? ...and why is that important to you?" questions asked, digging deeper until the customer finally answered "it just is." Usually this point would be over general happiness, long life, health, social life, etc. Something the customer was ultimately pursuing and thought the brand was a means to that end. And there was no answering WHY that goal was important. It was just a value, a matter of taste.

Why do we prefer life over death, happiness over sorrow, pleasure over pain? No logical reason need be offered. We just do.

Similarly with Statler/Elunico13 asking why we prefer to use science and reason without offering a logical answer, that doing so would somehow be circular reasoning, is demanding an answer where none is required. We're buying a product that we feel will meet our needs. It's a matter of choice and preference.

Why is civilization preferable to the wild? It's a means by which a species can become greater, can learn about the cosmos, can create art, philosophy and scientific advancement. Why is that important? It just is.