Apologies about formatting. [quote][/quote] tags don't seem to be working in preview. I hope they work after submission.
Hi Creed
Well, it's nice to see you've decided to tone down the aggression. Thank you.
But your rose colored glasses need a good cleaning.
Ecological collapse leading to total extinction of the human species may be an unlikely event. However, technological civilization is much more delicate because of the large and networked infrastructure required for its exercise. I, for one, do not wish to return to subsistence farming as practiced by the majority of Americans in the 19th century. Your faith in the capability of science and technology to save us is touching. I do not share. At some point the car about to hit you is going to hit you whether you try to escape or not. Technology does not supply miracles (defined as contraventions of observed natural law), it only manipulates the available resources.
Our deeply ingrained, I would call it instinctual, biases towards maximizing our population growth (e.g. support of children, your protection of poachers over any non-human competing value, condemnation of family planning, even the embarrassment commonly felt during reproductive and sexual education) were adaptive in a time with high mortality. If your community did not reproduce to the best of its ability it would either die out or be replaced by one that did. We've overshot world carrying capacity by reducing mortality, generally considered a good, without a timely adjustment of the other behaviors in such a way as to achieve sustainability. Eventually, carrying capacity and population must meet. The only question is under what conditions. It seems you'd sacrifice every other species for a single human child. I would prefer to see a smaller human footprint with all participants enjoying a better quality of life including those non-humans which I observe to possess self awareness and a capacity to suffer. I'm not against death. I am against suffering, any suffering.
I consider your attitude of strict human exceptionalism as another one of the instinctual biases towards population growth. You insist on unlimited privileges for humans. Science has clued us that we are not at the center of God's universe. We're not even a speck on a speck. Life on this planet is quite resilient but we should not test the limits.
[quote=Creed of Heresy]
We can mitigate the damage we do ourselves, or expound[sic] on it, because we are uniquely capable of doing so
[/quote]
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...151125.htm
[quote]
Extinctions during human era one thousand times more than before
[/quote]
We're not doing much of a job of mitigation, are we?
[quote=Creed of Heresy]
Because the only way we would go extinct is if the planet itself was rendered lifeless.
[quote]
This could be true. I'd rather not to try to prove it.
However I'd like to point out the historical data on hominid extinctions:
![[Image: ?ui=2&ik=eefe2e3c27&view=att&th=14ab5dea...sp=safe&zw]](https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=eefe2e3c27&view=att&th=14ab5dea877a52b0&attid=0.1&disp=safe&zw)
Fifteen extinctions without sterilizing the earth and one hominid left, us. Are you so sure that if we go we're taking all life with us? Again with the pride.
That we've focused on elephants is largely an accident. I only used that example because of their imminent danger and obvious social, cultural and moral significance. It appears you grant them none of these.
[quote=Creed of Heresy]
empathy does not imply self-awareness, personality, or the ability to reason.
[/quote]
From Dictionary.com:
[quote]
empathy
noun
1. the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.
[/quote]
I do not see how you can have an intellectual identification without an intellect or an intellect without self awareness. It seems you can. At this point of departure, where it started, on basic definitions, I'm leaving the conversation. You may declare victory if you so see fit.
Hi Creed
Well, it's nice to see you've decided to tone down the aggression. Thank you.
But your rose colored glasses need a good cleaning.
Ecological collapse leading to total extinction of the human species may be an unlikely event. However, technological civilization is much more delicate because of the large and networked infrastructure required for its exercise. I, for one, do not wish to return to subsistence farming as practiced by the majority of Americans in the 19th century. Your faith in the capability of science and technology to save us is touching. I do not share. At some point the car about to hit you is going to hit you whether you try to escape or not. Technology does not supply miracles (defined as contraventions of observed natural law), it only manipulates the available resources.
Our deeply ingrained, I would call it instinctual, biases towards maximizing our population growth (e.g. support of children, your protection of poachers over any non-human competing value, condemnation of family planning, even the embarrassment commonly felt during reproductive and sexual education) were adaptive in a time with high mortality. If your community did not reproduce to the best of its ability it would either die out or be replaced by one that did. We've overshot world carrying capacity by reducing mortality, generally considered a good, without a timely adjustment of the other behaviors in such a way as to achieve sustainability. Eventually, carrying capacity and population must meet. The only question is under what conditions. It seems you'd sacrifice every other species for a single human child. I would prefer to see a smaller human footprint with all participants enjoying a better quality of life including those non-humans which I observe to possess self awareness and a capacity to suffer. I'm not against death. I am against suffering, any suffering.
I consider your attitude of strict human exceptionalism as another one of the instinctual biases towards population growth. You insist on unlimited privileges for humans. Science has clued us that we are not at the center of God's universe. We're not even a speck on a speck. Life on this planet is quite resilient but we should not test the limits.
[quote=Creed of Heresy]
We can mitigate the damage we do ourselves, or expound[sic] on it, because we are uniquely capable of doing so
[/quote]
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...151125.htm
[quote]
Extinctions during human era one thousand times more than before
[/quote]
We're not doing much of a job of mitigation, are we?
[quote=Creed of Heresy]
Because the only way we would go extinct is if the planet itself was rendered lifeless.
[quote]
This could be true. I'd rather not to try to prove it.
However I'd like to point out the historical data on hominid extinctions:
Fifteen extinctions without sterilizing the earth and one hominid left, us. Are you so sure that if we go we're taking all life with us? Again with the pride.
That we've focused on elephants is largely an accident. I only used that example because of their imminent danger and obvious social, cultural and moral significance. It appears you grant them none of these.
[quote=Creed of Heresy]
empathy does not imply self-awareness, personality, or the ability to reason.
[/quote]
From Dictionary.com:
[quote]
empathy
noun
1. the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.
[/quote]
I do not see how you can have an intellectual identification without an intellect or an intellect without self awareness. It seems you can. At this point of departure, where it started, on basic definitions, I'm leaving the conversation. You may declare victory if you so see fit.
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat? 
