White Pride?

[JuliaL]

de·stroy
dəˈstroi/
verb
verb: destroy; 3rd person present: destroys; past tense: destroyed; past participle: destroyed; gerund or present participle: destroying

put an end to the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it.

I'm so, so, SO sorry for thinking that things like "definitions" should not be based on personal subjective whims; I should have assumed immediately that you meant some roundabout bullshit, especially with how very clear you made it!

Definitions are determined by usage. It would appear that you fail to understand that a single word may have multiple meanings:

Readily found at Dictionary.com
destroy
verb(used with object)
4. to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate.
5. to defeat completely.

If you were unsure of my meaning, asking politely often garners more civil responses.
I am assuming that you were apologizing sarcastically, but I will accept
your apology nevertheless. If this assumption is incorrect, please clarify.

We've only just begun in the last five or six years to work on addressing the problems with inequity

It would appear that you missed much of any history class you've taken.
Perhaps the Magna Carta rings a bell?
Emancipation proclamation?
Civil rights marches of the '60s?
If you think inequities have only been addressed for five or six years, then
your perspective is limited by more than your human chauvinism. You
seem to feel you have a full handle on not only what the problems are, but
exactly how to handle them. You are not alone in this.
The one percenters think they know.
True believing religionists think they know.
True racists think they know.
You think you know.

I look at science and technology, and I see humanity reaching for both its own salvation, and for the preservation and enabling of the world(s) on which we live.

And it is your misplaced and nearsighted pride which leads you to this position.
Science and technology over the last 300 years is what has given those you
despise, those nominally in charge, the tools with which to destabilize the
ecosystems of the planet. Whether it be climate change, reduction of the
genetic inheritance or nuclear winter, religion over millenia has done
minimal damage. Science and technology OTOH has brought us to the brink
of our own elimination. It's not my doing, it is all of ours.

The planet needs no saving, it will do well enough without us.

Elephants don't have standpoints and pigs can't agree or disagree.

Citation needed.

No, that's a negative assertion. You are the one that implied elephants have standpoints and pigs can disagree with us.

The evidence used not only by me but by experts in the field is the same in
kind as that used when I grudgingly accept that you have a mind. Elephant societies are as complex as primate societies.
http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/elephant-culture
They teach their children.
They mourn their dead.
Your ignorance of these facts does not nullify them.

For further study, I recommend you take the advice of Abaris above, google is your friend.

Basically, you are a pessimistic defeatist who has written off all of humanity as bad because of the actions of the select choice few who have more power than the rest of us.

I prefer to think of myself as a Cassandra who speaks truly but is never
believed. We are at a point where triage may be the only option. My
memory says that some of the climatologists were saying oh, 20 years ago
or so that 360ppm of atmospheric CO2 is a point of no return where we
can expect effects to snowball such as clathrate release, reduced polar
albedo from loss of sea ice and shutdown of the Atlantic conveyor. We've
hit 400. http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate...it-400-ppm
Some of these things have come to pass, others not. The ice is well on its
way out with the concomitant sea level rise and I understand that CH3
fountains have started up in the arctic. So it goes. Whether this is
because of the actions of a few or the inaction of the many to stop them is
immaterial. It's happening, super storm Sandy and the worst typhoon
ever to hit land in the Philappines make nice bookends for the opening act.

Business as usual, everybody play nice, we're all humans here doesn't look
like it's going to cut it.

[Creed of Heresy]

Trust me, I'm well aware of the effects of climate change and its causes. I'm not excusing that by any measure, nor do I desire to downplay the dangers and effects of it. There's a reason I'm such a staunch supporter of the EPA and why I want its regulatory reach to extend MUCH further than it currently can grasp towards.

Still, point of no return is only with existing tech. We've done things that were thought impossible before. Sound barrier, atmospheric barrier, communication barrier... We're rather good at doing shit when we set our minds to it, and the green movement is building steam at a rather exponential rate lately. And I don't mean just socially, I mean technologically as well. It'll be a close race between disaster and salvation and it can swing either way, but we have a good track record of getting shit done. We make mistakes along the way, and bring harm as well, but such is the world in which we live, and I don't just mean the human-affecting elements of it. You talk at length of extinctions caused by us. Nature itself is responsible for faaaar more extinctions than we humans are. Loss of biodiversity is a shame but it's also unavoidable. We can mitigate the damage we do ourselves, or expound on it, because we are uniquely capable of doing so, but ultimately this is not a world that has been kind to us. We survived only because we as a species managed to get through the crucible of natural selection despite the odds always being stacked vastly against us. We seem so casual when we disregard the environment for a reason; we evolved with a very "them or us" mindset born of necessity, and instinct is not so easily over-ridden.

Now, to go back (I'm kinda going in ascending order, sort of; it's nearly 6am and I'm exhausted so I'm kind of half-assing it now), the usage of the word "destroy" SHOULD have been expanded on, because, as I said, using the term of one applying destruction to something almost universally evokes the understanding that the sentiment is one of violence. In the event of deviance from what is considered the normal contextual understanding of a term, phrase, or meaning, it is often prudent to provide clarification preemptively, to avoid such unpleasantness as this has gotten to.

Now, you also think you know me to a much greater degree than you really do. Additionally, the context in which inequity was being referred to was the current fiscal disparity in which the poor are forced into such environmentally destructive acts as poaching endangered animals just to get by to the disproportionate advantage of the obscenely rich. Your continuous glibness does you no credit, and for one who is continuing to talk down to me about "not getting it," you're sure doing a pretty shit job of it, yourself...

Now, you say science and technology has brought us to the brink of our demise. The fact I hear such doomsday prophesizing from loonies on the streets holding cardboard signs every so often whenever I go downtown to get drunk so that I can forget about all the bullshit of the world for a few hours notwithstanding, I would like to point out that technology has resulted in us being able to feed many many more people much more easily and much more cheaply, it has provided us with vaccines against diseases that otherwise literally plagued us, it has provided cures for diseases that otherwise would kill us, it has provided us with means of instantaneous communication which has in turn accelerated social progression to a velocity it had never seen before its invention, and has provided the masses with information that has allowed them to realize the dangers we face and to react to them and address them much more fluidly and with much greater organization than otherwise would be possible. Technology is advancing steadily but surely and as it does, our lives improve, and the possibilities that it opens up continue to expand. The fact that the 1% exploited it for their own ends to cause all these problems is of no fault of technology; science and technology are by their very natures completely neutral. Besides, do you really think that those with obscene amounts of power and wealth only got to that extent of which because modern tech enabled them to do so? Clearly you're not very well-learned in history, either, or you'd realize that the mass-majority have always been the peasants and the very select few have been the lords and rulers; the middle-class only ever came to be specifically because of technology, in fact; it's responsible for breaking the trend of there being only the extremely few extremely powerful and the vast majority of the destitute, poor, and powerless. Why is this important when you are talking of the ecosystem, you might be wondering? Well, again, the thing about poaching is one thing, yes. However, a lot of destruction is carried out via necessity. Ease the strain of necessity? Then the less damage comes of necessity. Science offers us the possibility of ceasing our reliance on fossil fuels, the possibility of production without pollution, the possibility of agriculture without topsoil depletion. Just because the tools WERE primitive doesn't mean they always will be, or, for that matter, still are. We are finding that we can possibly have production without consequence to the environment, and we're doing so very rapidly very suddenly as more people take more notice of climate change, of deforestation, of energy costs, of consumer product costs...ecology and economy are things that can both benefit from technology. If in that way I am short-sighted, then by comparison, you are, quite simply, blind. You say I think I have all the answers, and yet you seem to believe you can predict the future itself, given your words seem very final and of absolute conviction; that mankind is doomed and we'll all go extinct because of our hubris.

You say the planet will do well enough without us. It will not. Because the only way we would go extinct is if the planet itself was rendered lifeless. In which sense, sure, it'll do just fine without us...if you define "doing just fine" as "being a barren, lifeless rock hurtling in its orbit around Sol." But if you meant, as a planet with an existing and diverse biosphere? Nope. Even nuclear war would not render us extinct, unless it was to the extent that it burned the entire world clean of every last bit of life from it, and even when the nuclear weapon stockpiles were at their peak during the Cold War, we still did not actually have enough nukes to render the biosphere utterly terminated, despite what pop culture and common misconceptions would have us all believing. It wouldn't even have been enough to kill off all of humanity. Shit would've rough (to say that is an understatement...well, that too would be an understatement, and a very large one at that) for a long time, yeah, but it still would not have been sufficient to be the the guaranteed extinction event for humanity; not the bombings themselves, not the nuclear fallout, not the nuclear winter.

If you really want me to go into detail why, I can, but I'll more likely just go hunt down a bunch of articles and link you to them, which you can probably do yourself if you really feel the need to find out about it. As for why I know all about that, well, I've had a long-standing fascination with nuclear proliferation, nuclear technology, and the effects both have had on human society, culture, and progression.

As for the stuff about the elephants, none of this is new to me, I've been aware of it for quite some time; I keep up to date on a lot of this stuff because it fascinates me. And yet, none of it implies that elephants have standpoints (by which I mean opinions) or that pigs can agree or disagree. The red herring attempts are cute, but I'm not going to be distracted by the fact that elephants have social abilities that may surpass even primates, because that still does not back up the idea that they have opinions. The fact they mourn their dead is a natural response, as is them teaching their offspring; what species would exist if the next generation was incapable of hunting, foraging, migrating, etc.? Again; does not imply personality. Social animals in general have a tendency to seemingly mourn their dead, because they develop a primal bond, empathy for one another, but again, empathy does not imply self-awareness, personality, or the ability to reason. I don't know how much more clear I can make it. You're arguing for a strawman. I've never once said animals cannot be empathic. At least I don't think I did. But if I implied it, such was not my intent. I've also never once denied that animals can feel pain and suffering. All I am saying is, our personalities are far more advanced than any other animal, and that actually is why we are the dominant species; because our individual self-introspection and awareness is magnitudes greater than that of any other animal's. And those traits are also what make it far easier for me to empathize with another human than it is for me to empathize with a creature from any other species, because they cannot empathize with me as I can empathize for them. If you love someone who does not love you back, that's self-destructive behavior at its worst, and at its best, it's a grand amount of effort wasted on nothing.

I empathize closest with the one I can share relation of personality with the most. Which is why if it came down to having to choose between the human race, and the elephants, I would choose the human race.

But frankly, I'm glad I personally will never have to make that choice; just because I know what my answer would be, doesn't mean it'd make it any easier or hurt any less to put it into action.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think we're screwed. That any moves we make to come into a more rational, sustainable equilibrium with our surroundings are coming as too little, too late. The elephants will all be killed and big oil will buy enough PR and politicians to keep climate change cooking. Eventually, through some unpleasantness, perhaps crop failure from extended drought, technological civilization collapses ( link to book on historical collapse of Anasazi,Mayan and other civilations)
I'd prefer the elephants, chimps and gorillas as social, intelligent individuals survive this transition. I don't expect they will.

I think that maybe, you're assuming civilization as a whole to be more fragile than it actually is (was). Even in the examples you mentioned - civ only "ended" from the standpoint of the buildings. People left - but why would they stay...the area could no longer support them so they moved on to a different place and a different way. Those people still exist.......to this very day. Hell, the folks in the SW US just waited a few generations and did the same thing all over again........I suppose it was a little more difficult for the CA'ers - but those buildings were huge...and why would they build more of them anyway....when it didn't work the last time? In any case..neither of those civs had garden hoses - high tech and shit, huh?

I think we're gonna be just fine. We're not easy to get rid of - just ask the elephants.

[CapnAwesome]

Proud of what?? Dark-skinned people in the US can have pride that they've endured the bigotry and ignorance from the last two centuries by light-skinned people in this country. What exactly do light-skinned people in particular have to be proud of? Two centuries of the majority being bigoted, ignorant, judgmental, arrogant, and shallow as all fuck? Why the fuck should we be proud of THAT?!

If you're a light-skinned person, and you feel affronted and left out because dark-skinned people have their own reasons for pride and solidarity, don't fucking try to mimic them. Give yourself an ACTUAL reason to be proud; not because of the tone of your skin, because if you're gonna go by that, maaaan...you're not gonna find a whole lot worthwhile, there.

Racial pride in general is stupid. Not just white pride. If black people can be proud of surviving the injustice of the last 400 years in America, can White people be proud of surviving the Black Plague or Mongol invasions? No. It's all just a bunch of nonsense.

[Chas]

I don't understand why people hate the poachers. Whoever purchases the ivory is to blame. You don't blame poor people for taking whatever job they can find to survive.

This is what a poacher looks like (warning there is a dead elephant in the background of this picture )

---

---

Here is what an ivory purchaser looks like (warning there is a fat cat counting money inside his ivory tower in this picture)

---

---

I don't understand why people hate contract killers. Whoever puts out the contract is to blame. You don't blame the poor guy for trying to make a living.

[downbeatplumb]

I don't get racial pride of any stripe. Getting born into this or that ethnicity is not an accomplishment.

I'm the same with patriotism.

[abaris]

I'm the same with patriotism.

Exactly.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh idk, you might be born in America, but that won't make you a good american. That takes work. If you've done the work, and you're proud of both that work and the country that gave you the opportunity to do it...........a little flag waiving might be in order, eh?

[JuliaL]

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:

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.

[downbeatplumb]

Oh idk, you might be born in America, but that won't make you a good american. That takes work. If you've done the work, and you're proud of both that work and the country that gave you the opportunity to do it...........a little flag waiving might be in order, eh?

What is there to be particularly proud of in America?

If you like the political system over there you are mad. Ours is better and there are probably even better systems elsewhere.

I know you can't like the health system coz it's the worst in the developed world.

The social programmes suffer in comparison as well.

I've heard it said that America is the richest nation on earth but actually it's the most indebted.

It's not the worst nation in the world but is it something to be proud of now, in a post Bush world where the glitter has been blown off and all standards abandoned at the first sign of trouble?