# Did you know?...



## Helcaraxë (Feb 1, 2004)

Did you know that:

* It is estimated that in one hundred years half of all species on Earth will be extinct

* In only thirty years, a quarter of all mammals on earth will be extinct

* Says Washington Toxins Coalition: "In the first nationwide tests for chemical fire retardants in the breast milk of American mothers, Environmental Working Group found unexpectedly high levels of these little-known thyroid toxins in every woman tested."

* Says Geenpeace: "Beluga Whales in the St.Lawrence River are so contaminated Environment Canada classifies them as toxic waste."

* The majority of biologists in the world say that we are engaging in a "mass extinction" 

* Twenty years ago, there were about 200,000 lions in Africa. Now there are approximately 23,000

* Only ten percent of all large ocean fish remain in the seas

* Says "Time magazine": More than 11,000 species of animals and plants are known to be threatened with extinction, about a third of all coral reefs are expected to vanish in the next 30 years and about 36 million acres of forest are being razed annually. 


~Helcaraxë


----------



## Ireth Telrúnya (Feb 1, 2004)

And the worst thing is that we are constantly being bombarded by all the information from the media of all kinds of catastrophes and we have reached a state in our own defenses where we are not able to care anymore and also because we see that its futile for one person to do something about this unless the big international companies and states support it totally....


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Feb 1, 2004)

Helcaraxë said:


> Did you know that:...* The majority of biologists in the world say that we are engaging in a "mass extinction"



Whoever said that the human race was supposed to be around forever??? Looking at what we're doing to the planet, it wouldn't surprise me that the next two or three centuries (if that) may well be our last. I think Tolkien himself may have suspected that: read my signature.

Once we're gone, the planet can begin to heal itself — I hope.

Lotho


----------



## Helcaraxë (Feb 1, 2004)

Yes, and good riddence to us. But that quote was referring to animals, not humans, unfortunately.


----------



## Sarde (Feb 2, 2004)

Unfortunately people (and I do not completely exclude myself from this ) want to hold on to their consumerism, their cars, their airplanes, their tropical fruits in the middle of winter, their garden furniture made of tropical wood, their environmentally devastating factory farming etc. etc. etc.

Ultimately, people are selfish...


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Feb 2, 2004)

Sarde said:


> Unfortunately people (and I do not completely exclude myself from this ) want to hold on to their consumerism, their cars, their airplanes, their tropical fruits in the middle of winter, their garden furniture made of tropical wood, their environmentally devastating factory farming etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Ultimately, people are selfish...



'Twas ever thus: we have our own natures to overcome.

Lotho


----------



## Sarde (Feb 2, 2004)

Lotho_Pimple said:


> 'Twas ever thus: we have our own natures to overcome.
> 
> Lotho



Do you think we ever will or do you think we will perish before we learn...?


----------



## Gandalf White (Feb 2, 2004)

Helcaraxë said:


> Yes, and good riddence to us. But that quote was referring to animals, not humans, unfortunately.



Hmmm, perhaps we should start killing ourselves?


----------



## Sarde (Feb 2, 2004)

Yes! "Save the Earth, kill yourself!"


----------



## Niniel (Feb 2, 2004)

Maybe you should all join the Society for the Voluntary Extinction of the Human Race 
Check http://www.vhemt.org.


----------



## Sarde (Feb 2, 2004)

I think I am part of them already since I do not breed and don't plan to ever do such a thing.


----------



## Turin (Feb 2, 2004)

Personally I couldn't care less what happens to the earth, I'll be dead by then anyway. If you hate mankind so much why don't you just nuke the whole planet?


> Once we're gone, the planet can begin to heal itself — I hope.


 And what would be the point of this, why would you want the planet to heal itself if there's nobody there to live on it? Or are you trying to say that you care more about earth than the race of man? Atleast the animals will be happy, oh wait, they'd be evolving into humans .


----------



## Lantarion (Feb 2, 2004)

Turin said:


> And what would be the point of this, why would you want the planet to heal itself if there's nobody there to live on it? Or are you trying to say that you care more about earth than the race of man?


Believe it or not, life itself does not revolve aruond mankind. Humans are in fact a very new species, if you look at how long other mammals, like the ancestors of horses have been around. 
Humans, I believe, are just one step upwards; and I actually believe that, if we do not kill ourselves in the next 1000 years or so, and if the Sun doesn't expand in the time frame predicted, I think that the human race would evolve into a new form.

And nothing we do can destroy the planet; we should not overstimate our power. Certainly we are destroying a large part of the Earth's natural resources; but that's bad only for living creatures. The Earth itself would continue to exist no matter what we did (outrageous science fiction theories aside ), and life would simply start, or attempt to start, again. 

That's just what I think right now, in a few days I'll probably have a different view.


----------



## Sarde (Feb 2, 2004)

Turin said:


> Personally I couldn't care less what happens to the earth, I'll be dead by then anyway.



Oh yes, après nous le déluge... This attitude is the entire problem... Professor Tolkien would be quite sad to hear someone say such a thing... 



Turin said:


> If you hate mankind so much why don't you just nuke the whole planet?



Because I do not have the means to produce a nuclear bom singlehandedly.  Seriously, though. I do not hate mankind. I _am_ frequently sad and disappointed about the degree of selfishness I find in it, and the lack of concern for our precious earth and our fellow beings.



> And what would be the point of this, why would you want the planet to heal itself if there's nobody there to live on it? Or are you trying to say that you care more about earth than the race of man? Atleast the animals will be happy, oh wait, they'd be evolving into humans .



I don't think Nature would make the same mistake twice.


----------



## Turin (Feb 2, 2004)

Sarde said:


> I don't think Nature would make the same mistake twice.



You mean that you actually think that there is something controling nature? How could nature make decisions if it wasn't a living being. Or are you just saying that humans were a mistake? I believe that the world is here for humans to live on, not for animals or whatever.


> Because I do not have the means to produce a nuclear bom singlehandedly.


 If you had this power would you attempt to destroy mankind? If so then I think you should be locked away in a prison for life, no offence.


> I believe, are just one step upwards; and I actually believe that, if we do not kill ourselves in the next 1000 years or so, and if the Sun doesn't expand in the time frame predicted, I think that the human race would evolve into a new form.


 You mean like on dragonball z?


----------



## Sarde (Feb 2, 2004)

Turin said:


> You mean that you actually think that there is something controling nature? How could nature make decisions if it wasn't a living being. Or are you just saying that humans were a mistake?



Did you see the ''? I was joking. But only half. Humans were not a mistake (although the Old Testament God seemed to have thought so ). Humanity is making a big mistake however in the way it is treating the world.



> I believe that the world is here for humans to live on, not for animals or whatever.



And who decided that the world is here for humans to live in? You ridicule the notion that Nature might have an 'intention' and now you yourself state that the world is here for a purpose or reason. Whose purpose? Yours?



> If you had this power would you attempt to destroy mankind? If so then I think you should be locked away in a prison for life, no offence.



Again, there was a '' behind my remark. But just to assure you: no, I would not attempt to destroy mankind. Mankind will do a pretty good job at that itself during the next few hudred years. I love the world too much to destroy it. I hope against hope that mankind will be redeemed.


----------



## Ireth Telrúnya (Feb 2, 2004)

The fact remains that if everyone on the globe lived like we do here in the western industrialized countries, this world couldn't handle it at all. 
This consumer society who holds money as the ultimate power will consume this planet until there's nothing left. 
Though who would really think this seriously? Not me. It's better not to think about this at all...


----------



## Sarde (Feb 2, 2004)

Ireth Telrúnya said:


> Though who would really think this seriously? Not me. It's better not to think about this at all...



I beg to differ... If more people would think about this seriously, something may actually be accomplished. True enough, thinking alone will not do, but if there are enough people who see the need for change, they will be able to kickstart that change.

"Be the change you want to see."
-Mahatma Gandhi (and he accomplished a LOT by doing exactly that)

Look at your own signature, Ireth Telrùnya, and live by it! Did Frodo not decide that what he should do with his time is try to save his beloved world? No matter the peril, no matter the infinitely small chance of success?


----------



## Turin (Feb 2, 2004)

Sarde said:


> And who decided that the world is here for humans to live in? You ridicule the notion that Nature might have an 'intention' and now you yourself state that the world is here for a purpose or reason. Whose purpose? Yours?



I believe in the Bible and in God and all that you might think to be totally bogus, but it says in the Bible that God created earth because he was lonely.


> Again, there was a '' behind my remark.


 The anihilation of the human race just isn't very funny, atleast to me.


> Mankind will do a pretty good job at that itself during the next few hudred years.


 Why do you think mankind will destroy itself? I think that the natural resources will last, atleast untill judgement day.


----------



## Sarde (Feb 2, 2004)

Turin said:


> I believe in the Bible and in God and all that you might think to be totally bogus, but it says in the Bible that God created earth because he was lonely.



And it also says in the Bible that God regretted creating mankind. He then caused the Flood, in order to 'start from scratch'. Things didn't get much better after that though...



> The anihilation of the human race just isn't very funny, atleast to me.



It most certainly is not. But even people in concentration camps kept their sense of humor (ever seen the movie 'La Vita è Bella' by Roberto Begnini?). Humor is a survival mechanism. Life would be unbearable without it.



> Why do you think mankind will destroy itself? I think that the natural resources will last, atleast untill judgement day.



It's not about natural resources. We can live without oil and gas, no problem, we have done so for thousands of years. But we are destroying the world we are living in. The day may come that we have polluted our surroundings to such an extent that it becomes difficult to survive in them. And even if we hold out till 'judgment day', why not make the remaining time as pleasant as possible for ourselves and others? Why spoil our home for generations to come? We are soiling our own nest.


----------



## Ireth Telrúnya (Feb 2, 2004)

Sarde said:


> I beg to differ... If more people would think about this seriously, something may actually be accomplished. True enough, thinking alone will not do, but if there are enough people who see the need for change, they will be able to kickstart that change.
> 
> "Be the change you want to see."
> -Mahatma Gandhi (and he accomplished a LOT by doing exactly that)
> ...



I guess that was a sarcastic remark towards myself. I am worried about the state this world is in, but then I have to be realistic: do I really care about it so much I'd do something about it. I'm afraid I'm not able to live up to my signature. I remember donating some money to save seals in the Baltic sea and the most endangered species of seals that live in the largest of Finland's lakes, Saimaa, but nothing special besides that. 
Then in the end I realize that it is the core of our very lifestyle that should be changed in order to change this planet and ourselves.


----------



## Sarde (Feb 2, 2004)

Well, at least your realize what needs to be done. It does not take great deeds to 'be the change you want to see'. Set an example for others. Do not litter. Do not buy factory farming products. Do not buy products you know involve child labour.

There is so much you can do without making great efforts. If everyone was willing to make a small effort (pay a little more for their products, waste a little less, turn the heater a bit lower, you name it) we'd be well on the way to a better world...


----------



## Niniel (Feb 2, 2004)

> Posted by Lantarion
> Believe it or not, life itself does not revolve aruond mankind. Humans are in fact a very new species, if you look at how long other mammals, like the ancestors of horses have been around. Believe it or not, life itself does not revolve aruond mankind. Humans are in fact a very new species, if you look at how long other mammals, like the ancestors of horses have been around.
> Humans, I believe, are just one step upwards; and I actually believe that, if we do not kill ourselves in the next 1000 years or so, and if the Sun doesn't expand in the time frame predicted, I think that the human race would evolve into a new form.
> And nothing we do can destroy the planet; we should not overstimate our power. Certainly we are destroying a large part of the Earth's natural resources; but that's bad only for living creatures. The Earth itself would continue to exist no matter what we did (outrageous science fiction theories aside ), and life would simply start, or attempt to start, again.



That's exactly what I think Lanty! Earth is not here for mankind, it's here the way it is because the conditions during the shaping of the universe were right for Earth to come to be the way it is now. Humans are not more important than animals; humans are just another species of animal. 
On the one hand I do believe that the way humans are dealing with the Earth is wrong, and that we should try to stop living this way; but on the other hand I agree that if we go too far, nature will find a way and make sure it doesn't get destroyed.


----------



## Gandalf White (Feb 2, 2004)

Lantarion said:


> Believe it or not, life itself does not revolve aruond mankind. Humans are in fact a very new species, if you look at how long other mammals, like the ancestors of horses have been around.
> Humans, I believe, are just one step upwards; and I actually believe that, if we do not kill ourselves in the next 1000 years or so, and if the Sun doesn't expand in the time frame predicted, I think that the human race would evolve into a new form.





Niniel said:


> That's exactly what I think Lanty! Earth is not here for mankind, it's here the way it is because the conditions during the shaping of the universe were right for Earth to come to be the way it is now. Humans are not more important than animals; humans are just another species of animal.



It is of extreme importance to note that we cannot really hold a 'true' debate without ironing out these points quoted above. This in turn will lead to debates involving Evolution and so on, getting us no where. All we can hope to do is present our viewpoints, without any real chance of changing anyone's minds, because so many points of this debate are engrained deeply into each of us. It could be compared to several brick walls talking to each other; very intelligent brick walls, I might add...  

That said, I am with Turin in the belief that God created the world specifically to place us humans on it. It is not important whether he used Evolution or Creation to do so, the point is He made us in His image, and so we _*are*_ 'one step up,' so to speak. We were given mastery over the world and the animals in it.*

It then follows that we should seek to preserve our Earth. The measure to which we should go is debatable. I don't believe we need to/should stop eating meat.** There is no problem if some hold that belief and strictly follow it, but I don't think it should be imposed worldwide. 

Man is a fallen creature, hence the charge to be masters of the animal kingdom and 'rulers' of the world have been wrongfully used. I think Earth is ultimately doomed to deteriorate(sp? ); perhaps this downward course will lend itself to the destruction predicted for the last times. Does this mean we should just give up and let the fallen nature take it's course? Most certainly not! We should do everything in our power to preserve our earth for the generations to follow. 

Again, the methods for doing so are debatable. I don't believe killing ourselves (or our unborn children for that matter) is the answer. 

Niniel: You say the Earth 'was shaped,' yet now somehow it will have the consciousness to stop man? Nature is indeed adaptable, but not to that extent. 

And at which point will it have had enough, and what exactly will it do to stop us?






___________________________
*Gen. 1:28-30
**Gen. 9:1-4


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Feb 2, 2004)

Turin said:


> Personally I couldn't care less what happens to the earth, I'll be dead by then anyway. If you hate mankind so much why don't you just nuke the whole planet? And what would be the point of this, why would you want the planet to heal itself if there's nobody there to live on it? Or are you trying to say that you care more about earth than the race of man? Atleast the animals will be happy, oh wait, they'd be evolving into humans .



You sound pretty angry, or at least sarcastic.

If you couldn't care less what happens to the earth, then you're part of the problem. Very orcish attitude. I hope you don't work for any company that's responsible for planetary pollution of any sort.

Unfortunately "nuking the whole planet" is still in the cards as long as idiots run our countries. So you "wouldn't be dead anyway," you'd be caught in a nuclear holocaust along with everyone else. And idiots will run our countries as long as we vote them in (of course democracies comprise less than 20% of the countries on earth) or as long as they take power.

And I didn't say I hated mankind, that's your interpretation. The earth is not mankind's to destroy in the process of his own evolution (which it looks like he's doing). 

I suggest you read Tolkien (or the spiritual tenets of the American Indians) some more to find out the proper relationship between the earth and its inhabitants.

Lotho


----------



## Helcaraxë (Feb 2, 2004)

Gandalf White said:


> Hmmm, perhaps we should start killing ourselves?



GW, would it really be that terrible for the planet if we died? Anyway, I was kidding. Could you please take your sarcasm somewhere else? It's really not welcome here. However, despite the fact that I was not enitrely serious, I still strongly believe that it would be a good thing if we died out. I'm not suggesting we start killing ourselves, but it would be a boon to the planet if we were gone or at least if we were more sensative to these issues. I was not kidding about _that_.




Turin said:


> Personally I couldn't care less what happens to the earth, I'll be dead by then anyway. If you hate mankind so much why don't you just nuke the whole planet? And what would be the point of this, why would you want the planet to heal itself if there's nobody there to live on it? Or are you trying to say that you care more about earth than the race of man? Atleast the animals will be happy, oh wait, they'd be evolving into humans .I believe that the world is here for humans to live on, not for animals or whatever.




Well, we can kiss "kindness for kindess's sake" goodbye, if that's your attitiude.  "Animals or whatever," you say. This demeaning attitude is exactly what I am talking about; if this selfish and uncaring worldview continues, we will die, and everything will die. If we cease to respect and care about our planet and _all_ its inhabitants, we will be riding a deadly whirlwind. We are dependent on plants and animals to survive ourselves. Do you have any idea what will happen to the Carbon Dioxide levels in the air if we raze the rainforests to the ground? The cycle will be broken. Air will become unbreathable. Water will become undrinkable from all the pollutants that we dump into the oceans. Is this a world you want to live in? Even if you are dead, what about your children? And what about the animals for their own sake? They deserve to live no less than we do.


----------



## Gandalf White (Feb 2, 2004)

Helcaraxë said:


> GW, would it really be that terrible for the planet if we died? Anyway, I was kidding. Could you please take your sarcasm somewhere else? It's really not welcome here.



You mean it's not welcome next to sarcastic posts of your own? Frankly I find this one:


Helcaraxë said:


> Yes, and good riddence to us. But that quote was referring to animals, not humans, unfortunately.


 quite more disturbing than mine. Don't have double standards. 

Turin: I must agree with the fact that that attitude simply is not the right one to have. Perhaps if/when you have children you will see the error in that thinking.


----------



## Sarde (Feb 3, 2004)

Gandalf White said:


> That said, I am with Turin in the belief that God created the world specifically to place us humans on it. It is not important whether he used Evolution or Creation to do so, the point is He made us in His image, and so we _*are*_ 'one step up,' so to speak. We were given mastery over the world and the animals in it.*



Mastery, perhaps. But that is not the same as exploitation. I am pretty convinced that if there is a God, that He loves all the creatures He made. I do not agree with you on the point of humans being 'one step up' from animals. I actually think that is the attitude causing much of the problems.

By the way, I believe that in a hundred years or so, we will look upon our present treatment of our fellow creatures with the same shame and disgust that we now look upon past mistakes such as slavery. I believe that there will be a day when the mere idea of killing a sentient being in order to eat it will make us turn our heads with disgust. Obviously, I believe in progress and not deterioration. After freeing our fellow humans, we will move on to our 'lesser' sisters and brothers.

"As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields."
-Tolstoj



> It then follows that we should seek to preserve our Earth. The measure to which we should go is debatable. I don't believe we need to/should stop eating meat.** There is no problem if some hold that belief and strictly follow it, but I don't think it should be imposed worldwide.



We may not need to stop eating meat (although it would be a sign of compassion and love for creation if we did so), but we definitely need to stop producing meat the way we do now. Not only because we are putting millions upon millions of innocent creatures through an utterly miserable life, but also because factory farming is one of the most polluting branches of industry that exists. If all the world were to produce meat the way the Western world is doing it now, it would be a total disaster for our eco-system.



> Again, the methods for doing so are debatable. I don't believe killing ourselves (or our unborn children for that matter) is the answer.



Are you equating willingly refraining from having children with 'killing our unborn children'?



> And at which point will it have had enough, and what exactly will it do to stop us?



Nature is more adaptable than you might think. In the Middle Ages, 1/3 of the European population died from the Plague. A new disease could arise, a disease resistant to all our antibiotics and other medicines. Not a pleasant idea, but that is the way nature regulates populations of animals getting out of hand.


----------



## Gandalf White (Feb 3, 2004)

Sarde said:


> Mastery, perhaps. But that is not the same as exploitation. I am pretty convinced that if there is a God, that He loves all the creatures He made. I do not agree with you on the point of humans being 'one step up' from animals. I actually think that is the attitude causing much of the problems.



I don't think I made my point quite as clear as I meant to. We have mastery, yes, but by no means are we supposed to use this to exploit other creatures or destroy our world. 

My belief states that man is 'special,' created in the image of God, unlike any other creature on this earth. 



Sarde said:


> Nature is more adaptable than you might think. In the Middle Ages, 1/3 of the European population died from the Plague. A new disease could arise, a disease resistant to all our antibiotics and other medicines. Not a pleasant idea, but that is the way nature regulates populations of animals getting out of hand.


 But my point is nature does these things 'automatically,' so to speak. It's not making a conscious decision to create new bacteria and wipe out humankind.



Sarde said:


> Are you equating willingly refraining from having children with 'killing our unborn children'?


 No, no, no, and a thousand times no!!!  Never did it enter my mind.


----------



## Sarde (Feb 3, 2004)

Gandalf White said:


> My belief states that man is 'special,' created in the image of God, unlike any other creature on this earth.



This is a point on which we will probably come no closer together so we should let it rest.



> But my point is nature does these things 'automatically,' so to speak. It's not making a conscious decision to create new bacteria and wipe out humankind.



Not a conscious decision, but there is a logic to it. It happens when it is needed. You can see this when you study populations of animals. When there are too many animals in any one area, something will happen to decrease (or even decimate) the population. Hunger will come, a disease will break out.



> No, no, no, and a thousand times no!!!  Never did it enter my mind.



Phew! *Wipes sweat off brow* I thought so because I thought it was a reaction to the 'Society for the Voluntary Extinction of the Human Race'-website, which only propagates 'not breeding'.


----------



## Gandalf White (Feb 3, 2004)

Sarde said:


> This is a point on which we will probably come no closer together so we should let it rest.



No problem, I just needed to explain that in order to properly present my views. I knew that brick wall analogy was bound to come into play!  



Sarde said:


> Not a conscious decision, but there is a logic to it. It happens when it is needed. You can see this when you study populations of animals. When there are too many animals in any one area, something will happen to decrease (or even decimate) the population. Hunger will come, a disease will break out.


Oh, there is definitely a "logical" mechanism built into nature, causing things like that to happen.



Sarde said:


> Phew! *Wipes sweat off brow* I thought so because I thought it was a reaction to the 'Society for the Voluntary Extinction of the Human Race'-website, which only propagates 'not breeding'.


 Good heavens, no!


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Feb 3, 2004)

Turin said:


> I believe in the Bible and in God and all that you might think to be totally bogus, but it says in the Bible that God created earth because he was lonely. The anihilation of the human race just isn't very funny, atleast to me. Why do you think mankind will destroy itself? I think that the natural resources will last, atleast untill judgement day.



Turin, you are evidently a strongly believing Christian, and I respect that. In fact I envy anyone with a strong belief system in any religion or spiritual path. Such a belief gives meaning to life (ours and that of the universe).

I must say however, that — for me — the idea of God being lonely strikes me as strange. God, the totally perfect being — lonely? Or jealous ("I am a jealous god, having no others before me") for that matter. If God is supposed to be perfect, I would think it precludes neediness of any sort.

And in Hinduism, it gets even better: God created all this for _sport_ ("leela" in Sanskrit). That's right, it's all a game. And every few eons or so, "He" destroys it all and starts everything all over again for the fun of it. Your Big Bang theory repeated over and over.

Maybe that's why the Buddhists postulate no God at all.

You ask "Why do you think mankind will destroy itself?" Well, just look at human history: one long war interrupted by brief moments of peace. Look at what modern technology is doing to the planet. As others have said, if we simply go along as we are, we will have befouled our own nests beyond repair in time.

One scientist says we are doing to the whole earth as the inhabitants of Easter Island did to themselves: used up their resources until something vital in the survival chain was broken. They went past the point of no return. Someday, if we don't make a major change to save the earth and its species, that same thing will — I fervently believe — happen in the planetary ecology. Something vital will have gone extinct, and the final downward spiral will have begun. In fact, it may have begun already.

I seriously doubt that God will intervene. As far as I can tell, if God (as conceptualized in the various holy books) exists, "He" has never stepped in and stopped us from making egregious fatal errors. We're on our own. If there is to be a Judgement Day, it will simply be that day when everything is lost, and man finally wakes up from his arrogance — too late — to the irreversible fatal damage he has brought down upon himself — enlightenment, but too late. Read my signature. Tolkien knew.

Lotho


----------



## Turin (Feb 3, 2004)

Gandalf White said:


> Turin: I must agree with the fact that that attitude simply is not the right one to have. Perhaps if/when you have children you will see the error in that thinking.



You're right, I was flustered at the time and thats not what I meant, forgive me everyone. I do love earth and I wish that there would be less polution ect.. 



Lotho_Pimple said:


> You sound pretty angry, or at least sarcastic.



Yeah, a little bit of both, I appologise.


----------



## Helcaraxë (Feb 3, 2004)

Gandalf White said:


> You mean it's not welcome next to sarcastic posts of your own? Frankly I find this one: quite more disturbing than mine. Don't have double standards.




I was not being sarcastic. Exaggeration and humour is not sarcasm. I apologize if I came across as sarcastic; I assure you it was not intented. I try very hard not to hold people to a double standard. And though I do not believe that killing ourselves will help at all, I strongly believe that we are a very, _very_ serious threat the ourselves and the planet. I was just saying that I don't think it would be disastrous to anything but us if we died out.


----------



## Sarde (Feb 3, 2004)

Now isn't that nice? Everyone is apologising to everyone and now we all love each other again. 

Lotho, I think you might have a bit of a misconception when it comes to Hinduism and God creating the world for 'sport' (that sounds more like something the Gods of Greece and Rome would have done). I would like to dicuss the meaning of the word 'leela' with you, but perhaps we should do it through PM or e-mail?


----------



## faila (Feb 10, 2004)

they have been saying similair things for a long time... in the 60's and 70's they said that we wouldnt last till the year 2000 the whole world would have major population problems....and guess what we arent. These people dont really have any Idea.


----------



## Sarde (Feb 11, 2004)

faila said:


> they have been saying similair things for a long time... in the 60's and 70's they said that we wouldnt last till the year 2000 the whole world would have major population problems....and guess what we arent. These people dont really have any Idea.



Dozens of species have become extinct since the 60s and 70s. Hundreds more are threatened with extinction. You have no idea what kind of impact this could have on the ecosystem (of which we _are_, whether we want it or not, a part. We depend on the world's ecosystem for our existence. If there are no more trees, we cannot live for there will be no oxygen. If all animals who eat insects were to go extinct, the world would be taken over by insects. A butterfly flapping its wing can cause a hurricane to happen on the other side of the world, as they say. We have no idea what the effects of our destructive way of life might be...


----------



## Gandalf White (Feb 11, 2004)

Sarde said:


> A butterfly flapping its wing can cause a hurricane to happen on the other side of the world, as they say.



Ouch! The Chaos Theory, isn't it? A butterfly flapping his wings in Japan on Monday causes a hurricane in Oklahoma on Friday...  

I abhor spiders, but heaven forbid they should disappear...


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Feb 11, 2004)

Gandalf White said:


> Ouch! The Chaos Theory, isn't it? A butterfly flapping his wings in Japan on Monday causes a hurricane in Oklahoma on Friday...
> 
> I abhor spiders, but heaven forbid they should disappear...



Ah no my friend, I believe Sarde is talking about the notion that all Reality is — in reality — One. It's all one system, like all the components of a clock are "clock," just as you and I are complete systems, but we are also subsystems of Reality. Very Eastern, very Hindu: All is God. All is One. Nothing is separate from anything else. What appears as separate is simply how our mind works. Therefore what happens at one "end" of the universe affects not only the other "end," but the entire system — instantly. Quantum mechanics, particle physics, Gary Zukov!

If you really want to get into what kind of damage a flapping butterfly wing can do at the other end of the universe (just a silly phrase, there is no direction in space, except in relation to an arbitrary point), a good place to start is Itzhak Bentov's "Stalking the Wild Pendulum: On the Mechanics of Consciousness." If you like mental roller coaster rides that make your hair stand on end, you'll have a good one!

Lotho


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Feb 11, 2004)

Lantarion said:


> ...I actually believe that, if we do not kill ourselves in the next 1000 years or so, and if the Sun doesn't expand in the time frame predicted, I think that the human race would evolve into a new form.



I have thought about this myself, especially in the light of colonizing other planets and heavenly bodies. Take the moon for instance: its gravity, I believe, is about one-sixth that of earth. What would happen to those who live there permanently over time, and to newborn children there? I think that eventually, the comparitive lack of gravity would evolve a new sort of human, one taller and more fragile (this isn't original with me, a science fiction author put this forward years ago). 

The human body would evolve a new variation in adapting to just this one fundamental change. Quite probably such people could not live on the earth without a lot of special training to put up with the increased gravity. And of course, taller people would evolve completely new ergonomic systems in such things as furniture, architecture, vehicles, clothing, etc., an entirely new culture altogether — similar, but fundamentally different.

Same thing with Mars, but to a lesser extent. 

And what of living in a situation with no gravity at all? Astronautical research has already shown that to be dangerous to the body. When we start to jigger the conditions under which we evolved, we get into uncharted waters and unforeseen consequences.

Lotho


----------

