🚀 go-pugleaf

John  Ings <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message news:<2djc90tht6k1p92mhtlrsop506tajiicra@4ax.com>...
> On 2 May 2004 23:48:06 -0700, apocalypse_zero@hotmail.com (Hostman
> Brevis) wrote:
> 
> >> Then give up the 'superior' conceit. Man is at the moment dominant,
> >> but has been so for only a few centuries, a mere tick of the
> >> ecological clock. In that time we have done much harm with our
> >> attitude of superiority and conceit.
> >
> >Okay listen up: if 'one' views man only on a physical view, then there
> >is not a thing as superior or inferior, but viewing man on his total
> >range of capabilities (anything he could do) then he is truly superior
> >to other organisms.

Ugh, wasn't I clear enough?

> How large a human population can survive comfortably on this planet
> without demolishing the planetary ecology? 

How large? I don't know, do you? Off topic.

> How long can our species
> survive at our present rate of population increase? 

I don't know, do you? Off topic.

> How long can we
> even maintain our present level of technological advancement and
> remain the earth's dominant species?

We aren't the dominant species, I thought I told you before that
bacteria and insects are dominant in terms of population and % earth's
biomass, we are less. Give 'your definition' of dominant then.

> The science fiction writers often forsee a future in which man has
> invented fusion reactors to supply limitless clean energy and
> civilizations that mine the asteroids for resources. 

Nice, but WAY off topic, is this supposed to be an argument?

> Maybe that will
> come true, I sure hope so, but those same writers also write of a
> future where our civilization has become so populous that it has
> ruined the earth. 

I was talking about the superiority of mankind, not it's effect on
earth, which is a matter of debate and sci fi writers tend to
exaggerate and logic goes 'bye bye'...

Ever see a movie called Soylent Green? 

No.


> I think you exhibit  a mite too much hubris 

I don't think so.

> with respect to man's
> supposed 'superiority'. 

I respect that. 

"Man is a 'freak of nature', but this freak, who is a part of nature,
has awoken from the coma called evolution. Man calls himself free,
above all and superior. He knows and sees the others who haven't
awoken and has pity for them though it's not logical."

Hostman Brevis, 2004