🚀 go-pugleaf

On 4 May 2004 01:46:21 -0700, apocalypse_zero@hotmail.com (Hostman
Brevis) wrote:

>> >> 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.
>> 
>> I think that's one criteria that should be considered when deciding
>> how damn 'superior' we are. 
>
>'I think' (subjective) criteria...

Of course! It's a subjective issue! Haven't you realized that? 

>> Is a species that fouls it's environment
>> while overpopulating it superior?
>
>When it's a topic of discussion, I will answer that. 

In other words you just ignore criteria that don't support your
argument.

>> >> How long can our species
>> >> survive at our present rate of population increase? 
>> >
>> >I don't know, do you? Off topic.
>> 
>> ON topic. The yeast in my wine vat multiplies without restraint, eats
>> all the sugar it can reach, then dies of starvation. If humanity is no
>> smarter than that, how superior are we?

>Yeast is not man. 

But the situation is analagous.

>We can only use the resources that are on this
>planet, true, but if there's nothing left then that's too bad for most
>life because we are top of the food chain.

And critters that make matters "too bad for most life" are "superior"
beings?

>Anwers are to be found.

But will we find them?

>Before that, you say we are no smarter than yeast?

No, I said it remains to be seen whether we are smarter than yeast.

> Don't agree.

The jury is still out.

>> We are rapidly approaching the point where we either get
>> off this planet or control our population or our consumption of
>> resources.

>So we are smarter than yeast! ;-)

Are we? How old are you? Young enough to be around to celebrate the
sucess or suffer the consequences of failure?

>> >> 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, 
>> 
>> So am I. The issue is, what's the criteria to be used when judging
>> superiority?
>
>Everything that mankind can do MORE than evolutionary possible, is
>superior.

That's nothing. Zero, Zip. Nada.
Everything we are is evolution's product.

> Think of flying to the moon, or creating 'clone' life. I
>think that's a good criterion.

I do too, but should it be the sole criterion? Can you imagine some
future archaeologist from another civilization examining the wasteland
of our planet? "Well it appears they were advanced enough to create
quite a complex technology, including interplanetary exploration, but
they couldn't control their population so their civilzation collapsed
and after a long period of bare subsistence survival they went
extinct."

>> ## Are you thinking, or just rearranging your prejudices?
>
>Man is born with prejudices and dies with prejudices. In between, life
>is a lie.

What a cheerful philosophy!

## Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny.