🚀 go-pugleaf

On 4 May 2004 13:02:25 -0700, apocalypse_zero@hotmail.com (Hostman
Brevis) wrote:

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

>Ofcourse, that means you and I practically can say anything we want. 

We are.

>I said that before a dozen times. Philosophically speaking, there's no
>such thing as true objectivity simply because there's always a human
>factor in between, an observation described by humans. 

So 1 + 1 isn't really = 2 in the decimal system? Suuure fellah...

>And this is certainly the case for this nice little discussion.

We are discussing a subjective issue here, but that hardly means there
are no objective issues.

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

>I see you are also good at ignoring criteria that don't support your
>argument.

I haven't ignored any criteria. I don't deny that the criteria you
propose are applicable. My argumnent is that they are insufficient.

>> >Yeast is not man. 
>> 
>> But the situation is analagous.

>Still yeast is not man. 

Never claimed it was.

>> >Anwers are to be found.
>> 
>> But will we find them?
>
>Hope so. Don't be pessimistic.
>
>> Young enough to be around to celebrate the
>> success or suffer the consequences of failure?

>Let's be clear on this: whether or not we die as a species is not a
>criterion for superiority, 

How long we last as a species sure is.

>it's the achievement and actions of the
>species that determine supremacy.

And if the achievements include the genocide of thousands of other
species, then extinction for ourselves in less than 5 million years?

>> >Everything that mankind can do MORE than evolutionary possible, is
>> >superior.
>> 
>> That's nothing. Zero, Zip. Nada.
>> Everything we are is evolution's product.

>True, but that's not my point. Read again, I said "Everything that
>mankind CAN DO",

What we can do is also evolution's product. Evolution has produced a
species that's smart enough to use sonar. Evolution did the same for
bats, whales and dolphins.

>> > 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? 

>No, the more the better. As long as the criteria don't concern our
>"physical self" (because we are physically no better)

Huh? No better than what? We can run faster than turtles. Jump higher
than elephants. see better than moles.

> and "survival"
>(how long we can exist is not my idea of superiority).

I consider it an important factor in judging general superiority.
Most any species is superior to others in some way. Cockroaches can
thrive in radiation that would kill us quickly for instance.

> I said before that we are not going to be here forever.

But surviving a respectable length of time is surely an accomplishment
to be taken into account.

>> 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."
>
>Maybe it's because we value our personal life more than survival of
>our species.

That attitude is expressed more succinctly in one word. Greed.

>> >Man is born with prejudices and dies with prejudices. In between, life
>> >is a lie.
>> 
>> What a cheerful philosophy!
>
>Hahaha! The obervation of the world happens in the brain, everything
>you hear, see, smell and touch are things that are given meaning by
>our brain dependent on the input. Maybe we all are just 'brains
>floating in a pool'; the bio content (molecules) are controlled by
>aliens, to give us the non-existent sensory input, who knows...

Sophistry.

>Actually, if everything we think of is subjective,

Everything obviously isn't.

## Lousy as things are, tomorrow this will be
##  somebody's good old days.