Welcome to Slashdot Music Science Space X The Almighty Buck
 faq
 code
 osdn
 awards
 privacy
 slashNET
 older stuff
 rob's page
 preferences
 submit story
 advertising
 supporters
 past polls
 topics
 about
 jobs
 hof

Sections
6/19
apache
6/28 (4)
askslashdot
6/21
books
6/25
bsd
6/27 (2)
developers
6/27
features
6/27
interviews
1/9
radio
6/28 (4)
science
6/26
yro
OSDN
freshmeat
Linux.com
SourceForge
ThinkGeek
Question
 Exchange

NewsForge
SlashCode

'Early Man: The Cause of Mass Extinction?' | Login/Create an Account | Top | 480 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say.
Nature is our enemy (Score:-1, Troll)
by Ayn Rand (ayn@satan.zzn.com) on Thursday June 14, @07:14AM EST (#25)
(User #153143 Info) http://www.aynrand.org/
That the left-wing media and so-called "scientific" establishments attack all forms of progress is nothing new. The anti-Human forces have been at it for decades, sickly raging at those who are better than them.

So, our ancestor, early man, saw fit to use his intelligence and strength for his own enlightened self interest? What could be more natural, I ask you? It is no tragedy that the wooly-mammoth did not survive: Man's strength was too great. For this, he is to be commended.

In our present day, the whining, half-human statists wish to use their leverage inside the corrupt, reeking organ of fascism known as the modern nation to bind as they could not bind our ancient forefathers. Every useful improvement of man, whether physical, moral, or economical, is halted in the name of uniform mediocrity and collectivism. When will they realize that a great man's spirit cannot be silenced by the laws? That mankind is by its very nature superior to the spotted owl? The liberals would sink us to the level of beast, and deny us the greatness that was one through the long development of man's greatest natural gift: the Ego. It is the liberals who have passed their point of usefulness. A political Darwinism will sweep the land, raging like holy fire across a peoples weary of the lies, slander, and weakness of the liberal ideals.

---
"If a life can have a `theme song' and I believe that every worthwhile one has mine is [best] expressed
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
<<Public Service Announcement. by Anonymous Coward (Score:-1) | Sent to destroy Earth by Genie1 (Score:1) >>
Moderation Totals:Flamebait=7, Troll=5, Insightful=7, Interesting=3, Informative=2, Funny=1, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=27.
Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14, @07:23AM EST (#38)
Yeah! Bring the pain to weak minded liberals! Burn the Greens and cast their ashes to the wind!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
by hyehye (hye@gulch.nitg.org) on Thursday June 14, @07:31AM EST (#49)
(User #451759 Info) http://gulch.nitg.org
'Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.' So spoke Miss Rand. What this means is that in order to be master of my own life, I must first understand the laws that govern it, and then use those laws to my own advantage. The laws of nature dictate that I must use the only weapon I have, my mind, to gather the tools necessary to preserve my survival. This means I will develop a spear and kill an animal to eat and to clothe myself, or in modern times, I will study harder and learn more and get a better job. It's all the same process, the same abstract, only the concretes of the situation are different. I do hunt, I do not feel guilty. I do succeed in business, I do not feel guilty. And there's absolutely no difference between the two.
-- think for yourself, you won't like the results if others do it for you.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14, @07:46AM EST (#73)
Yeah, like a raging wildfire causing corporations to merge together into a supercompany that will save us all. Conservatives had their chance but just couldn't resist the siren call of the contributions that turned them into whores who would pass laws that were handed down from some corporate office. Naw, I remember when they gained control of the house and senate. Thought they would try to do some good. Turned out to be just another group of scumbags who sold out. And they know they're gonna be gone next election. Look at the way their clamoring to "do the right things" now that it is becoming clear that people are onto their whoring. Fuck 'em all. We need some new laws that allow for execution when one of our governing critters is found to be out whoring instead of doing their job.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
    by Bobo the Space Chimp on Thursday June 14, @08:37AM EST (#154)
    (User #304349 Info)
    I'd rather live in a world of rapidly-advancing technology with lax environmental laws dictated by greedy corporations causing nature to run "a bit dirty" than live in a world where technology is ground to a halt by an overbearing, intrusive government that insinuates itself boldly with moral self-righteousness into every last decision, every single corner of everybody's life from sunup to sundown and all through the night.


    "You've agreed to give Bobo the Space Chimp an annual stipend of $20,000.00 by reading to the end of this sentence."
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Hurry up, already (Score:1, Insightful)
    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14, @10:10AM EST (#246)
     
        Will all you Conservatives and Liberals hurry up and rip each other apart?  The sooner the people are rid of you, the sooner we can restore a mediocum of sanity to our culture and our political system.
     
    -- Guges --
     
     
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
by juhaz (juhasa@hotmail.com) on Thursday June 14, @07:49AM EST (#79)
(User #110830 Info)
Some of you idiots just don't get it, do you? No?
Well, that's no surprise, it just tells us that you are even more stupid than those ancient cavemans... at least they knew that mankind _CAN NOT SURVIVE WITHOUT NATURE_, we are a part of nature, which seems to be a point that you have forgotten, human is an animal as much as any of those killed ones, we depend on food, clean water and air just as well as they did, so far I haven't seen a human that can eat rocks, breathe air full of toxins and with no oxygen, and drink contaminated water... have you?
'Cause that's the world of future if we do what your kind of people seem to think is "right", and kill all living things besides ourself and continue poisoning the atmosphere and waters...
Dunno about you, but I prefer our children to be living normally, instead of forced to live in sealed domes, eating some hydrophonically grown food, because their ancestors (that would be us, guess twice are they going to like us because what we forced them into?) destroyed the world, turning it into some strange, dead, moon-like alien rock instead of our beautiful, living home planet.

We may well be superior by power, and cold, mathematical intelligence, compared to the rest of animals, but as we lack wisdom tho use that power and intelligence, we are stupid, very plain and simple. People must learn to think about long term consequences before the immediate benefit if we are going to survive.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
    by Tuonenkielo on Thursday June 14, @08:05AM EST (#112)
    (User #444651 Info)
    Don't know if you have kept your eyes closed, but I have seen people drink contmainated water becuase they have nothing else to drink. That doesn't mean they have survived the experience, though.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:0)
by oosajack on Thursday June 14, @07:51AM EST (#84)
(User #162804 Info)
I don't seem to get your point.
You are saying one of these or all of these
1) Our ancestors caused extinction of may species. So do you think we should also do it. I mean they might have done it unknowingly. We with better knowledge knowing the results of species extinction, should also do it?

2) Humans are superior to all other species that exist today on Earth. Sure..you are right in this. Does this mean trample on all other species for just trampling or behave in a responsible way? I agree that when a question arises to choose between human benifits and that of other species, one should choose for the benifit of humans.

3) Leftists are stopping the progress. You might be against leftism etc.. but you accusation is not true. There may be some instances of left fighting for other species rights over jealously but your statement is a sweeping judgement. Leftists are not luddites. If anybody are they must be ultra right wing guys.
Don't use this platform to show your hate of leftists. This is not right topic.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
by naasking on Thursday June 14, @07:51AM EST (#88)
(User #94116 Info)
Unfortunately, you are not superior to nature. If you really believed in Ayn Rand's philosophy, you would follow two of the basic premises: a) reality is what it is, and b) logic is the only absolute. Logic dictates that if you drive many animals to extinction and greatly upset the cycle of nature, you will eliminate your own means of survival. The reality is that you will die. You are not superior to nature, as much as you'd like to believe; that is the reality.

-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
~ Drunken Engineer ~
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
    by Bobo the Space Chimp on Thursday June 14, @08:49AM EST (#173)
    (User #304349 Info)
    > Logic dictates that if you drive many animals
    > to extinction and greatly upset the cycle of
    > nature, you will eliminate your own means of
    > survival. The reality is that you will die.

    Actually, that is completely incorrect, logically.

    Logic dictates that you plan the destruction of the ecosystem in an area and plant massive farms. This will enhance greatly your species' ability to survive.

    To preserve plants and animals in a "natural" area is not logical. It leads to the death of many people, not the large farms, which feed many.


    "You've agreed to give Bobo the Space Chimp an annual stipend of $20,000.00 by reading to the end of this sentence."
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
      by Indomitus (slash at mattorama dot net) on Thursday June 14, @10:06AM EST (#244)
      (User #578 Info) http://www.mattorama.net
      You've just demonstrated why so-called "pure logic" is difficult to use as a good basis for making decisions. Both of you have "logical" arguments that come to very different conclusions, opposite conclusions actually. One of you is no more "right" than the other, but you both think the other is wrong.

      Just to add my own $0.02, you'd be hard pressed to say that farms are not nature. They're just a small part of nature contained but still subject to the larger overall system that includes sunlight, rain, soil, and many other things that are hard (or impossible) to replicate on a large enough scale to feed everyone.

      You're not a SpinnNet customer? Does your family still talk to you?
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
        by naasking on Thursday June 14, @12:19PM EST (#306)
        (User #94116 Info)
        You've just demonstrated why so-called "pure logic" is difficult to use as a good basis for making decisions.

        I have never encountered any situation where so-called "pure logic" has not provided the best solution to a problem/issue. If you come across a situation where you have two contradicting solutions to the same problem, you have made an error(unless you can provide me with a counter-example).

        Both of you have "logical" arguments that come to very different conclusions, opposite conclusions actually

        If our conclusions are different, there are two possible reasons: a) one of us is wrong, or b) we are trying to accomplish different things. In a case like this where the argument has no direction(ie. we are not trying to accomplish anything), one of us is wrong. In this case, I am right. :-)

        One of you is no more "right" than the other, but you both think the other is wrong.

        No, I am right. :-) (see my response to him if you'd like to see why) He has put forth the argument that humans can obliterate nature if they like and replace all this land with farms for our own purposes. He hasn't stated it as clearly or bluntly, but that's what his argument boils down to.

        Just to add my own $0.02, you'd be hard pressed to say that farms are not nature.

        Of course they are. They are an imitation of a stripped-bare nature based solely on our needs. Due to our limited understanding of how nature actually works, farms are severely lacking in what is actually needed for a sustainable existence. That's why he's wrong.

        They're just a small part of nature contained but still subject to the larger overall system that includes sunlight, rain, soil, and many other things that are hard (or impossible) to replicate on a large enough scale to feed everyone.

        Impossible to currently replicate especially since we don't fully understand even 10 percent of it. That's why it's unsustainable, and that's why he's wrong.

        -----
        "Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
        ~ Drunken Engineer ~
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
          by Dancin_Santa (Dancin_Santa@hotmail.com) on Thursday June 14, @01:08PM EST (#321)
          (User #265275 Info)
          If you come across a situation where you have two contradicting solutions to the same problem, you have made an error(unless you can provide me with a counter-example).

          Here is a counter example:

          A human fetus is a collection of cells that may one day grow up to be a neurotic 40 year old.

          Conclusion 1: The fetus is innately human and should be given protections under the law.

          Conclusion 2: The fetus is no more human than a clump of cells scraped from the inside of your mouth and should not be given any special protection under the law.

          Which of these conclusions is correct?

          Dancin Santa
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
            by crayz on Thursday June 14, @01:29PM EST (#328)
            (User #1056 Info)
            Thank you. Exactly the example I would've chosen. Someone can post one way or the other what is "right", but in the end it comes down to values and beliefs. And those aren't based on logic.

            Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do: read it

            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
              by naasking on Thursday June 14, @05:23PM EST (#384)
              (User #94116 Info)
              it comes down to values and beliefs. And those aren't based on logic.

              So please tell me, if they are not based on logic, what are they based on?

              My response to the fetus challenge is coming... :-)

              -----
              "Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
              ~ Drunken Engineer ~
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
            by naasking on Thursday June 14, @06:45PM EST (#391)
            (User #94116 Info)
            Well, I've put some thought into this and here's what I came up with. Firstly, your analysis of the problem is very poor. Secondly, if you had done even a decent analysis, you'd realize there is no contradiction in your example. If you think about it for a minute, the fact of whether a fetus is human or not depends completely on your definition of what is human. Choosing a particular definition must inevitably lead to a conclusion that a fetus is either human or not. End of story, that's it. Allow me to illustrate. As an example, I define a human being as follows:
            A human is a living entity that thinks and acts of it's own accord and is capable of reflecting on it's own nature.
            or some such thing. I made this up in about 10 seconds, but it's secondary to the point as you shall soon see. Given this definition of a human being, does a fetus fit in? No. Why? Because a fetus is incapable of reflecting on it's own nature. It has no consciousness, only awareness. Consequently, a fetus should not be protected as a human being under the law.

            Now this served as an example evaluation. Had I chosen a slightly different definition of human being, the process would have resulted in a different conclusion. There is no logical way I can reach a contradictory result. Say I define a human as follows:
            A human is any living entity which has the genetic composition of a human and can think and act of it's own accord.
            Now should a fetus be protected? Yes. A fetus has the proper genetic composition, can act(as pregnant women can attest to the kicking) and can even think in limited ways since they respond to stimuli. See? No contradiction.

            Perhaps then, you were asking "what defines a human being?" Well that's a MUCH more difficult question to answer. Let's ponder this together shall we? I will use what I believe to be your criteria for what constitutes a human being(though I may not share your opinion). We are searching for the simplest(read:shortest) definition that fits your criteria of human while simultaneously excluding everything else. You believe a newborn is a human being, but human cells are not. Somewhere between fertilization and birth a collection of growing cells becomes a human being. So now we must find a set of criteria for determining what this point might be.

            Is a squirrel a human? I'm sure you'll agree with me when I say no. So only a life form with a human genetic composition can be classified as human. That's requirement 1. This category is too broad though; cells easily fit here but you've already stated that simple human cells are not a human being(and I agree). Therefore, we must find a general dividing line to separate human cells and human beings. How about this: a human being is an entity composed of human cells. That's the tightest definition you can use; it effectively cuts off only human cells from being a human. This is requirement 2.

            But what about a human liver? It's an entity composed of human cells and has human genetic composition, but clearly it's not a human being. So we must narrow our definition further. Here's my next suggestion: a human being must have the basic anatomical features of a human being necessary for sustaining its life. By necessary anatomical features I mean stuff you couldn't live a day or two without, ie. organs such as heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, brain, etc. Not necessarily feet, hands,eyes, ears or other non-essentials. Therefore, people born with physical deformities are still human. If they were born without an essential organ they would no longer be alive. So now we have eliminated organs and cells with a tight definition of a human being:
            A human being:
            a) has human genetic composition
            b) is an entity composed of human cells
            c) must have the basic anatomical features(organs) of a human being necessary for sustaining its life
            This definition is sound because it is general and simple enough to encom

            Read the rest of this comment...

            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
              by crayz on Thursday June 14, @07:36PM EST (#403)
              (User #1056 Info)
              Your flaw is in thinking that your definition of what is human is logical.

              Some Christians say that the fetus/embryo is human the moment conception occurs. Because that's when God puts the soul in. If their religious beliefs are correct, then that is the logical answer.

              OTOH, I personally disagree with your criteria. I think a human is a very hard thing to define, and I won't really try, but I'll give you some examples of things I think are human, or at least as deserving of human rights, as normal human beings:
              1) beings that cannot survive by themselves, but could with help. examples: patient with failed kidneys on a dialysis machine. patient with failed heart with an artificial heart. patient with failed lungs with an iron lung or something of the sort.
              2) some sort of freak chimp that is as smart/sentient/conscious as a human(I won't even get into normal chimps, which are probably on the level of small children, and which I have huge reservations about using in medical research)
              3) a computer with human-level intelligence
              4) some being from another planet with human-level intelligence
              5) related to #1, a human fetus that, even if it cannnot sustain itself outside the womb, has human-like brainwaves, and can survive inside the womb

              some other people might add exceptions to the list that I don't agree with, or say some of mine are invalid. I don't think I or anyone else can give a completely logical reason for saying: this one is human, this one is not.

              BTW, going back to chimps: the whole idea that there are mentally retarded people who are given the same rights as all of us, while chimps who are far more intelligent/capable of human-like feeling and thoughts are kept in cages and killed in painful ways for research is frankly something that makes me uncomfortable to think about.

              I don't there is any black and white in this issue

              Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do: read it

              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:0)
              by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 18, @03:13PM EST (#475)
              Great analysis, but the flaw here is that you based the conclusion on possibly erroneous definitions. The key to understanding why people will come to different conclusions is not believing that incorrect results is due to faulty logic, but that different results are due to differences in starting definitions.

              These definitions are, for the most part, a reflection of culture and individual morals.
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
              by naasking on Thursday June 14, @08:10PM EST (#409)
              (User #94116 Info)
              Your flaw is in thinking that your definition of what is human is logical.

              I derived it for you right there. Point out my mistake.

              Some Christians say that the fetus/embryo is human the moment conception occurs.

              I'm sorry, but one of the criteria is that human cells are not human beings. An embryo is a single cell, therefore it does not qualify.

              If their religious beliefs are correct, then that is the logical answer.

              This is something I find very amusing. You have backwards reasoning. If something is logical, then it is correct. If it is correct, then of course it's logical - it has to be otherwise it would not be correct. If you find something which is not correct but appears logical you have made an error. If you find something correct that does not seem logical you have made an error.

              1) beings that cannot survive by themselves, but could with help. examples: patient with failed kidneys on a dialysis machine. patient with failed heart with an artificial heart. patient with failed lungs with an iron lung or something of the sort.

              They had these vital organs to start with, but they failed during the course of their life. I think this could easily fit with the def'n I gave for a human.

              2) some sort of freak chimp that is as smart/sentient/conscious as a human(I won't even get into normal chimps, which are probably on the level of small children, and which I have huge reservations about using in medical research)
              3) a computer with human-level intelligence
              4) some being from another planet with human-level intelligence


              Perhaps they are entitled to the same or similar rights, but they are not human. My only purpose was to define human and to logically prove whether a fetus was human.

              5) related to #1, a human fetus that, even if it cannnot sustain itself outside the womb, has human-like brainwaves, and can survive inside the womb

              Human-like is not necessarily human.

              some other people might add exceptions to the list that I don't agree with, or say some of mine are invalid. I don't think I or anyone else can give a completely logical reason for saying: this one is human, this one is not.

              I could provide you with a logical reason. Like my previous post, I started with the challenges' criteria and I came to a logical conclusion. If I started with your criteria I would probably come to a different conclusion. The only problem I have with all of this is that it's essentially pointless because you have poorly defined morals. That's not to say you don't have morals, because I'm sure you do; I'm saying they are poorly defined in that you don't know exactly where any particular one comes from, you don't know why you believe in it and you probably can't provide many(if any) logical reasons why you should believe in it. In short, they are not morals or beliefs grounded in logic, they come from many (sometimes) conflicting things your parents, realtives and friends have told you while raising you.

              On the other hand, if you started from scratch and logically defined all of your morals from a logical foundation there would be none of this confusion and it would be quite clear what a human being is, what would be a proper course of action etc. It's what I did, and it's quite nice IMO. :-) I would comment on your other points, but I really want to shut off this computer. ;-)

              -----
              "Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
              ~ Drunken Engineer ~
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
              by crayz on Thursday June 14, @11:08PM EST (#418)
              (User #1056 Info)
              I derived it for you right there. Point out my mistake.

              Your definition for a human being is arbitrary. There are exceptions that are pretty clearly humans yet under your definition are not. You say you need certain organs to be considered human. So does that mean that a person, born to two human parents, whose kidneys were destroyed by disease, and who is living on a dialysis machine, and with whom you could carry out a normal intelligent conversation, is not human? Does that sound logical to you?

              I'm sorry, but one of the criteria is that human cells are not human beings. An embryo is a single cell, therefore it does not qualify.

              That's one of your criteria, and it's based on your beliefs of what makes a human human. If what makes a human human is having a brain, then you are correct. If it is having a soul that is put there by god at conception, then you are wrong. If it is neither of those, then who knows?

              They had these vital organs to start with, but they failed during the course of their life. I think this could easily fit with the def'n I gave for a human.

              "c) must have the basic anatomical features(organs) of a human being necessary for sustaining its life"

              I don't see how a person without kidneys "easily" fits into a definition which requires that you have the basic organs(and you listed kidneys as one of them). are you going to change your definition to say that if you are born with them but later lose them you're still human? if so, what would be the logical reason for saying that a fetus with a brain capable of thought but no kidneys isn't human, but an adult with a brain capable of thought but no kidneys is???

              I started with the challenges' criteria and I came to a logical conclusion.

              What criteria? There was none listed. The poster simply said: here are two different possible views, now you try to logically say why one is right and the other isn't. It would appear that you drew criteria out of thin(i.e. illogical) air.

              On the other hand, if you started from scratch and logically defined all of your morals from a logical foundation there would be none of this confusion and it would be quite clear what a human being is, what would be a proper course of action etc.

              Wow, congrats. I don't think anyone in human history has been able to give a logical from the ground up definition of morality. Wonderful that you were able to...

              Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do: read it

              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
              by naasking on Friday June 15, @08:40AM EST (#445)
              (User #94116 Info)
              Your definition for a human being is arbitrary.

              Not my definition. If you read my post, I explicitly stated that I might not agree with the criteria of the challenge. Theoretically, the def'n very well could be arbitrary because of different opinions, values etc. If everyone had beliefs grounded in logic, this would not be the case.

              whose kidneys were destroyed by disease

              When? Before birth? After? If after, then they were born human. Once you are human, you can logically extend the law to say that you are human for the rest of your life. That does not have to be part of the def'n though.

              That's one of your criteria, and it's based on your beliefs of what makes a human human.

              No actually it's not. I have no beliefs, I have only proof by logical conclusions.

              if so, what would be the logical reason for saying that a fetus with a brain capable of thought but no kidneys isn't human, but an adult with a brain capable of thought but no kidneys is???

              The reason is simple: It doesn't fit the def'n. Just as a squirrel is not human, and a fox is not a hippo. I explained why an adult who loses kidneys would still be human above. Keep in mind though, that the conclusion I came to was based on the challenge's criteria. If I were to start from scratch based on my logical morals, I am almost certain I would come to a different conclusion.

              What criteria? There was none listed. The poster simply said: here are two different possible views, now you try to logically say why one is right and the other isn't. It would appear that you drew criteria out of thin(i.e. illogical) air.

              Well, read the challenge again. He explicitly stated two possible conclusions. Conclusion 1 was a fetus is a human, Conclusion 2 was a fetus is no more a human being than a human cell. That logically implies that human cells are not human beings. That's where one criteria derived from: human cells != human being. According to the law, a newborn is a human being and so is protected. Therefore, newborn == human being. Consequently, somewhere between embryo(human cell) and newborn, human cells become a human being. Where is the illogic in this?

              Wow, congrats. I don't think anyone in human history has been able to give a logical from the ground up definition of morality. Wonderful that you were able to...

              Oh no, I am by no means the first(as I found out awhile ago). Many people have done the same to lesser or even greater degrees. Ayn Rand is one such person.

              -----
              "Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
              ~ Drunken Engineer ~
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
              by crayz on Friday June 15, @09:58AM EST (#447)
              (User #1056 Info)
              Once you are human, you can logically extend the law to say that you are human for the rest of your life.

              And why is that exactly? What is life? Is someone who essentially has his entire brain destroyed in an accident still deserving of human rights? What part of you makes you human? With enough technology, it would be possible to replace pretty much every organ in your body with something artificial(even just some simply artificial brain to tell you to keep breathing and what not). Could someone(something?) like that still be said to be human? If not, when and why does the change in status occur? Your definition of what is human is extremely lacking.

              Well, read the challenge again. He explicitly stated two possible conclusions. Conclusion 1 was a fetus is a human, Conclusion 2 was a fetus is no more a human being than a human cell. That logically implies that human cells are not human beings.

              But I am made up of human cells. Am I not a human being? So what makes me human? You are saying that a fetus with a brain but not kidneys isn't human...why? This does not follow logically from saying cells aren't a human being. You seem to think that because you used a definition which can distinguish a clump of cells from a newborn, you have a definition that can distinguish a human from a non-human.

              Oh no, I am by no means the first(as I found out awhile ago). Many people have done the same to lesser or even greater degrees. Ayn Rand is one such person.

              ROTFL. OK, I think we're done here.

              Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do: read it

              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
              by naasking on Friday June 15, @11:42AM EST (#453)
              (User #94116 Info)
              And why is that exactly? What is life?

              Good question. I could provide my own def'n, but for our purposes I shall simply that the life of an organism is it's life in the medical def'n. Therefore someone in a coma or who has part of their brain destroyed may still be medically alive.

              Perhaps you have a problem with extending the 'human being' label to the entire life span of an individual who may no longer even fit the def'n. Very well, I shall amend my previous statement and say an entity shall be protected as a human being for as long as it continues to at least partly fit the description of a human being, or for the duration of it's life, whichever happens first. I expand on this further below in response to your other comments.

              Is someone who essentially has his entire brain destroyed in an accident still deserving of human rights?

              Why not? If they are still a living human being (according to the def'ns we are discussing), please provide some logical argument why he/she should not have such rights.

              With enough technology, it would be possible to replace pretty much every organ in your body with something artificial(even just some simply artificial brain to tell you to keep breathing and what not). Could someone(something?) like that still be said to be human?

              Yes, if it once was and if it still contains human remnants(such as cells or organs). If you replaced absolutely everything with a machine such that they have no human cells left, then they no longer fit the def'n at all and can no longer be considered human. (which does not mean they don't deserve the same rights - we are just discussing a classification for a life form here) You can summarize it as follows: if they were once human, are still alive and still fulfill part of the def'n of a human being they may remain under the classification of a human being.

              If not, when and why does the change in status occur? Your definition of what is human is extremely lacking.

              Allow me to repeat myself again. The definition I reached in my lengthy post was not mine. It was derived from the criteria of the challenger. Even still, it is lacking how exactly? With a little thought it should be quite obvious how to apply the def'n in any situation. I have easily and logically answered all of your challenges in this and previous posts despite the fact that I don't even fully support the particular def'n I derived for the other poster.

              But I am made up of human cells. Am I not a human being? So what makes me human? You are saying that a fetus with a brain but not kidneys isn't human...why?

              You're kidding right? I wrote a lengthy post deriving in pain-staking detail the logical process that resulted in this conclusion. I'm not going to repeat myself. Go read it again if you're confused.

              You seem to think that because you used a definition which can distinguish a clump of cells from a newborn, you have a definition that can distinguish a human from a non-human.

              You seem to think I can't. Why not? Provide a counter-example that illustrates a situation where my def'n is meaningless or doesn't make sense and I will gladly revise my definition of a human being and I will fully applaud your success. I don't think you can.

              ROTFL. OK, I think we're done here.

              Care to explain that? So far I have found few significant logical flaws in her arguments. Please, point out any such flaws she may have made, and I will gladly agree. If you can't provide any logical argument then don't bother responding.

              -----
              "Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
              ~ Drunken Engineer ~
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
            by Bobo the Space Chimp on Friday June 15, @11:41AM EST (#452)
            (User #304349 Info)
            > Conclusion 1: The fetus is innately human and
            > should be given protections under the law.
            >
            > Conclusion 2: The fetus is no more human than a
            > clump of cells scraped from the inside of your
            > mouth and should not be given any special
            > protection under the law.

            Well, this isn't a problem. It is a difference on the definition of a human, part of the premise.

            Is it proper to assign a clump of cells (not yet sentient) a property called a "soul" (assumption: having a soul is a reason to not kill something; this adds a second reason beyond sentience). The "soul" however, has no scientific evidence to support it, and loads of circumstantial evidence that it is just a fantasy concept made up long ago deriving from superstitions. Is that proper to enshrine in law?

            Furthermore, there is another assumption in both of those arguments: even assuming the broadest definition of a human, that it is wrong to terminate their life if they are dependent on your body (argument from implied contract to host them when you freely engaged in intercourse -- note that the number of claimed rapes would skyrocket since that was not free will).

            Also, there is the even deeper issue that one's reproductive organs are one's one to control, regardless of the human status of the fetus, and that includes your own body's production of said fetus -- fetus, human or otherwise, is a product of one's body and one may abort that production at one's own will up until the moment of birth, when said fetus becomes an individual with unalienable rights.


            "You've agreed to give Bobo the Space Chimp an annual stipend of $20,000.00 by reading to the end of this sentence."
            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:2, Insightful)
      by naasking on Thursday June 14, @11:58AM EST (#297)
      (User #94116 Info)
      Actually, that is completely incorrect, logically.

      I'm afraid not.

      Logic dictates that you plan the destruction of the ecosystem in an area and plant massive farms. This will enhance greatly your species' ability to survive.

      So are you telling me you can precisely predict the exact impact of exterminating a species(or many species by your logic) of plant and animal life? If you can, there's a Nobel prize waiting for you. The fact of the matter is, we know very little of the cycles that continually renew the minerals in the earth and the keep the air fresh to breath or about what animals contribute what parts to this renewal. You kill some bacteria and upset the nitrogen cycle, plants die. If plants die you may upset the oxygen cycle. Once all this starts happening, you may affect climate change because of changing atmospheric compositions. Animals will start dying because of the little plant life there is and differing levels of oxygen in the air. Humans wouldn't be able to eat since meat would run out quick, they wouldn't be able to plant since plants wouldn't grow. The only thing they could do is die. This scenario wouldn't happen overnight, but it would happen given a sufficient disturbance. Sure life may adapt, then again, it may not. Are to willing to bet your life and all your kids' lives on our ignorance of how the ecosystem actually works?

      Assuming a life form is worthless simply because it appears to have no significant impact is the sign of short-sighted ignorance. Acting on ignorance is not only illogical, it's mad. Doing any such thing as you propose on a massive scale is suicide. The blind, ignorant and uncontrolled destruction we pursue nowadays is bad enough.

      To preserve plants and animals in a "natural" area is not logical. It leads to the death of many people, not the large farms, which feed many.

      Leaving an area alone does not lead to any deaths. Deaths are the result of incompetence in the pursuit of illogical goals(or sometimes even just incompetence in the pursuit of logical ones).

      To summarize, humans are not above nature; they are a dependent(at least for the time being).

      -----
      "Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
      ~ Drunken Engineer ~
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
    by athlon02 on Thursday June 14, @10:28AM EST (#256)
    (User #201713 Info)
    Unfortunately, you are not superior to nature.

    well if you deny God's existence you could believe that. However, for me, Genesis 1:26 applies... I have dominion over everything non-human on the earth. So while I don't plan to try and make everything extinct or make the earth totally toxic, I'm still superior to my dog and to any other wildlife I see (not to mention plants, soil, etc, etc).


    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
      by naasking on Thursday June 14, @11:42AM EST (#294)
      (User #94116 Info)
      well if you deny God's existence you could believe that.

      The issue of God is irrelevant to this point.

      However, for me, Genesis 1:26 applies... I have dominion over everything non-human on the earth.

      You seem to be confusing two issues. Dominion over something does not indicate superiority to that thing. Dominion is the ability to exercise control. You are right that Man has dominion over the Earth because we have the capability to completely obliterate it if we wanted to. Or we could be more selective and completely wipe out only one life form. That is dominion if I've ever heard it.

      However, you are not superior to nature in that you depend on nature to sustain you. Nature on the other hand, does not depend on your existence. If you depend on something you are not superior to it - especially if it does not depend on you. If you don't give back to nature what you take from it, then you will eventually exhaust it's resources and you will die. Humans are different from other creatures in that we have the capacity to recognize our dominion and that we can cause our own destruction. It's unfortunate most people don't realize this.

      -----
      "Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
      ~ Drunken Engineer ~
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:0)
        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14, @01:31PM EST (#329)
        you depend on nature to sustain you.
        Nature ... does not depend on your existence.


        So you are saying that relieving Nature of a single species does not impact Nature because Nature is not dependent upon a certain species? How does that jive with your position that destroying species one by one, as Man is wont to do, will destroy Nature?
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
          by naasking on Thursday June 14, @02:26PM EST (#352)
          (User #94116 Info)
          So you are saying that relieving Nature of a single species does not impact Nature because Nature is not dependent upon a certain species? How does that jive with your position that destroying species one by one, as Man is wont to do, will destroy Nature?

          Excellent point. Destroy one species and nature will most likely adapt in it's absence. One species is usually not so important to the overall system that it would collapse in its absence; life and nature has alot of built-in redundancy. But obviously, the more you destroy, the more likely it'll be the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak.

          Also, humans are at the top of the food chain if you hadn't noticed. Nothing depends on us for food or sustenance, or... anything for that matter. Being at the top of the chain means that eliminating you would have the least impact on the overall system.

          -----
          "Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
          ~ Drunken Engineer ~
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:0)
            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14, @02:55PM EST (#356)
            Being at the top of the chain means that eliminating you would have the least impact on the overall system.

            That is clearly false. Eliminating the top of the food chain would result in the proliferation of the species in the second link of the food chain. This in turn could upset any necessary balance that supports the food chain many links below.

            If you kill off the frog population of a pond, you may see an increase in mosquitos which in turn may lead to an increase in algae growth which then chokes out anything else living in the pond. So without the topmost link in the chain, an entire ecosystem falls apart. (Yes, I know this is only a thought experiment with many holes, but it's designed to make a point)

            It's a little like software. Take out a low level function and the program may fault. However the fault may be caught and handled somewhere up the line. Break the idle loop, though, and the program completely breaks.
            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
              by naasking on Thursday June 14, @04:26PM EST (#368)
              (User #94116 Info)
              That is clearly false. Eliminating the top of the food chain would result in the proliferation of the species in the second link of the food chain. This in turn could upset any necessary balance that supports the food chain many links below.

              Yes of course. But then second links' food supply goes low as their population increases and they start dying of starvation until the population and food supply balances out. It's not a catastrophic occurrence; it happens in nature all the time.

              -----
              "Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
              ~ Drunken Engineer ~
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:0)
              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14, @04:33PM EST (#369)
              So you're saying that Nature has self-correcting mechanisms built into it? Why don't you assume that Nature can self-correct the 'damage' that Man can do?
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
              by naasking on Thursday June 14, @05:21PM EST (#383)
              (User #94116 Info)
              I want you to think about your position for a minute. Man has the ability to eliminate every single life form on this planet including himself. Can nature recover from that? No. Therefore Nature cannot self-correct any damage Man can do. It's as simple as that.

              -----
              "Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
              ~ Drunken Engineer ~
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
              by naasking on Thursday June 14, @06:50PM EST (#393)
              (User #94116 Info)
              Furthermore, think about removing beams from a bridge. You can only remove so many before it collapses(or think about Jenga for that matter ;-)

              -----
              "Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
              ~ Drunken Engineer ~
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
              by athlon02 on Thursday June 14, @06:54PM EST (#394)
              (User #201713 Info)

              Once again, that is to deny God. The Bible clearly states there will be people alive when God returns, so for man to assume we can completely wipe ourselves out is to make ourselves gods.


              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
              by naasking on Thursday June 14, @07:20PM EST (#399)
              (User #94116 Info)
              They are called nuclear weapons. We have more than enough of them to obliterate the Earth. I'm not saying say it will happen, I'm saying it could happen. We are not dealing with Bible prophecies here, we are dealing with cause and effect(ie. logic).

              -----
              "Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
              ~ Drunken Engineer ~
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              hang on a second... (Score:1)
              by naasking on Thursday June 14, @07:23PM EST (#400)
              (User #94116 Info)
              I don't understand your thought process here. How are we gods if we manage to wipe out the human race? Are you saying that countermanding a Bible prophecy would make you a god?

              -----
              "Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
              ~ Drunken Engineer ~
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:hang on a second... (Score:1)
              by athlon02 on Thursday June 14, @08:47PM EST (#413)
              (User #201713 Info)

              I'm saying to assume we can wipe ourselves out is to make ourselves gods in our own eyes... anything you put above God is a god (note the little 'g')... cars, houses, money, a lover, a pet, you name it... that doesn't mean they become God and have the power to control the science of the universe, we're talking egos.

              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:hang on a second... (Score:1)
              by naasking on Friday June 15, @08:37AM EST (#444)
              (User #94116 Info)
              I'm saying to assume we can wipe ourselves out is to make ourselves gods in our own eyes... anything you put above God is a god (note the little 'g')

              How? How is the ability to wipe out your own race putting anything above God? We have the ability to wipe ourselves out right now.

              -----
              "Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
              ~ Drunken Engineer ~
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
        by athlon02 on Thursday June 14, @06:50PM EST (#392)
        (User #201713 Info)

        I still argue that I am superior to animals and plantlife and soil, etc, etc... I take into account the human soul that is God-given (again if you deny God, you could believe otherwise)... no other lifeform, nor any matter has that, so whether I depend on it or not, I am in fact superior to it in that fashion. That does not make me superior to other humans or God, of course, because I am equal to other humans and God is still superior to me. Nevertheless, I still contend I am superior to anything non-human.


        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
      by nobody69 (msimone1969ataltavistadotcom) on Thursday June 14, @12:53PM EST (#316)
      (User #116149 Info)
      However, for me, Genesis 1:26 applies... I have dominion over everything non-human on the earth. So while I don't plan to try and make everything extinct or make the earth totally toxic, I'm still superior to my dog and to any other wildlife I see (not to mention plants, soil, etc, etc).

      Unfortunately, I think lots of people use this an excuse to do whatever they want, even if it makes 'everything extinct' or 'totally toxic'. The extinction/toxification becomes a side-effect, unfortunate, but too bad, we need more strip malls, anyone who says otherwise is worshipping the earth. But where do you draw the line? If 99.99% of your state's high-quality prairie is now farmland, houses and roads, isn't putting aside that last 0.01% acceptable? Would you rather have natural areas with rare animals and plants in them, or another Kwik-E-Mart?

      On a sidenote, if you were God and you saw what humanity is doing with the earth (strip malls, toxic waste dumps, wiping out species that you created) that you gave him dominion over, would you be happy?

      "Bugger this, I want a better world." - Jenny Sparks
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:1)
by arkh on Thursday June 14, @08:18AM EST (#132)
(User #197668 Info)
This guy traces America's lag in technological development (pre-colonization, that is) to: - the lack of domesticable crops; - the N-S orientation of the continent; - the lack of useful domesticable animals. The latter also account for America being devoid of human viruses (someone mentionned smallpox. why didn't they have an equivalent?). So if this theory is correct (and it's been around for a long time), the humans colonizing America doomed themselves by overexploiting their land. Not that other colonizers behaved differently, but the local animals, evolving along with humans for a much longer time had a better chance. Now, you say the human specie is vastly superior to anything else on the planet. Correct. Significantly, we can thing about the consequences of our actions. Now for more than years. I believe pharmaceutical firms still have people foraging new molecules in plants or animals. We still need nature around. So it might be a good idea not to mess things up too much. Which is why nuclear plants are a Good Thing.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Enemy is our Nature (Score:1)
by celtic heretic (madmonk@innocent.com) on Thursday June 14, @11:05AM EST (#276)
(User #19369 Info) http://home.istar.ca/~sfcarter/www/
That the right-wing media and so-called "scientific" establishments attack all forms of progressive conservation is nothing new. The anti-Human forces have been at it for decades, sickly raging at those they know are morally better than themselves. Our ancestors, early man, saw fit to use their intelligence and strength for their own survival. What could be more natural, I ask you? It is a tragedy that the wooly-mammoth did not survive: Humanity's strength and cunning were too great. For this humanity is not to condemned but rather reminded of their responsibility. In our present day, the screaming, in-human scintians wish to use their leverage inside the corrupt, reeking organ of fascism known as the modern nation to bind as they could not bind our ancient forefathers. Every useful enlightenment of humanity, whether physical, moral, or economical, is discarded in the name of progressivism and individualism and might makes right. When will they realize that a great being cannot be silenced by violence? That humanity is by its very nature responsible to the spotted owl? The Darwinists would sink us to the level of beasts, growling and killing as it suits our appetites and deny us the nobility that was won through the long development of humanity's greatest natural gift: the Will. It is the Darwinists who have passed their point of usefulness. A political Darwinism WILL sweep the land, raging like holy fire across a peoples weary of the lies, slander, and weakness of the Darwinists' very own ideals.

not only is the universe stranger than you imagine,
it's stranger than you are capable of imagining

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Nature is our enemy (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14, @12:17PM EST (#302)
How in hell did this get modded up? This guy's on a psycho-babble foaming at the mouth rant, and he get's 5 insightfull? What in hell is wrong with you people here? Slashdot will end as 5 idiots in some fallout shelter in Gadjukistan afraid to look outside because the sun is controlled by a consipiracy of governemnt space aliens.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Ayn Rand would be proud... (Score:1)
by cartman on Thursday June 14, @12:41PM EST (#312)
(User #18204 Info)
Your post was emotional, distorted, incendiary, and silly. I felt like I was reading Atlas Shrugged.

That the left-wing media and so-called "scientific" establishments attack all forms of progress is nothing new. The anti-Human forces have been at it for decades, sickly raging at those who are better than them.

Umm, the article only mentioned a new theory about what caused the extinction of some species. All of this about attacking progress in the name of sickly fascism etc etc is just a figment of your paranoid imagination, and you likely imagine yourself to be the lone crusader against it. Nothing about "anti-humanism" was mentioned in the post; it was just a theory about extinction.

In our present day, the whining, half-human statists wish to use their leverage inside the corrupt, reeking organ of fascism known as the modern nation to bind as they could not bind our ancient forefathers.

I'm glad you're capable of being dispassionate and avoiding loaded terms.

It is the liberals who have passed their point of usefulness. A political Darwinism will sweep the land, raging like holy fire across a peoples weary of the lies, slander, and weakness of the liberal ideals.

You accuse your opponents of fascism?

Try to relax and think for awhile. When you find yourself getting upset, you aren't thinking.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Ayn Rand would be proud... (Score:1)
    by GPLwhore on Thursday June 14, @01:03PM EST (#319)
    (User #455583 Info)
    "Nothing about "anti-humanism" was mentioned in the post; it was just a theory about extinction. "
    Yes, this time was nothing there but he is right; these days it is extremely popular to point to humans as a ultimate evil responsible for everything that is wrong with our planet.
    Most often we hear bunch of green activists calling for extremely significant changes in the way we live without any sort of hard scientific evidence to back their claims.
    It has become very popular to pass laws and change policies simply to please some vocal groups ( California lack of energy production capacity is an example of that.)


    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  Harrison's Postulate: For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest 1997-2001 OSDN.

[ home | awards | supporters | rob's homepage | contribute story | older articles | OSDN | advertising | past polls | about | faq ]