Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Geronimo
I never discussed variation between individuals I was talking about species as a whole.

"Does that make them all parasites?"

You are trying to twist what I said to apply to individuals. That clearly is not the scope of my statements, and I have specifically stated that, "Not all Humans do so individually, but as a species we definitely do."

If you have a problem with me describing the effects of the species as a whole, fine. Stick to that. It's a valid argument. If you have a problem with me describing individuals... you need to learn to read.

ALL species destroy an environment to get at the resources produced by that environment.

Most species participate in a ecological cycle. That is basically what "the environment" is. Humans on the other hand do not always give back what they take, and end up drastically changing or even completely destroying many ecological systems.

You seem to dance around this by claiming that it's a matter of scale.

The perspective I was addressing is a matter of scale. Sorry.

parasitism isn't a matter of scale however.

If the analogy is offered based on a certain comparative scale, remain in that perspective to judge it. I am talking about humanity as a whole, specifically our efects on ecological systems, try to remain in that frame of reference if you wish to discuss what I have said.

Pretending I am talking about individuals and their value is inane.

Parasitism is a particular ecological niche. Parasites have a host. What is the host for humanity? the earth?

The "host" is rather nebulous in the analogy. It can vary in fact. Don't get hung up on that. An analogy is to compare 2 seemingly different things based on similar factors they both exhibit. When I say you can draw an analogy between humanity's effect on the environment to that of a parasites, it applies in circumstances which the analogy is valid. There are quite a few ways you could do so.

An analogy is not to line up all factors on all sides and say that all are analogous. You seem confused on that point.

All species are parasites of the earth in that sense.

No.

Most species for one reason or another exist in an equilibrium in their ecological system. Doesn't really matter why when we are drawing an analogy between effects... the effects are the effects. Humans often enough live outside the the cycle, and can leech off of it without giving back, which is detrimental to the cycle (the extent can vary wildly).

Why is there this urgent need to compare humans to unpleasant things when the comparisons are so grossly imperfect?

Eh? Urgent need? You got your panties in a bunch over a casual remark I made to Blake. Get a grip man.

As for whether I compare humans to unpleasant or pleasant things... it will be due to context. If Humans have had a derogatory impact in a specific context, my estimation of that effect is going to be derogatory as well.

Human behaviors can be destructive but it's absurd to compare humans to parasites, diseases or whatever.

Not really. If a parasite causes you to lose patches of your hair, and a Human population deforests a large portion of the planet, there are certain analogies that can be drawn. It doesn't mean we will exhibit all the traits of that specific parasite, but that is not the intent of analogy anyways. Otherwise the only analogies that would ever "work" would be to compare something to itself... that's not what analogies are.

And now I will bring up "individual variation".

You already have. But go for it again... just don't try to pin it on me this time, ok?

The problem with the blanket generalizations of humanity as a species are that they are fatalistic and therefore destructive.

Addressing humanity's effects as a whole is a perfectly valid thing to do. We can't just ignore it, and if saying "parasite" in regards to specific areas of that assessment is so offensive to you, you need to relax... a lot.

If you keep telling people that to be human is a be a disease or a parasite or whatever other adverse imagery is conjured up to make them hate their species eventually the result will be a pendulum shift against environmentalism. Why do we want to integrate environmental destruction as part of the definition of what it means to be human when we already can see that individual humans don't have to be environmentally destructive?

That's something you've conjured up to argue against. You're confusing effects of the whole with something innate to each individual. It doesn't mean we have to be parasites if I compare the effects of our civilization in a certain regard, to that of a parasite. Especially not when I specifically stated that individuals' impacts vary in that respect.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Geronimo
by what definition of divine? It's not a term I apply much meaning or use to.

What life has intrinsic value? I know human life does but I have to resort to anthropomorphic assumptions to ascribe similar value to other living things.

How can human life have intrinsic value while other life doesn't?!!!

If some aliens turn up which are more advanced than humans, does that mean that humans no longer have intrinsic value?!!

What makes humans so special that suddenly they have intrinsic value?!!

Why does a human have intrinsic value while an orangutan doesn't?

You appear to be defining "Intrinsic value" as "ability to rationalize" which seems like some pretty weak rationalization to me. (Just IMHO)

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Aeson


"Does that make them all parasites?"

You are trying to twist what I said to apply to individuals. That clearly is not the scope of my statements, and I have specifically stated that, "Not all Humans do so individually, but as a species we definitely do."

If you have a problem with me describing the effects of the species as a whole, fine. Stick to that. It's a valid argument. If you have a problem with me describing individuals... you need to learn to read.

oh for gods sake when did I previously bring up individual variation? I'm tired of talking past each other and slinging insults. Obviously you misread something I wrote.

Originally posted by Geronimo
A population of 6 billion organisms of roughly human size of any species would have a huge ecological footprint. Does that make them all parasites?

all refers to any species not all 6 billion individuals.

I'm guessing this is the crux of the misunderstanding.

Would every human sized (or larger) species have to be considered a parasite if a population of 6 billion of them have a huge ecological impact? Pretty much any species will linearly alter the environment to it's own detriment once the population is large enough. Does that mean all species are potentially parasites?

Humans "give back" to the environment as much as any other species it's just that it doesn't look that way from our perspective because we don't want our own waste products. That is the same for any species.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Blake
Cancer does destroy it's host, cancer is something which expands beyond reason, self-propagation being an ends upon itself, the expansion disregards well-being of the organism and host.

This is actually why I chose parasite over cancer or virus. Humanity's effects are rather varied, and while we do damage... it's not total, other than in some specific local instances.

But any derogatory allusion could work in regards to the damage we do to the environment, I just wanted in on the conversation.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Blake




How can human life have intrinsic value while other life doesn't?!!!

If some aliens turn up which are more advanced than humans, does that mean that humans no longer have intrinsic value?!!

What makes humans so special that suddenly they have intrinsic value?!!

Why does a human have intrinsic value while an orangutan doesn't?

You appear to be defining "Intrinsic value" as "ability to rationalize" which seems like some pretty weak rationalization to me. (Just IMHO)

Maybe other life does have intrinsic value to itself maybe other life doesn't. I don't think it's determinable unless you can communicate with them or read their minds or reincarnate as one of them.

I already acknowledged this and even explicitly said that alien civilizations would have an intrinsic value to themselves or at least would be capable of communicating the same.

Humans can communicate their appreciation of life to me. Worms, bugs, and even most vertebrates can't. Even the most intelligent and similar to human non-human species can't communicate their appreciation of life to me from when they were living in the wild. Hell they scarecelyh manage to do so in captivity.

[Blake]

Humans can communicate their appreciation of life to me. Worms, bugs, and even most vertebrates can't. Even the most intelligent and similar to human non-human species can't communicate their appreciation of life to me from when they were living in the wild. Hell they scarecelyh manage to do so in captivity.

This is only because you're blind, willfully or otherwise.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Aeson


This is actually why I chose parasite over cancer or virus. Humanity's effects are rather varied, and while we do damage... it's not total, other than in some specific local instances.

But any derogatory allusion could work in regards to the damage we do to the environment, I just wanted in on the conversation.

We don't destroy environments we alter them. When we don't like the changes we call it destruction.

The biomass of the earth isn't decreasing just diversity of multicellular species.

However, here's a way to use the cancer or parasite analogy in a way we might both accept.

civilization is currently maintaining a non sustainable parasite or cancer like relationship to the environment that sustains it.

Humans aren't parasites or cancers but our current civilization might be analogous to them.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Blake


This is only because you're blind, willfully or otherwise.

Or maybe because I watch the wildlife and can't tell how stressful/satisfying their lives are. How pray tell do you tell? you watch the family dog and envy his contented worry free existence?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Xorbon
I agree. We must kill all the beavers!

And the squirrels. They kill trees, and don't plant any.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Or maybe because I watch the wildlife and can't tell how stressful/satisfying their lives are. How pray tell do you tell?

I use the monkey mind. How else?!

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Blake


I use the monkey mind. How else?!

monkey mind

(Blake wikipedia needs a monkey mind article)

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Geronimo
oh for gods sake when did I previously bring up individual variation? I'm tired of talking past each other and slinging insults. Obviously you misread something I wrote.

I was talking about the effects of the whole, you asked a rhetorical question (and then later confirmed that was your intent by restating the position) about how that means every individual would be considered a parasite.

Clearly not what I said.

all refers to any species not all 6 billion individuals.

You are referencing the wrong "all". I quoted where you used the term, and highlighted it. "Does that make them all parasites?" You were referencing individual humans, and obviously doing so in a rhetorical manner. You confirmed this by stating your (incorrect) assessment of what I was saying, "If you keep telling people that to be human is a be a disease or a parasite..."

I am not telling people that to be human is to be a disease or a parasite. I'm drawing an analogy between the effects of humans as a whole, in certain regards, to that of parasites.

Instead, you are responding to my quoting of "ALL species destroy an environment to get at the resources produced by that environment", which is a completely different statement and context. (And I certainly didn't address it as if you were talking about individuals.)

Would every human sized (or larger) species have to be considered a parasite if a population of 6 billion of them have a huge ecological impact?

Depends on the nature of the ecological impact. You seem to think that humanity absolutely has to have the specific impact it does just based on it's biomass. Now that is absurd.

Pretty much any species will linearly alter the environment to it's own detriment once the population is large enough. Does that mean all species are potentially parasites?

You completely fail at analogy. Sorry.

All species which exhibit traits analogous to a parasite definitely have the potential to have analogies drawn between them and parasites. There are so many different perspectives that could be used while drawing those analogies... I wouldn't even begin to try to make blanket statements about which species could or could not be potential "parasites".

Humans "give back" to the environment as much as any other species it's just that it doesn't look that way from our perspective because we don't want our own waste products. That is the same for any species.

No. We take vast amounts of resources out of their natural cycles and transport them to places, or make them into non-biodegradeable forms. We've damaged or destroyed a great number of those cycles by doing so. You could say we are creating new environments, but we certainly aren't "giving back" to ecological systems we've destroyed.

Like your confusion with the beaver and clear-cutting. In one, it's part of the natural cycle. The beaver cuts down a tree, uses it to build a dam, the dam holds back water which benefits other organisms, even trees, the tree and the beaver end up dying and their remains are used by something else in the cycle, essentially the beaver stays within the bounds of the cycle. (There are lost resources from ecological systems, but even that is within the bounds of the cycle.)

Clear cut the forest on the other hand, and you've fundamentally altered, or even destroyed the cycle. That's the difference.

You want to compare the intent of the beavers (to cut down trees... perhaps all trees if they could) to the effect of the clear-cutting... but that's not right. You compare the effects of the beavers to the effects of the clear-cutting when drawing an analogy between effects.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Geronimo
civilization is currently maintaining a non sustainable parasite or cancer like relationship to the environment that sustains it.

Humans aren't parasites or cancers but our current civilization might be analogous to them.

Um... that's what I've been saying the whole time.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Aeson


Um... that's what I've been saying the whole time.

You said or appeared to say that humans as a species are parasites or cancers.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Geronimo
You said or appeared to say that humans as a species are parasites or cancers.

That would be mean to parasites and cancers... they don't know better

What I meant is simply that we can draw analogies between the effects humanity has on environments to effects parasites have.