Mosquito's and the Pope

Alex99

Pinno wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

So you're equating a parasite on a living host to humans on earth as I our host. Interesting analogy.

If...planet.

Still, I think it's a bit melodramatic putting it quite like that.

I'm sure evolved strategies of parasites is well studied, not particularly by me.

An...For a relationship to be 'parasitic', the host needs to derive no advantage, otherwise it is symbiotic.

The host, i'e the planet doesn't derive any advantage from humans, so by your theory, we are parasitic.

The earth doesn't 'care'.

Quite correct except that it suggests that the host or the parasite is conscious of the relationship, which is very difficult to determine. If you followed that philosophy through to completion, does it really matter that we are destroying the environment?

Another difference with the humans/earth analogy, is that we really don't want to 'kill' our 'host' as we can't easily hop to another one.

We don't seem to have a tangible momentum of a collective consciousness.

But, the planet isn't alive in the mainstream biological sense, so benefit / advantage doesn't mean anything in this context.

I don't suggest that the host need know about the parasite. When I refer to advantage, I mean to pass on genes. Maybe I misused 'care' in the context of a thing (the earth). I'll just suggest, what is good or bad for the earth, is subjective and is an entirely different a concept to what is good/bad for a living thing.

I'd agree, we don't have a collective consciousness, or we have a poor approximation through discourse shared understanding and politics.

Alex99

Pinno wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

So you're equating a parasite on a living host to humans on earth as I our host. Interesting analogy.

If...planet.

Still, I think it's a bit melodramatic putting it quite like that.

I'm sure evolved strategies of parasites is well studied, not particularly by me.

An...For a relationship to be 'parasitic', the host needs to derive no advantage, otherwise it is symbiotic.

The host, i'e the planet doesn't derive any advantage from humans, so by your theory, we are parasitic.

The earth doesn't 'care'.

Quite correct except that it suggests that the host or the parasite is conscious of the relationship, which is very difficult to determine. If you followed that philosophy through to completion, does it really matter that we are destroying the environment?

Another difference with the humans/earth analogy, is that we really don't want to 'kill' our 'host' as we can't easily hop to another one.

We don't seem to have a tangible momentum of a collective consciousness.

Oh, and yes, it does matter that we are destroying the environment. It matters a great deal to the living things.

pblakeney

Alex99 wrote:

I'll just suggest, what is good or bad for the earth, is subjective and is an entirely different a concept to what is good/bad for a living thing.

I will suggest that it is entirely objective as the living thing kind of needs Earth for sustenance.
Are you proposing chemical nutrition and breathing apparatus, and/or space stations?

pinno

PBlakeney wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

I'll just suggest, what is good or bad for the earth, is subjective and is an entirely different a concept to what is good/bad for a living thing.

I will suggest that it is entirely objective as the living thing kind of needs Earth for sustenance.
Are you proposing chemical nutrition and breathing apparatus, and/or space stations?

I don't think he is Blakey, think you got the wrong end of the stick but I am still impressed with two sentences with more than 10 words each.

pblakeney

Pinno wrote:

I don't think he is Blakey, think you got the wrong end of the stick but I am still impressed with two sentences with more than 10 words each.

Rush of wine to the head, I dare say.

tangled_metal

The earth can survive without us on it. In fact if no living thing was able to survive on earth it's still going to be a big hunk of rock in space. You could say ultimately us parasites are the biggest losers along with potentially most living things on the planet. If we mess up completely like we have the capability to do.

pinno

Tangled Metal wrote:

The earth can survive without us on it. In fact if no living thing was able to survive on earth it's still going to be a big hunk of rock in space. You could say ultimately us parasites are the biggest losers along with potentially most living things on the planet. If we mess up completely like we have the capability to do.

What a fantastic orb this would be (to an appreciative visitor) without Humans on it.
Nature has this remarkable way of recovering but only if there are sufficient quantities of any particular species. In the last couple of hundred years, I wonder just how many species have been lost due to our activities.

tangled_metal

Nowhere near the numbers during the mass extinctions in other eras. BTW did they agree on whether we have entered a new geological age? IIRC this is the year IUGS decides on whether man's impact on the planet has left enough impact on geological survey strata to merit a new geological age. This would be called Anthropocene.

IMHO there's evidence of things like nuclear radiation, agriculture, etc in the geological strata but there is no clear boundary between this new age and the previous one, if we really are in a new age that is. From what I've read the proponents of Anthropocene are using it as a bit of PR to keep environmental issues to the fore. Basically it's good PR for climate change, we're so bad we've created a new new geological survey age! That seems to cynical to me so I'm not confident in it existing.

Alex99

Pinno wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

The earth can survive without us on it. In fact if no living thing was able to survive on earth it's still going to be a big hunk of rock in space. You could say ultimately us parasites are the biggest losers along with potentially most living things on the planet. If we mess up completely like we have the capability to do.

What a fantastic orb this would be (to an appreciative visitor) without Humans on it.
Nature has this remarkable way of recovering but only if there are sufficient quantities of any particular species. In the last couple of hundred years, I wonder just how many species have been lost due to our activities.

It would be much less fantastic without humans on it. No bikes for a start. The earth has gone through a lot of change since it formed. Mostly without the help of man. Didn't it used to have a thick carbon dioxide athmosphere and no oxygen?

pinno

Alex99 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

The earth can survive without us on it. In fact if no living thing was able to survive on earth it's still going to be a big hunk of rock in space. You could say ultimately us parasites are the biggest losers along with potentially most living things on the planet. If we mess up completely like we have the capability to do.

What a fantastic orb this would be (to an appreciative visitor) without Humans on it.
Nature has this remarkable way of recovering but only if there are sufficient quantities of any particular species. In the last couple of hundred years, I wonder just how many species have been lost due to our activities.

It would be much less fantastic without humans on it. No bikes for a start. The earth has gone through a lot of change since it formed. Mostly without the help of man. Didn't it used to have a thick carbon dioxide athmosphere and no oxygen?

Hmm... odd comment. Yes it did, a very very long time ago. Of course I wouldn't say that next to a Christian Fundamentalist holding an assault rifle (ironic really).

pinno

Tangled Metal wrote:

Nowhere near the numbers during the mass extinctions in other eras. BTW did they agree on whether we have entered a new geological age? IIRC this is the year IUGS decides on whether man's impact on the planet has left enough impact on geological survey strata to merit a new geological age. This would be called Anthropocene.

IMHO there's evidence of things like nuclear radiation, agriculture, etc in the geological strata but there is no clear boundary between this new age and the previous one, if we really are in a new age that is. From what I've read the proponents of Anthropocene are using it as a bit of PR to keep environmental issues to the fore. Basically it's good PR for climate change, we're so bad we've created a new new geological survey age! That seems to cynical to me so I'm not confident in it existing.

On an evolutionary/geological timescale of Anthropocenic(?) causes, this rate of change (since the beginning of the industrial revolution?) is so rapid that we surely cannot predict its effects.
I don't think that the demise of the human race is going to be due to a catastrophic event in the true Hollywood style but a slow and painful demise.

pblakeney

Alex99 wrote:

It would be much less fantastic without humans on it. No bikes for a start.

No need without evolution.

bompington

Pinno wrote:

What a fantastic orb this would be (to an appreciative visitor) without Humans on it.

I've always thought that the proponents of this view should do the decent thing and take the necessary first steps. Who knows, the rest of us might follow your example? Or then again we might not.

pblakeney

bompington wrote:

Pinno wrote:

What a fantastic orb this would be (to an appreciative visitor) without Humans on it.

I've always thought that the proponents of this view should do the decent thing and take the necessary first steps. Who knows, the rest of us might follow your example? Or then again we might not.

It is an indisputable fact that there is only one creation polluting this planet.
Therefore the planet as a whole would be better off without that creation. Selfish first I think.

bompington

PBlakeney wrote:

bompington wrote:

Pinno wrote:

What a fantastic orb this would be (to an appreciative visitor) without Humans on it.

I've always thought that the proponents of this view should do the decent thing and take the necessary first steps. Who knows, the rest of us might follow your example? Or then again we might not.

It is an indisputable fact that there is only one creation polluting this planet.
Therefore the planet as a whole would be better off without that creation. Selfish first I think.

But how do you measure, or even define, the well-being of a planet? In what way would the Earth be better off without humans?

finchy

bompington wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

bompington wrote:

Pinno wrote:

What a fantastic orb this would be (to an appreciative visitor) without Humans on it.

I've always thought that the proponents of this view should do the decent thing and take the necessary first steps. Who knows, the rest of us might follow your example? Or then again we might not.

It is an indisputable fact that there is only one creation polluting this planet.
Therefore the planet as a whole would be better off without that creation. Selfish first I think.

But how do you measure, or even define, the well-being of a planet? In what way would the Earth be better off without humans?

The planet's well-being is a misnomer. It's the biosphere (and therefore atmosphere and hydrosphere) that we should be worried about. These would be better off without humans because there would be no plastic floating about in vast quantities, we wouldn't be inflicting rapid changes on the composition of the atmosphere, there would be no agricultural run-off, etc. etc.

Not that I'm saying that we should all commit suicide, just that we should limit the amount of crap we put into our environment.

pblakeney

finchy wrote:

The planet's well-being is a misnomer. It's the biosphere (and therefore atmosphere and hydrosphere) that we should be worried about. These would be better off without humans because there would be no plastic floating about in vast quantities, we wouldn't be inflicting rapid changes on the composition of the atmosphere, there would be no agricultural run-off, etc. etc.

Not that I'm saying that we should all commit suicide, just that we should limit the amount of crap we put into our environment.

Thanks for that finchy, I have been away for a while.
An extreme solution no doubt, but the ultimate solution none the less.

Alex99

PBlakeney wrote:

bompington wrote:

Pinno wrote:

What a fantastic orb this would be (to an appreciative visitor) without Humans on it.

I've always thought that the proponents of this view should do the decent thing and take the necessary first steps. Who knows, the rest of us might follow your example? Or then again we might not.

It is an indisputable fact that there is only one creation polluting this planet.
Therefore the planet as a whole would be better off without that creation. Selfish first I think.

"It is an indisputable fact that there is only one creation polluting this planet"

Well, I dispute it. That's your value judgement. Other value judgements are available.

I'm sure there were species around that didn't do well out of the whole oxygen atmosphere thing. Blood cyano bacteria, polluting the planet!

pblakeney

Alex99 wrote:

Blood cyano bacteria, polluting the planet!

Are you seriously going to compare that to the damage that human beings have done to this planet?
An increase in bacteria caused by human pollution?
"The reason for this change is twofold. First, runoff from human activities has increased the amount of oxygen and phosphorus, two key algae nutrients, in lakes."
http://www.livescience.com/21645-toxic- ... lakes.html

finchy

I believe that Alex99 is referring to the fact that our atmosphere, during the Earth's early days, had a far higher carbon dioxide concentration than it does today, but certain bacteria of the time started using carbon for growth and releasing oxygen through respiration. This had an absolutely devastating effect on the ecosystems of the time, for which oxygen was highly toxic, and induced massive fundamental changes, pushing many species to extinction and allowing others to flourish.

However, seeing as you were talking about the present situation, to which all species are adapted, you are still correct in saying that no other species is polluting this PLANET (other species modify their LOCAL environment in ways which might meet the definition of "pollution" for some of the organisms with which they share their ecosystem)

Alex99

finchy wrote:

I believe that Alex99 is referring to the fact that our atmosphere, during the Earth's early days, had a far higher carbon dioxide concentration than it does today, but certain bacteria of the time started using carbon for growth and releasing oxygen through respiration. This had an absolutely devastating effect on the ecosystems of the time, for which oxygen was highly toxic, and induced massive fundamental changes, pushing many species to extinction and allowing others to flourish.

However, seeing as you were talking about the present situation, to which all species are adapted, you are still correct in saying that no other species is polluting this PLANET (other species modify their LOCAL environment in ways which might meet the definition of "pollution" for some of the organisms with which they share their ecosystem)

Alright, it's not a totally 100% fair comparison, I'm aware of that. Human activity is altering the planet at a great rate, and in part through greed and indifference towards other species. To a degree, we also have the intellect to understand that we are doing these things which of course bacteria don't. I say only to a degree, because our intellect and tendencies evolved to deal with situations very different to which we find ourselves today. It may well be that we have limited capacity to change our behavior, but we should hold ourselves to a high standard. I have a reaction against the anti-human guilt that has been on display here, which I find rather pitiful. I also stick to my points about subjective value judgements and the slippery concept of what is 'good' for the planet.

I've forgotten how we got from the Pope to this :shock:

pinno

Alex99 wrote:

finchy wrote:

I...ecosystem)

I have a reaction against the anti-human guilt that has been on display here, which I find rather pitiful. I also stick to my points about subjective value judgements and the slippery concept of what is 'good' for the planet.

I've forgotten how we got from the Pope to this :shock:

The Catholic church have a lot to answer to, including their aversion to contraception... However, that's going off on a tangent.

Guilt?! Hmm... not sure about that.

An entirely pragmatic view is that we require the ecosystem to retain it's biological integrity or we will suffer or even wipe ourselves out. Simple.

pblakeney

Alex99 wrote:

I've forgotten how we got from the Pope to this :shock:

Well, the Pope would argue with you as your earlier point was not in the Bible.
We can't have that now, can we?

Alex99

PBlakeney wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

I've forgotten how we got from the Pope to this :shock:

Well, the Pope would argue with you as your earlier point was not in the Bible.
We can't have that now, can we?

Guess not...

I wonder what the Pope's position is on the age of the earth? Not sure they're full on 'young earthers'.

pinno

Alex99 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

I've forgotten how we got from the Pope to this :shock:

Well, the Pope would argue with you as your earlier point was not in the Bible.
We can't have that now, can we?

Guess not...

I wonder what the Pope's position is on the age of the earth? Not sure they're full on 'young earthers'.

At a guess, I think they are definitely flat earthers.

pinno

Adam: "Are you up for it or what?"
Eve: "Not tonight, I have a mosquito bite in the wrong place"

The beginning of natural contraception? (before headaches were invented).

Giraffoto

And now, this

pinno

I just realises that this thread could also be a euphemism for the Pope and the evangelists and the Trumps.

joelsim

The Pope. What a moron.

pinno

Yep but who gonna win?: The Pope or Trump.

There are far more Catholics globally than red necks. My money is on the Pope.