Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you
Comments
-
You can be wise enough to not want to destroy the planet without knowing that a seahorse is a fish.masjer said:
No, it's useful to know about the planet we are living on. So, more important than just peanuts.TheBigBean said:
Isn't this about as useful as knowing a peanut is not a nut? (Nor are most things people call nuts)masjer said:Trivial??
How people (especially the young) know so little about the natural world.
Last night's Who wants to be a millionaire question:
Which of these is a fish?
A. Portuguese man o war.
B. Scallop
C. Seahorse
D. Octopus.
The contestant-not a clue.
Phone a friend- not a clue.
54% of the audience answered A ffs.
Even on University challenge, it’s the questions on the natural world they know least about.
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.
Wisdom stretches further than choosing the ingredients to put in a fruit salad, like not destroying the planet we live on.
The answer is C. Seahorse.0 -
How many of you have seen one?TheBigBean said:
You can be wise enough to not want to destroy the planet without knowing that a seahorse is a fish.masjer said:
No, it's useful to know about the planet we are living on. So, more important than just peanuts.TheBigBean said:
Isn't this about as useful as knowing a peanut is not a nut? (Nor are most things people call nuts)masjer said:Trivial??
How people (especially the young) know so little about the natural world.
Last night's Who wants to be a millionaire question:
Which of these is a fish?
A. Portuguese man o war.
B. Scallop
C. Seahorse
D. Octopus.
The contestant-not a clue.
Phone a friend- not a clue.
54% of the audience answered A ffs.
Even on University challenge, it’s the questions on the natural world they know least about.
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.
Wisdom stretches further than choosing the ingredients to put in a fruit salad, like not destroying the planet we live on.
The answer is C. Seahorse.0 -
I think we can agree that Richard Feynman was no dunce:The next Monday, when the fathers were all back at work, we kids were playing in a field. One kid says to me, "See that bird? What kind of bird is that?" I said, "I haven't the slightest idea what kind of a bird it is." He says, "It's a brown-throated thrush. Your father doesn't teach you anything!" But it was the opposite. He had already taught me: "See that bird?" he says. "It's a Spencer's warbler." (I knew he didn't know the real name.) "Well, in Italian, it's a Chutto Lapittida. In Portuguese, it's a Bom da Peida. In Chinese, it's a Chung-long-tah, and in Japanese, it's a Katano Tekeda. You can know the name of that bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird. You'll only know about humans in different places, and what they call the bird. So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing-that's what counts." (I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.)3
-
Not sure how me not knowing that a seahorse is a fish will make any difference.masjer said:My intrigue is that ignorance about the natural world is leading to its destruction.
We depend on it for our survival. Soil, water, co2, climate, pollination all are crucial for our existence.
The seahorse was an example of ignorance.
Does a seahorse know, or even care, that it is a fish? Bigger fish to fry, if you take my point. 😉The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Me, me, me!First.Aspect said:
How many of you have seen one?TheBigBean said:
You can be wise enough to not want to destroy the planet without knowing that a seahorse is a fish.masjer said:
No, it's useful to know about the planet we are living on. So, more important than just peanuts.TheBigBean said:
Isn't this about as useful as knowing a peanut is not a nut? (Nor are most things people call nuts)masjer said:Trivial??
How people (especially the young) know so little about the natural world.
Last night's Who wants to be a millionaire question:
Which of these is a fish?
A. Portuguese man o war.
B. Scallop
C. Seahorse
D. Octopus.
The contestant-not a clue.
Phone a friend- not a clue.
54% of the audience answered A ffs.
Even on University challenge, it’s the questions on the natural world they know least about.
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.
Wisdom stretches further than choosing the ingredients to put in a fruit salad, like not destroying the planet we live on.
The answer is C. Seahorse.
Will it make any difference?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Isnt octopus and scallop a mollusc?
0 -
Say, if people didn’t know the label elephant. Elephants go extinct, people shrug their shoulders and say, what was an elephant? Multiply this to most animals (other than food animals) and the decline will be even more rapid than it is now. And so will our demise.
If you go back to the seahorse, but (because of a lack of interest) you didn’t know its label, you also might not know it’s in massive decline. Seagrass (their habitat) has been lost due to boat anchors, dredging, bottom trawling. Seagrass is also a fantastic co2 sink.
Not knowing the label has knock-on effects.0 -
Scuba diver here, seahorses, Portuguese man o war, scallops and octopus.:)First.Aspect said:
How many of you have seen one?TheBigBean said:
You can be wise enough to not want to destroy the planet without knowing that a seahorse is a fish.masjer said:
No, it's useful to know about the planet we are living on. So, more important than just peanuts.TheBigBean said:
Isn't this about as useful as knowing a peanut is not a nut? (Nor are most things people call nuts)masjer said:Trivial??
How people (especially the young) know so little about the natural world.
Last night's Who wants to be a millionaire question:
Which of these is a fish?
A. Portuguese man o war.
B. Scallop
C. Seahorse
D. Octopus.
The contestant-not a clue.
Phone a friend- not a clue.
54% of the audience answered A ffs.
Even on University challenge, it’s the questions on the natural world they know least about.
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.
Wisdom stretches further than choosing the ingredients to put in a fruit salad, like not destroying the planet we live on.
The answer is C. Seahorse.0 -
masjer said:
Say, if people didn’t know the label elephant. Elephants go extinct, people shrug their shoulders and say, what was an elephant? Multiply this to most animals (other than food animals) and the decline will be even more rapid than it is now. And so will our demise.
If you go back to the seahorse, but (because of a lack of interest) you didn’t know its label, you also might not know it’s in massive decline. Seagrass (their habitat) has been lost due to boat anchors, dredging, bottom trawling. Seagrass is also a fantastic co2 sink.
Not knowing the label has knock-on effects.
Tell me that seahorses are in decline, and I can choose to do something about it, or not. (Or I can look it up if I don't know what a seahorse is.) Telling me it's a fish doesn't help me make any decision. I'm not sure what advantage knowing that label bestows.0 -
Does this translate to teaching music? No instrument names? No Notation?briantrumpet said:masjer said:Say, if people didn’t know the label elephant. Elephants go extinct, people shrug their shoulders and say, what was an elephant? Multiply this to most animals (other than food animals) and the decline will be even more rapid than it is now. And so will our demise.
If you go back to the seahorse, but (because of a lack of interest) you didn’t know its label, you also might not know it’s in massive decline. Seagrass (their habitat) has been lost due to boat anchors, dredging, bottom trawling. Seagrass is also a fantastic co2 sink.
Not knowing the label has knock-on effects.
Tell me that seahorses are in decline, and I can choose to do something about it, or not. (Or I can look it up if I don't know what a seahorse is.) Telling me it's a fish doesn't help me make any decision. I'm not sure what advantage knowing that label bestows.
0 -
Who's the president of Russia? Who cares, it's just a label.0
-
You don't need to know any labels to enjoy music and to care about it. Ditto language.masjer said:
Does this translate to teaching music? No instrument names? No Notation?briantrumpet said:masjer said:Say, if people didn’t know the label elephant. Elephants go extinct, people shrug their shoulders and say, what was an elephant? Multiply this to most animals (other than food animals) and the decline will be even more rapid than it is now. And so will our demise.
If you go back to the seahorse, but (because of a lack of interest) you didn’t know its label, you also might not know it’s in massive decline. Seagrass (their habitat) has been lost due to boat anchors, dredging, bottom trawling. Seagrass is also a fantastic co2 sink.
Not knowing the label has knock-on effects.
Tell me that seahorses are in decline, and I can choose to do something about it, or not. (Or I can look it up if I don't know what a seahorse is.) Telling me it's a fish doesn't help me make any decision. I'm not sure what advantage knowing that label bestows.
Depending on the musical culture and genre, knowing some relevant technical labels is helpful when learning more about it, as in any profession (it saves describing from scratch, using one-syllable words, things that are encountered frequently, and might need to be discussed.
Instrument names are useful of course, but much of the classification is arbitrary (is a piano a percussion of string instrument - and if we come up with an agreed label, does it help us discuss piano music?)
Have a read of this article on classification of musical instruments, and let me know if you think it would help you play the trumpet, or write a piece of music for trumpet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_instrument_classification
That's not to say that it's not an interesting subject, but the practical application of the knowledge is almost zero. Ditto knowing that a seahorse is a fish, or that cucumbers, aubergines, peppers, pumpkins and green beans are all fruits.0 -
If there wasn’t a general lack of interest in the natural world, everyone here would know what a seahorse is.
Since this doesn’t seem to be the case, this reinforces my initial statement, that even the most intelligent have little interest in nature.
I feel the mindset is to get used to the ‘new normal’ on this being a human planet with tiny animal reserves.
96% of all mammals are farm/pets. Just 4% left in the ‘wild’.
0 -
Depends on how you define labelling. Labelling in music can be a bad thing.masjer said:
Does this translate to teaching music? ...briantrumpet said:masjer said:Say, if people didn’t know the label elephant. Elephants go extinct, people shrug their shoulders and say, what was an elephant? Multiply this to most animals (other than food animals) and the decline will be even more rapid than it is now. And so will our demise.
If you go back to the seahorse, but (because of a lack of interest) you didn’t know its label, you also might not know it’s in massive decline. Seagrass (their habitat) has been lost due to boat anchors, dredging, bottom trawling. Seagrass is also a fantastic co2 sink.
Not knowing the label has knock-on effects.
Tell me that seahorses are in decline, and I can choose to do something about it, or not. (Or I can look it up if I don't know what a seahorse is.) Telling me it's a fish doesn't help me make any decision. I'm not sure what advantage knowing that label bestows.
Does it matter if it is blues, bluegrass or country? All that matters is people enjoying it.
We all know polar bears are in decline but we don't say mammals are in decline.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I’m glad people care about it so I don’t have to.
Biodiversity and protecting animals is obviously important but I struggle to give any sh!ts beyond my own self interest that We’ll suffer if we neglect it.0 -
Absolutely none. I was just struck by how small the are.pblakeney said:
Me, me, me!First.Aspect said:
How many of you have seen one?TheBigBean said:
You can be wise enough to not want to destroy the planet without knowing that a seahorse is a fish.masjer said:
No, it's useful to know about the planet we are living on. So, more important than just peanuts.TheBigBean said:
Isn't this about as useful as knowing a peanut is not a nut? (Nor are most things people call nuts)masjer said:Trivial??
How people (especially the young) know so little about the natural world.
Last night's Who wants to be a millionaire question:
Which of these is a fish?
A. Portuguese man o war.
B. Scallop
C. Seahorse
D. Octopus.
The contestant-not a clue.
Phone a friend- not a clue.
54% of the audience answered A ffs.
Even on University challenge, it’s the questions on the natural world they know least about.
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.
Wisdom stretches further than choosing the ingredients to put in a fruit salad, like not destroying the planet we live on.
The answer is C. Seahorse.
Will it make any difference?1 -
This ambivalence is the first sign that you are one of an older generation.rick_chasey said:I’m glad people care about it so I don’t have to.
Biodiversity and protecting animals is obviously important but I struggle to give any sh!ts beyond my own self interest that We’ll suffer if we neglect it.
I would have thought that there is a correlation between knowing something of the intricacy of the natural world and wanting to save it. The more abstract the concept, the less likely you are to do the "right thing", surely?1 -
I was going to say, unbelievable, but that goes against my point about many not caring.rick_chasey said:I’m glad people care about it so I don’t have to.
Biodiversity and protecting animals is obviously important but I struggle to give any sh!ts beyond my own self interest that We’ll suffer if we neglect it.0 -
Other than yourself and maybe other human beings, pets? and farm animals, you don't have any interest or compassion for any other living creature?rick_chasey said:I’m glad people care about it so I don’t have to.
Biodiversity and protecting animals is obviously important but I struggle to give any sh!ts beyond my own self interest that We’ll suffer if we neglect it.
How about our closest relatives, chimps, gorillas, orangutans-nothing?0 -
This level of detachment is worrying and I think, prevalent amongst the population.rick_chasey said:I’m glad people care about it so I don’t have to.
Biodiversity and protecting animals is obviously important but I struggle to give any sh!ts beyond my own self interest that We’ll suffer if we neglect it.
The natural world supports us.
No natural world/sufficient resources = no humans.
We cannot continue to prioritise humans above nature.
I do not see the difference between killing an elephant and killing a human.
In fact, humans have been and are killing each other in perpetuum and often it leaves me indifferent (depending on the circumstances) but hearing of another Elephant or Rhino being poached or a lion being poisoned by illegal cattle grazers in the Mara for example makes my blood boil.
seanoconn - gruagach craic!2 -
Has stevo hacked your account?rick_chasey said:I’m glad people care about it so I don’t have to.
Biodiversity and protecting animals is obviously important but I struggle to give any sh!ts beyond my own self interest that We’ll suffer if we neglect it.0 -
Yeah I’m all for protecting the environment. I know it’s important.
But honestly, even as a kid flora and fauna was just so boring to me. Does absolutely nothing for me.
I find those Attenborough documentaries such snoozes. I can admire the effort put in to get the shots and it looks great on my telly but I might as well be looking at default Windows computer screen backgrounds; it’s as interesting to me.0 -
You're interested in people. (I think). People are fauna. All the politics, history and culture are just the natural behaviour of another species of primate.rick_chasey said:Yeah I’m all for protecting the environment. I know it’s important.
But honestly, even as a kid flora and fauna was just so boring to me. Does absolutely nothing for me.
I find those Attenborough documentaries such snoozes. I can admire the effort put in to get the shots and it looks great on my telly but I might as well be looking at default Windows computer screen backgrounds; it’s as interesting to me.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Yeah people interest me. Animals don’t.
We all coo when they do one thing that any human over the age of 5 can do like it’s amazing.
They’re playing in one dimension, we’re playing in 3.
Not remotely comparable.
Our thoughts and actions are several orders more complex and sophisticated than animals.0 -
This is pretty amazingly outdated thinking.rick_chasey said:Yeah people interest me. Animals don’t.
We all coo when they do one thing that any human over the age of 5 can do like it’s amazing.
They’re playing in one dimension, we’re playing in 3.
Not remotely comparable.
Our thoughts and actions are several orders more complex and sophisticated than animals.0 -
Well when they can build a rival society, complete with associated technology, you can tell me I’m wrong ✌🏻0
-
There is no doubt humans are the most mentally advanced species, but the orders of magnitude point is simply wrong, and the 3d/1d argument belies that animals, and more of them than you think, have their own societies, languages, sophisticated emotions etc.rick_chasey said:Well when they can build a rival society, complete with associated technology, you can tell me I’m wrong ✌🏻
So this perfectly illustrates my point that the more you know about it, the more likely you are to want to preserve the natural world.
Whereas ignorant people would say, oh they are just animals.
1 -
I'd argue that most animals have a much better society than western world humans, without the need of technology.rick_chasey said:Well when they can build a rival society, complete with associated technology, you can tell me I’m wrong ✌🏻
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0
