Just because you ruined your planet ...

[Edena_of_Neith]

In Sci-Fi stories, it is commonly depicted that mankind spreads out to many planets amongst the stars, and ... continues to behave much the way he behaves here on Earth.
One of the most outstanding examples of this, is the Death Star from Star Wars.

Perhaps it is a good thing that there is a celestial speed limit (at least, for now, until we find a way around it) and planets outside our own solar system are beyond our reach.
We can wreck the Earth, but we cannot make our ways out to the stars, and wreck everyone else's worlds.

Mankind is stuck with Earth. If he makes it into a cesspool, he has to live in that cesspool (ala, World War III, for instance.)
Mankind has to live with consequences. He cannot ruin a world, then pick up and go to a fresh world and start over, then ruin that one too.

I call this a Good Thing.

What do the rest of you think?

[FeatsofClay]

I think some people probably said the same thing about the "New World".

Seen Detroit?

[Edena_of_Neith]

Yes. I lived 10 miles from Detroit for 35 years.

Have you seen Chernobyl? That is a more classic case of what I'm talking about.

[Dr. Paragon]

There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who "love Nature" while deploring the "artificialities" with which "Man has spoiled 'Nature.'" The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of "Nature" — but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the Naturist reveals his hatred for his own race — i.e., his own self-hatred.
In the case of "Naturists" such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate.
As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. sapiens is the only race I have or can have. Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women — it strikes me as a fine arrangement — and perfectly "natural" Believe it or not, there were "Naturists" who opposed the first flight to old Earth's Moon as being "unnaturaI" and a "despoiling of Nature."The Notebooks of Lazarus Long: Robert A. Heinlein
That about covers it for me.

[Name Lips]

To me the main difference between humans altering the environment versus other animals altering the environment is one of awareness of consequences. We cannot pretend that we should operate as thoughtlessly as other animals when we are capable of deeper and more complex thought. Because we can consider the consequences of our actions, I believe we should. We are the only animal that is cursed with this level of understanding, and it carries with it a certain level of responsibility.

To me, that is what makes humans distinct from other animals. Most animals will gladly consume all resources in an area, leading to their own extinction. Humans have the potential to recognize these trends in themselves and put an end to them. We haven't actually done it yet, but we have that potential.

To succeed at this, to attain population control and sustainability, I think is our destiny, and what will truly separate us from the other animals and make us something totally different.

[FeatsofClay]

To succeed at this, to attain population control and sustainability, I think is our destiny, and what will truly separate us from the other animals and make us something totally different.


Until we are wiped out in another serious space episode. The meteors are going to wipe us off this planet eventually. How careful is one not to ruin the furniture in a house built of oily rags?

[Atropine Mama]

I love that quote, Utrecht.

NL, I agree that the sapience of our species is what differentiates us from other species, but I can want our factories to not dump chemicals and still admire the Eiffel Tower. I really have no hatred for humanity, quite the opposite, but i dislike those who are wasteful or harmful morons. I think that's the balance we want in our species.

[Eliezer]

To me the main difference between humans altering the environment versus other animals altering the environment is one of awareness of consequences. We cannot pretend that we should operate as thoughtlessly as other animals when we are capable of deeper and more complex thought. Because we can consider the consequences of our actions, I believe we should. We are the only animal that is cursed with this level of understanding, and it carries with it a certain level of responsibility.


Awareness of consequences does not make our actions as humans less natural. If we massively change the layout of the land through mining operations the action is no less natural than a beaver dam or elephants destroying large tracts of the African savanna. Other animals have had huge environmental impacts. In Illinois the remnants of strip mining considered by some to be an "unnatural blight" were required by federal law to not be reclaimed and the topography of the land to be restored because the pits had become filled with water and the location a major stop-over point for migratory water fowl and thus protected lands.

Now I agree with the sentiment that we should consider the consequences of our actions when changing the environment in such a way to reduce it's capacity to support human life (and maybe even some biodiversity). Actually, all actions ought to be considered in terms of long term consequences.

But that doesn't change that whether we are part of nature or not and whether or not our actions are "natural". It is an artificial distinction that has little meaning that I've been able to find.

[Name Lips]

Awareness of consequences does not make our actions as humans less natural. If we massively change the layout of the land through mining operations the action is no less natural than a beaver dam or elephants destroying large tracts of the African savanna. Other animals have had huge environmental impacts. In Illinois the remnants of strip mining considered by some to be an "unnatural blight" were required by federal law to not be reclaimed and the topography of the land to be restored because the pits had become filled with water and the location a major stop-over point for migratory water fowl and thus protected lands.

Now I agree with the sentiment that we should consider the consequences of our actions when changing the environment in such a way to reduce it's capacity to support human life (and maybe even some biodiversity). Actually, all actions ought to be considered in terms of long term consequences.

But that doesn't change that whether we are part of nature or not and whether or not our actions are "natural". It is an artificial distinction that has little meaning that I've been able to find.
In a way, acting without thought of the consequences is natural.

To be unnatural, we need to plan ahead.

[Eliezer]

In a way, acting without thought of the consequences is natural.

To be unnatural, we need to plan ahead.

That's an interesting take on things. It definitely requires subverting the needs of now for future needs. It's a skill humans excel but our capacity to see beyond our preparations exceeds our preparations.

[Varaj]

In a way, acting without thought of the consequences is natural.

To be unnatural, we need to plan ahead.

What to you mean by unnatural?

[Name Lips]

What to you mean by unnatural?

Sometimes certain people do things that we label as "inhuman." That is the label we use when a human does something that we generally acknowledge to be out of the norm for human behavior.

Likewise, "unnatural" is something that is generally acknowledged to be out of the norm for natural creatures. Humans regularly do things that are not typical of most other species of creatures. These are the "unnatural" things.

There may be differences in personal opinion as to what is unnatural and what isn't. That's unnatural.

[Varaj]

Sometimes certain people do things that we label as "inhuman." That is the label we use when a human does something that we generally acknowledge to be out of the norm for human behavior.

Likewise, "unnatural" is something that is generally acknowledged to be out of the norm for natural creatures. Humans regularly do things that are not typical of most other species of creatures. These are the "unnatural" things.

There may be differences in personal opinion as to what is unnatural and what isn't. That's unnatural.

Rarity makes unnatural? So other animals that are fairly unique are unnatural?

[Eliezer]

Sometimes certain people do things that we label as "inhuman." That is the label we use when a human does something that we generally acknowledge to be out of the norm for human behavior.

Likewise, "unnatural" is something that is generally acknowledged to be out of the norm for natural creatures. Humans regularly do things that are not typical of most other species of creatures. These are the "unnatural" things.

There may be differences in personal opinion as to what is unnatural and what isn't. That's unnatural.

Do you realize that by extension you're implying that humans are "unnatural" if they do anything different than other animals?

It really creates a philosophical quandary because if humans are natural then our behavior as driven by our minds, the product of evolution and what most consider to be the evolutionary advantage that gave us dominance on the planet, is natural.

If humans aren't natural then their behavior is unnatural if it doesn't conform to behavior that other "natural" species perform.

You either define humans as part of nature and thus their actions are natural or they are not part of nature and thus their actions can be defined as unnatural.

Unhealthy, destructive, silly, thoughtless is not unnatural.