it’s fairly safe to say humans are the dominant species on earth, and that each of us is invested in that, in some way. Mostly people are probably disinclined to think about it, whatever the cause. I mean it could lose momentum if overthought, or thought at all, if dominance were seen as a problem.

I might have suggested humans are a plague earlier today, but for context i’d add the subject was about aliens visiting, which was a weird subject. ET may be friendly, just wants to refresh after his long flight, shag the locals, refuel, then head off home with interesting stories about the humans he visited.

but I bring you to the idea of ideas that propel dominance. The force of ideology, from which no individual is immune.

the biggest long-term problem faced by humans on earth is displacement of other species (and habitats).

so while indulging a visitation from ET, keep in mind the decline in diversity of organic life and (range of) habitats to-date.

the absolute worst of humans is invested in distortions that drive dominance.

you can dilute the (perceived, apparent) force by more viewing individuals as just that, individuals, which is probably what our culture does.

humans became the dominant species a long while back now. At some time it became over-dominance.

so where to from here? More of the same?

transition said:

it’s fairly safe to say humans are the dominant species on earth, and that each of us is invested in that, in some way. Mostly people are probably disinclined to think about it, whatever the cause. I mean it could lose momentum if overthought, or thought at all, if dominance were seen as a problem.

I might have suggested humans are a plague earlier today, but for context i’d add the subject was about aliens visiting, which was a weird subject. ET may be friendly, just wants to refresh after his long flight, shag the locals, refuel, then head off home with interesting stories about the humans he visited.

but I bring you to the idea of ideas that propel dominance. The force of ideology, from which no individual is immune.

the biggest long-term problem faced by humans on earth is displacement of other species (and habitats).

so while indulging a visitation from ET, keep in mind the decline in diversity of organic life and (range of) habitats to-date.

the absolute worst of humans is invested in distortions that drive dominance.

you can dilute the (perceived, apparent) force by more viewing individuals as just that, individuals, which is probably what our culture does.

humans became the dominant species a long while back now. At some time it became over-dominance.

so where to from here? More of the same?

We are spending an obscene amount of money jousting at climate change while our forests and animal habitats are being devastated and our oceans are being pillaged.

transition said:

it’s fairly safe to say humans are the dominant species on earth, and that each of us is invested in that, in some way. Mostly people are probably disinclined to think about it, whatever the cause. I mean it could lose momentum if overthought, or thought at all, if dominance were seen as a problem.

I might have suggested humans are a plague earlier today, but for context i’d add the subject was about aliens visiting, which was a weird subject. ET may be friendly, just wants to refresh after his long flight, shag the locals, refuel, then head off home with interesting stories about the humans he visited.

but I bring you to the idea of ideas that propel dominance. The force of ideology, from which no individual is immune.

the biggest long-term problem faced by humans on earth is displacement of other species (and habitats).

so while indulging a visitation from ET, keep in mind the decline in diversity of organic life and (range of) habitats to-date.

the absolute worst of humans is invested in distortions that drive dominance.

you can dilute the (perceived, apparent) force by more viewing individuals as just that, individuals, which is probably what our culture does.

humans became the dominant species a long while back now. At some time it became over-dominance.

so where to from here? More of the same?

Nature simply does not permit this for any prolonged period, unless the dominant species can reach a state of equilibrium with the environment. If it does not and over-exploits it, then it will eventually reach a tipping point and it’s all downhill from there. Some humans did reach this ideal state with their environment and survived for tens of thousands of years, but in the case of Australia the newcomers had no respect, nor understood the land, they did not adapt to it and learnt only to exploit its resources.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

it’s fairly safe to say humans are the dominant species on earth, and that each of us is invested in that, in some way. Mostly people are probably disinclined to think about it, whatever the cause. I mean it could lose momentum if overthought, or thought at all, if dominance were seen as a problem.

I might have suggested humans are a plague earlier today, but for context i’d add the subject was about aliens visiting, which was a weird subject. ET may be friendly, just wants to refresh after his long flight, shag the locals, refuel, then head off home with interesting stories about the humans he visited.

but I bring you to the idea of ideas that propel dominance. The force of ideology, from which no individual is immune.

the biggest long-term problem faced by humans on earth is displacement of other species (and habitats).

so while indulging a visitation from ET, keep in mind the decline in diversity of organic life and (range of) habitats to-date.

the absolute worst of humans is invested in distortions that drive dominance.

you can dilute the (perceived, apparent) force by more viewing individuals as just that, individuals, which is probably what our culture does.

humans became the dominant species a long while back now. At some time it became over-dominance.

so where to from here? More of the same?

Nature simply does not permit this for any prolonged period, unless the dominant species can reach a state of equilibrium with the environment. If it does not and over-exploits it, then it will eventually reach a tipping point and it’s all downhill from there. Some humans did reach this ideal state with their environment and survived for tens of thousands of years, but in the case of Australia the newcomers had no respect, nor understood the land, they did not adapt to it and learnt only to exploit its resources.

hear hear. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-10/water-dragons-are-evolving-at-a-pace-we-can-witness/9418686

>Nature simply does not permit this for any prolonged period, unless the dominant species can reach a state of equilibrium with the environment.

equilibrium sounds like a nice place to be, but I bet it’s always been wobbly

i’m more thinking there are ideas that come from being a member of the dominant species, that feed it. I mean show me where such things have been defined, forces so. Some of it’s got to be illusion, and my guess is some of the power is in that.

if you take other life as a composite, loosely a system, humans are not dominant.

transition said:

>Nature simply does not permit this for any prolonged period, unless the dominant species can reach a state of equilibrium with the environment.

equilibrium sounds like a nice place to be, but I bet it’s always been wobbly

i’m more thinking there are ideas that come from being a member of the dominant species, that feed it. I mean show me where such things have been defined, forces so. Some of it’s got to be illusion, and my guess is some of the power is in that.

if you take other life as a composite, loosely a system, humans are not dominant.

You are trying to tell a watchmaker how to poise a balance?

roughbarked said:

transition said:

>Nature simply does not permit this for any prolonged period, unless the dominant species can reach a state of equilibrium with the environment.

equilibrium sounds like a nice place to be, but I bet it’s always been wobbly

i’m more thinking there are ideas that come from being a member of the dominant species, that feed it. I mean show me where such things have been defined, forces so. Some of it’s got to be illusion, and my guess is some of the power is in that.

if you take other life as a composite, loosely a system, humans are not dominant.

You are trying to tell a watchmaker how to poise a balance?

It’s word school.

transition said:

it’s fairly safe to say humans are the dominant species on earth

The nematodes are laughing at you

dv said:

transition said:

it’s fairly safe to say humans are the dominant species on earth

The nematodes are laughing at you

I was checking on nematodes recently, wondering which species of nematodes live within the human body outside of the digestive tract. I came to the conclusion that none do, other than familiar parasites that we eliminate. Perhaps they’re not as ubiquitous as I’ve been led to believe.

PermeateFree said:

Nature simply does not permit this for any prolonged period, unless the dominant species can reach a state of equilibrium with the environment. If it does not and over-exploits it, then it will eventually reach a tipping point and it’s all downhill from there. Some humans did reach this ideal state with their environment and survived for tens of thousands of years, but in the case of Australia the newcomers had no respect, nor understood the land, they did not adapt to it and learnt only to exploit its resources.

By “newcomers”, date that at 50,000 years ago.

transition said:

equilibrium sounds like a nice place to be, but I bet it’s always been wobbly

i’m more thinking there are ideas that come from being a member of the dominant species, that feed it. I mean show me where such things have been defined, forces so. Some of it’s got to be illusion, and my guess is some of the power is in that.

if you take other life as a composite, loosely a system, humans are not dominant.

I refer to the wobbly equilibrium as “dynamic equilibrium”. Take the science of “Island Biogeography Theory” for example. An island can support a relatively fixed population and number of species, but different species are locally arriving, going extinct, becoming dominant, and being generated all the time.

> it’s fairly safe to say humans are the dominant species on earth, and that each of us is invested in that, in some way. Mostly people are probably disinclined to think about it, whatever the cause. I mean it could lose momentum if overthought, or thought at all, if dominance were seen as a problem.

Yes. No. Yes.

> I might have suggested humans are a plague earlier today, but for context i’d add the subject was about aliens visiting, which was a weird subject. ET may be friendly, just wants to refresh after his long flight, shag the locals, refuel, then head off home with interesting stories about the humans he visited.

Yes. And what happens to plagues, think about it in detail for a while. Plagues end, fairly rapidly. What gives me hope for humanity is that when most plagues end the plague species doesn’t go completely extinct, it just ceases to be dominant.

> but I bring you to the idea of ideas that propel dominance. The force of ideology, from which no individual is immune.

What do you mean by “force of ideology”, are you thinking perhaps of China’s “one child policy” as a response to overpopulation?

> the biggest long-term problem faced by humans on earth is displacement of other species (and habitats).

No! That’s like claiming that the biggest threat to the car is the bicycle. There are heaps of threats – dozens if not hundreds – and displacement of other species is way way down on the list. My current opinion on biggest threat is world economic collapse followed by incessant war and disease. 20 years ago I would have said that the greatest threat was a doomsday weapon.

> so while indulging a visitation from ET, keep in mind the decline in diversity of organic life and (range of) habitats to-date.

Yes.

> the absolute worst of humans is invested in distortions that drive dominance.

Actually, yes. It’s only in the past few years that I’ve changed my opinion to agree with that. Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” is full of examples. Corruption + dominance is a deadly combination.

> you can dilute the (perceived, apparent) force by more viewing individuals as just that, individuals, which is probably what our culture does.

Good idea.

> humans became the dominant species a long while back now. At some time it became over-dominance.

When and why, I wonder. Driving megafauna to extinction 50,000 years ago was the first indication of human dominance. Was that over-dominance back then, or was it the population explosion fuelled by penicillin and quinine?

There is a thought that has been brewing in my mind, gathering strength for many years now. There is one thing that biologically separates humans from all other animals. I’m not talking about the human ability to throw. I’m talking about planned obsolescence. Humans are the only land-living vertebrate species I know that has biologically built-in planned obsolescence. The human body, if avoiding violent death, cancer and heart attack, always disintegrates medically at the same age, give or take a decade. We take this for granted, but it’s not true of mammals, birds and reptiles. Given the same amount of medical care as a human being, an animal’s lifespan is wildly unpredictable.

Because it’s a feature solely of human beings, we have to take this survival to large fixed age into account when looking at human dominance. Why has medical science worked so well for humans when it hasn’t worked as well for any other species? Could it be because humanity went through an evolutionary bottleneck 100,000 years ago? This has ensured a uniformity of body plan throughout humanity which has allowed the cooperation that is such a large part of human dominance. Perhaps.

If so, then the uniformity of human body plan makes us uniquely susceptible to death by plague in the aftermath of a world economic collapse.

mollwollfumble said:

When and why, I wonder. Driving megafauna to extinction 50,000 years ago was the first indication of human dominance. Was that over-dominance back then, or was it the population explosion fuelled by penicillin and quinine?

It was around that time that the landscape of Australia was irrevocably changing by drying out. It is still drying out to this day. So it really wasn’t always down to man.

Peak Warming Man said:

transition said:

it’s fairly safe to say humans are the dominant species on earth, and that each of us is invested in that, in some way. Mostly people are probably disinclined to think about it, whatever the cause. I mean it could lose momentum if overthought, or thought at all, if dominance were seen as a problem.

I might have suggested humans are a plague earlier today, but for context i’d add the subject was about aliens visiting, which was a weird subject. ET may be friendly, just wants to refresh after his long flight, shag the locals, refuel, then head off home with interesting stories about the humans he visited.

but I bring you to the idea of ideas that propel dominance. The force of ideology, from which no individual is immune.

the biggest long-term problem faced by humans on earth is displacement of other species (and habitats).

so while indulging a visitation from ET, keep in mind the decline in diversity of organic life and (range of) habitats to-date.

the absolute worst of humans is invested in distortions that drive dominance.

you can dilute the (perceived, apparent) force by more viewing individuals as just that, individuals, which is probably what our culture does.

humans became the dominant species a long while back now. At some time it became over-dominance.

so where to from here? More of the same?

We are spending an obscene amount of money jousting at climate change while our forests and animal habitats are being devastated and our oceans are being pillaged.

I did think and I imagine it wouldn’t be possible as too many people rely on it for food and the actual implementation and enforcement aren’t possible either but have fallow years for the ocean were it’s not fished commercially at all giving it time to recover.

Industries such as logging of any non-human planted forests should really cease immediately and what is left is cleaned up and left alone indefinitely, make do with what cleared land we have. Every nation contributes say one percentage minimum of its GDP to cleaning up the planet, huge numbers of people could be employed to do so, take the money from military spending perhaps. An example of something that’s stupid is in WA people on community service are not allowed to clean up rubbish as its considered demeaning, fuck that for a joke, who doesn’t see rubbish everywhere they look in just their local suburb, it look unsightly and is shameful, get people to clean it up, it’s a start.

> the absolute worst of humans is invested in distortions that drive dominance.

>>Actually, yes. It’s only in the past few years that I’ve changed my opinion to agree with that. Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” is full of examples. Corruption + dominance is a deadly combination.

the idea, the theory, is that humans get a lot of prowess from being the dominant species, it’s expressed a reinforced by ideology, but it’s the tweaks to how it’s seen that interests me, some of which is shadier than many would admit, occupies unlit social/psychological territory, if you will.

like, just as a thought experiment, consider the good guys won WW2, and then reconsider the objectives of the good guys from the perspective of diversity of organic life/other species, habitats etc. Shift the idea of fascism, authoritarianism, nationalism, all that sort of stuff, which roughly translates to variously competition within own species, and consider that the outcome still served the dominance of humans over all other life.

so, it looks like humans compete with each other, and the outcome incidental, accidental, or not, is the displacement of other life (forms, and habitats).

I guess i’m sorta viewing the prowess as involving attitudes and actions toward lower lifeforms, which is quite busy even within our own species, as a related category, or projection.

the question arises from this, is it possible for the dominant species to have prowess (the workings of regular ego, unabstracted maybe), without the perhaps dubious notion of _lower lifeforms_.

humans have instincts (cognitive tools, and force of desire and emotions) for categorizing other lifeforms, including lower lifeforms. They are quite discerning that way. The list of things a human (to generalize, as a thought experiment) considers less important than themselves is quite long. Impressively long, in fact I doubt examples could be exhausted, it may be the first real infinity to be discovered.

so yeah, there’s an art, a mass deception perhaps, the species is involved in, a device that made the ascension to the top of the food chain possible. The unrealized problems might be after arrival, once there, proliferation, the absence of a what now?, the indulgences of the prowess, at the expense of other life.

so yeah, there’s an art, a mass deception perhaps, the species is involved in, a device that made the ascension to the top of the food chain possible. The unrealized problems might be after arrival, once there, proliferation, the absence of a what now?, the indulgences of the prowess, at the expense of other life

Isn’t life all about shopping and acquiring new things, having wealth, power and being (in)famous, all other matters rescinded.

>Isn’t life all about shopping and acquiring new things, having wealth, power and being (in)famous, all other matters rescinded

of the little news I watch these days, and there are of course advertisements too, i’ve taken to viewing whatever as appeals to prowess of the species.

it fucken yields.

i’ll get over it shortly, long before the fixation squad get wind of it.

For some of us life is all about keeping entropy at bay, by creating sublime art and taking out the bins.

You got people like this around you? Country’s full of ’em now. People walkin’ around all day long every minute of the day, worried about everything. Worried about the air, worried about the water, worried about the soil. Worried about insecticides, pesticides, food additives, carcinogens, worried about radon gas, worried about asbestos, worried about saving endangered species.

Lemme tell ya bout endangered species, awright? Saving endangered species is just one more arrogant attempt by humans to control Nature. It’s arrogant meddling. It’s what got us in trouble in the first place. Doesn’t anybody understand that? Interfering with Nature. Over 90 percent, over, way over 90 percent, of the species that have ever lived on this planet, ever lived, are gone. Wooosh! They’re extinct. We didn’t kill them all. They just disappeared. That’s what nature does. They disappear these days at the rate of 25 a day—and I mean regardless of our behavior. Irrespective of how we act on this planet, 25 species that were here today will be gone tomorrow. Let them go gracefully. Leave Nature alone. Haven’t we done enough? We’re so self-important, so self-important. Everybody’s gonna save something now. Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails. And the greatest arrogance of all, save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet? We don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven’t learned to care for one another—we’re gonna save the fuckin’ planet? I’m gettin’ tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. Tired.

I’m tired of fuckin’ Earth Day, I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white bourgeoise liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalist don’t give a shit about the planet, they don’t care about the planet, not in the abstract they don’t, not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that someday in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me. Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet, nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The people are fucked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doin’ great! It’s been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We’ve been here, what? A hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand and we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the conceit to think that somehow we’re a threat? That somehow we’re gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that’s just a floatin’ around the sun? The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sunspots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles, hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids, and meteors, world-wide floods, tidal waves, world-wide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages, and we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference?

The planet isn’t going anywhere. We are! We’re goin’ away. Pack your shit, Folks, we’re goin’ away. We won’t leave much of a trace either, thank god for that. Maybe a little styrofoam, maybe, little styrofoam. Planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake, an evolutionary cul de sac. The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas, a surface nuisance. You wanna know how the planet’s doin’? Ask those people at Pompeii, who were frozen into position from volcanic ash. How the planet’s doin’. Wanna know if the planet’s alright, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia, or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. How about those people in Kilauea, Hawaii who built their homes right next to an active volcano and then wonder why they have lava in the living room. The planet will be here for a long, long, long time after we’re gone and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself ’cuz that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it’s true that plastic is not degradable well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allows us to be spawned from it in the first place: it wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it, needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old philosophical question, “Why are we here?” “Plastic, assholes.”

So, so, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that’s really started already, don’t you? I mean, to be fair, the planet probably sees us as a mild threat, something to be dealt with, but I’m sure the planet will defend itself in the manner of a large organism like a bee hive or an ant colony can muster a defense. I’m sure the planet will think of something. What would you do, if you were the planet trying to defend against this pesky, troublesome species? Let’s see, what might, viruses, viruses might be good, they seem vulnerable to viruses. And, viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system in these creatures. Perhaps a human immuno deficiency virus making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along, and maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.

Well, that’s a poetic note. And it’s a start. But I can dream, can’t I? I don’t worry about the little things, bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we’re part of a greater wisdom than we’ll ever understand, a higher order, call it what you want. You know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron. Woooohhhh, woooohhhh, woooohhhh. It doesn’t punish, it doesn’t reward, it doesn’t judge at all. It just is, and so are we, for a little while. Thanks for being here with me for a little while tonight.

-George Carlin

esselte said:

You got people like this around you? Country’s full of ’em now. People walkin’ around all day long every minute of the day, worried about everything. Worried about the air, worried about the water, worried about the soil. Worried about insecticides, pesticides, food additives, carcinogens, worried about radon gas, worried about asbestos, worried about saving endangered species.

Lemme tell ya bout endangered species, awright? Saving endangered species is just one more arrogant attempt by humans to control Nature. It’s arrogant meddling. It’s what got us in trouble in the first place. Doesn’t anybody understand that? Interfering with Nature. Over 90 percent, over, way over 90 percent, of the species that have ever lived on this planet, ever lived, are gone. Wooosh! They’re extinct. We didn’t kill them all. They just disappeared. That’s what nature does. They disappear these days at the rate of 25 a day—and I mean regardless of our behavior. Irrespective of how we act on this planet, 25 species that were here today will be gone tomorrow. Let them go gracefully. Leave Nature alone. Haven’t we done enough? We’re so self-important, so self-important. Everybody’s gonna save something now. Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails. And the greatest arrogance of all, save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet? We don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven’t learned to care for one another—we’re gonna save the fuckin’ planet? I’m gettin’ tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. Tired.

I’m tired of fuckin’ Earth Day, I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white bourgeoise liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalist don’t give a shit about the planet, they don’t care about the planet, not in the abstract they don’t, not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that someday in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me. Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet, nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The people are fucked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doin’ great! It’s been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We’ve been here, what? A hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand and we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the conceit to think that somehow we’re a threat? That somehow we’re gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that’s just a floatin’ around the sun? The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sunspots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles, hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids, and meteors, world-wide floods, tidal waves, world-wide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages, and we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference?

The planet isn’t going anywhere. We are! We’re goin’ away. Pack your shit, Folks, we’re goin’ away. We won’t leave much of a trace either, thank god for that. Maybe a little styrofoam, maybe, little styrofoam. Planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake, an evolutionary cul de sac. The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas, a surface nuisance. You wanna know how the planet’s doin’? Ask those people at Pompeii, who were frozen into position from volcanic ash. How the planet’s doin’. Wanna know if the planet’s alright, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia, or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. How about those people in Kilauea, Hawaii who built their homes right next to an active volcano and then wonder why they have lava in the living room. The planet will be here for a long, long, long time after we’re gone and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself ’cuz that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it’s true that plastic is not degradable well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allows us to be spawned from it in the first place: it wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it, needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old philosophical question, “Why are we here?” “Plastic, assholes.”

So, so, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that’s really started already, don’t you? I mean, to be fair, the planet probably sees us as a mild threat, something to be dealt with, but I’m sure the planet will defend itself in the manner of a large organism like a bee hive or an ant colony can muster a defense. I’m sure the planet will think of something. What would you do, if you were the planet trying to defend against this pesky, troublesome species? Let’s see, what might, viruses, viruses might be good, they seem vulnerable to viruses. And, viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system in these creatures. Perhaps a human immuno deficiency virus making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along, and maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.

Well, that’s a poetic note. And it’s a start. But I can dream, can’t I? I don’t worry about the little things, bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we’re part of a greater wisdom than we’ll ever understand, a higher order, call it what you want. You know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron. Woooohhhh, woooohhhh, woooohhhh. It doesn’t punish, it doesn’t reward, it doesn’t judge at all. It just is, and so are we, for a little while. Thanks for being here with me for a little while tonight.

-George Carlin

A quote of his:

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

watched a lot of Carlin, many laughs, but sometimes he was just straight wrong, and for just that, a cheap laugh.

transition said:

> the absolute worst of humans is invested in distortions that drive dominance.

>>Actually, yes. It’s only in the past few years that I’ve changed my opinion to agree with that. Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” is full of examples. Corruption + dominance is a deadly combination.

like, just as a thought experiment, consider the good guys won WW2, and then reconsider the objectives of the good guys from the perspective of diversity of organic life/other species, habitats etc. Shift the idea of fascism, authoritarianism, nationalism, all that sort of stuff, which roughly translates to variously competition within own species, and consider that the outcome still served the dominance of humans over all other life.

so, it looks like humans compete with each other, and the outcome incidental, accidental, or not, is the displacement of other life (forms, and habitats).

WWII is a startling example to me of how resilient nature is and how little influence humans have over it. It was the occasion of mass destruction of the environment, one of the worst environmental catastrophies ever. Particularly so as creatures isolated on Pacific Islands couldn’t escape.

But when I tried to count the number of species driven extinct by WWII, I only managed to find a single species. The Wake Island Rail.

So even deliberate all out destruction of the environment by mankind has a negligible long term effect.

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

> the absolute worst of humans is invested in distortions that drive dominance.

>>Actually, yes. It’s only in the past few years that I’ve changed my opinion to agree with that. Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” is full of examples. Corruption + dominance is a deadly combination.

like, just as a thought experiment, consider the good guys won WW2, and then reconsider the objectives of the good guys from the perspective of diversity of organic life/other species, habitats etc. Shift the idea of fascism, authoritarianism, nationalism, all that sort of stuff, which roughly translates to variously competition within own species, and consider that the outcome still served the dominance of humans over all other life.

so, it looks like humans compete with each other, and the outcome incidental, accidental, or not, is the displacement of other life (forms, and habitats).

WWII is a startling example to me of how resilient nature is and how little influence humans have over it. It was the occasion of mass destruction of the environment, one of the worst environmental catastrophies ever. Particularly so as creatures isolated on Pacific Islands couldn’t escape.

But when I tried to count the number of species driven extinct by WWII, I only managed to find a single species. The Wake Island Rail.

So even deliberate all out destruction of the environment by mankind has a negligible long term effect.

Overall the destruction wouldn’t have been that great, mostly confined to areas of human population.

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

> the absolute worst of humans is invested in distortions that drive dominance.

>>Actually, yes. It’s only in the past few years that I’ve changed my opinion to agree with that. Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” is full of examples. Corruption + dominance is a deadly combination.

like, just as a thought experiment, consider the good guys won WW2, and then reconsider the objectives of the good guys from the perspective of diversity of organic life/other species, habitats etc. Shift the idea of fascism, authoritarianism, nationalism, all that sort of stuff, which roughly translates to variously competition within own species, and consider that the outcome still served the dominance of humans over all other life.

so, it looks like humans compete with each other, and the outcome incidental, accidental, or not, is the displacement of other life (forms, and habitats).

WWII is a startling example to me of how resilient nature is and how little influence humans have over it. It was the occasion of mass destruction of the environment, one of the worst environmental catastrophies ever. Particularly so as creatures isolated on Pacific Islands couldn’t escape.

But when I tried to count the number of species driven extinct by WWII, I only managed to find a single species. The Wake Island Rail.

So even deliberate all out destruction of the environment by mankind has a negligible long term effect.

Overall the destruction wouldn’t have been that great, mostly confined to areas of human population.

Not that I recommend dropping 2,700,000 tons of bombs on the environment. But it’s heartening that nature rebuilt itself with scarcely any change.

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

> the absolute worst of humans is invested in distortions that drive dominance.

>>Actually, yes. It’s only in the past few years that I’ve changed my opinion to agree with that. Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” is full of examples. Corruption + dominance is a deadly combination.

like, just as a thought experiment, consider the good guys won WW2, and then reconsider the objectives of the good guys from the perspective of diversity of organic life/other species, habitats etc. Shift the idea of fascism, authoritarianism, nationalism, all that sort of stuff, which roughly translates to variously competition within own species, and consider that the outcome still served the dominance of humans over all other life.

so, it looks like humans compete with each other, and the outcome incidental, accidental, or not, is the displacement of other life (forms, and habitats).

WWII is a startling example to me of how resilient nature is and how little influence humans have over it. It was the occasion of mass destruction of the environment, one of the worst environmental catastrophies ever. Particularly so as creatures isolated on Pacific Islands couldn’t escape.

But when I tried to count the number of species driven extinct by WWII, I only managed to find a single species. The Wake Island Rail.

So even deliberate all out destruction of the environment by mankind has a negligible long term effect.

Agent Orange and Napalm, virtually wiped out some of the world’s most beautiful orchids.

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

WWII is a startling example to me of how resilient nature is and how little influence humans have over it. It was the occasion of mass destruction of the environment, one of the worst environmental catastrophies ever. Particularly so as creatures isolated on Pacific Islands couldn’t escape.

But when I tried to count the number of species driven extinct by WWII, I only managed to find a single species. The Wake Island Rail.

So even deliberate all out destruction of the environment by mankind has a negligible long term effect.

Overall the destruction wouldn’t have been that great, mostly confined to areas of human population.

Not that I recommend dropping 2,700,000 tons of bombs on the environment. But it’s heartening that nature rebuilt itself with scarcely any change.

Nature will be rebuild but probably not to our liking and overall comfort.
We live in a pretty benign environment all things considered and could upset the balance not in our favour

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

> the absolute worst of humans is invested in distortions that drive dominance.

>>Actually, yes. It’s only in the past few years that I’ve changed my opinion to agree with that. Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” is full of examples. Corruption + dominance is a deadly combination.

like, just as a thought experiment, consider the good guys won WW2, and then reconsider the objectives of the good guys from the perspective of diversity of organic life/other species, habitats etc. Shift the idea of fascism, authoritarianism, nationalism, all that sort of stuff, which roughly translates to variously competition within own species, and consider that the outcome still served the dominance of humans over all other life.

so, it looks like humans compete with each other, and the outcome incidental, accidental, or not, is the displacement of other life (forms, and habitats).

WWII is a startling example to me of how resilient nature is and how little influence humans have over it. It was the occasion of mass destruction of the environment, one of the worst environmental catastrophies ever. Particularly so as creatures isolated on Pacific Islands couldn’t escape.

But when I tried to count the number of species driven extinct by WWII, I only managed to find a single species. The Wake Island Rail.

So even deliberate all out destruction of the environment by mankind has a negligible long term effect.

Overall the destruction wouldn’t have been that great, mostly confined to areas of human population.

http://www.agentorangerecord.com/impact_on_vietnam/environment/defoliation/P1/

http://www.ourendangeredworld.com/war-effect-wildlife/

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

> the absolute worst of humans is invested in distortions that drive dominance.

>>Actually, yes. It’s only in the past few years that I’ve changed my opinion to agree with that. Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” is full of examples. Corruption + dominance is a deadly combination.

like, just as a thought experiment, consider the good guys won WW2, and then reconsider the objectives of the good guys from the perspective of diversity of organic life/other species, habitats etc. Shift the idea of fascism, authoritarianism, nationalism, all that sort of stuff, which roughly translates to variously competition within own species, and consider that the outcome still served the dominance of humans over all other life.

so, it looks like humans compete with each other, and the outcome incidental, accidental, or not, is the displacement of other life (forms, and habitats).

WWII is a startling example to me of how resilient nature is and how little influence humans have over it. It was the occasion of mass destruction of the environment, one of the worst environmental catastrophies ever. Particularly so as creatures isolated on Pacific Islands couldn’t escape.

But when I tried to count the number of species driven extinct by WWII, I only managed to find a single species. The Wake Island Rail.

So even deliberate all out destruction of the environment by mankind has a negligible long term effect.

Agent Orange and Napalm, virtually wiped out some of the world’s most beautiful orchids.

Not sure how dropping ordnance such as the above wasn’t considered a war crime

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

WWII is a startling example to me of how resilient nature is and how little influence humans have over it. It was the occasion of mass destruction of the environment, one of the worst environmental catastrophies ever. Particularly so as creatures isolated on Pacific Islands couldn’t escape.

But when I tried to count the number of species driven extinct by WWII, I only managed to find a single species. The Wake Island Rail.

So even deliberate all out destruction of the environment by mankind has a negligible long term effect.

Overall the destruction wouldn’t have been that great, mostly confined to areas of human population.

http://www.agentorangerecord.com/impact_on_vietnam/environment/defoliation/P1/

http://www.ourendangeredworld.com/war-effect-wildlife/

The impact of wars compared to decades of virtually every nation having an attitude of “She’ll be right mate” when it comes to the environment would be small in comparison. Wars don’t generally involve cutting down billions of trees for land or polluting numerous water ways as its cheaper than disposing of industrial waste properly. The military industrial complex would be the most damaging I imagine, possibly the making of weapons is more environmentally destructive than using them, nukes excluded

>Overall the destruction wouldn’t have been that great, mostly confined to areas of human population.

to be clear, I wasn’t saying WW2 caused a lot of destruction that way, rather that it served a culture of human dominance over other species, and that regardless of who won the war the outcome seems likely to have been to further the dominance over other life.

and by this I mean the prowess of the human species.

so ego stuff, really.

transition said:

>Overall the destruction wouldn’t have been that great, mostly confined to areas of human population.

to be clear, I wasn’t saying WW2 caused a lot of destruction that way, rather that it served a culture of human dominance over other species, and that regardless of who won the war the outcome seems likely to have been to further the dominance over other life.

and by this I mean the prowess of the human species.

so ego stuff, really.

Sure humans kill or are responsible for killing huge amounts of wildlife, but certainly in Australia it is also the introduced animals that degrade the environment and actively kill the native animals and this they do 24/7, we had done directly and indirectly such an enormous amount of environmental damage to this country, considering the short time we have been here that it is difficult to comprehend.

>Sure humans kill or are responsible for killing huge amounts of wildlife, but certainly in Australia it is also the introduced animals that degrade the environment and actively kill the native animals and this they do 24/7, we had done directly and indirectly such an enormous amount of environmental damage to this country, considering the short time we have been here that it is difficult to comprehend”

I see things positively, not a hopeful stretch on my part, just based on the evidence people appear to be becoming more sensible, have been for decades maybe now. Education and all that.

I’m more thinking about the numbers of humans, ideology(organizing forces), the trajectory of civilization. Something more systems theory, bordering, maybe.

Looking at the instincts, probably somewhat shaped by demands of the ancestral environments, adapted for, involving smaller populations, amplified by larger scales (including very large populations). The instincts and cognitive tools, that made the ascension to the top of the food chain (so to speak) possible, the distortions from the top (possibly some of which are illusion) causes by dominance, and as a consequence of dominance. The idea, to simplify, is that getting there and being there are two different things.

Man(humans) got there, but still have instincts to get there. So i’m contemplating an overshoot of sorts.

Distortions, that way.

transition said:

>Sure humans kill or are responsible for killing huge amounts of wildlife, but certainly in Australia it is also the introduced animals that degrade the environment and actively kill the native animals and this they do 24/7, we had done directly and indirectly such an enormous amount of environmental damage to this country, considering the short time we have been here that it is difficult to comprehend”

I see things positively, not a hopeful stretch on my part, just based on the evidence people appear to be becoming more sensible, have been for decades maybe now. Education and all that.

I’m more thinking about the numbers of humans, ideology(organizing forces), the trajectory of civilization. Something more systems theory, bordering, maybe.

Looking at the instincts, probably somewhat shaped by demands of the ancestral environments, adapted for, involving smaller populations, amplified by larger scales (including very large populations). The instincts and cognitive tools, that made the ascension to the top of the food chain (so to speak) possible, the distortions from the top (possibly some of which are illusion) causes by dominance, and as a consequence of dominance. The idea, to simplify, is that getting there and being there are two different things.

Man(humans) got there, but still have instincts to get there. So i’m contemplating an overshoot of sorts.

Distortions, that way.

Humans became dominant long before the advent of agriculture and animal husbandry. The later we have only been involved for something like 10,000 years, prior to that we were hunter gatherers for something like 190,000 years, so which period do you think will influence us more?

If we were really sensible we would not be in the situation we now find ourselves of excessive population, global warming, and many other very serious environmental problems. We needed to take action at least a hundred or more years ago, before we came anywhere near our current predicament. The current environmental situation cannot be stopped by simply turning off a switch, we have activated some exceptionally large systems that will go their own way regardless of what we now do.

>No! That’s like claiming that the biggest threat to the car is the bicycle.

:)

for many car drivers it/they are.

transition said:

>No! That’s like claiming that the biggest threat to the car is the bicycle.

:)

for many car drivers it/they are.

Sounds like you are saying, we had nothing to do with the current environmental situation.

>Sounds like you are saying, we had nothing to do with the current environmental situation.

i’m probably not saying much, that’s mostly what I do, a lot of that, but then hidden away in the not-much, you never know, in the backwoods there, a bird is chirping.

roughbarked said:

Agent Orange and Napalm, virtually wiped out some of the world’s most beautiful orchids.

Do you know which species?

That area of indochina used to be a “biodiversity hotspot”. Its destruction was criminal.

They fact the human race still seems unwilling to do much to prevent the extinction of and cruelty deal out to animals and we realise they aren’t just dumb animals makes it all the more worse

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

>No! That’s like claiming that the biggest threat to the car is the bicycle.

:)

for many car drivers it/they are.

Sounds like you are saying, we had nothing to do with the current environmental situation.

No. The exact opposite, that the current environmental situation is a negligible threat to us. It needs to preserved for its own sake not because of any doomsdayist prophesy.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

>No! That’s like claiming that the biggest threat to the car is the bicycle.

:)

for many car drivers it/they are.

Sounds like you are saying, we had nothing to do with the current environmental situation.

No. The exact opposite, that the current environmental situation is a negligible threat to us. It needs to preserved for its own sake not because of any doomsdayist prophesy.

Both really but yeah it would a shame (to say the least) to wreck our beautiful planet, we could adapt at a cost but other life not so easily.

Cymek said:

They fact the human race still seems unwilling to do much to prevent the extinction of and cruelty deal out to animals and we realise they aren’t just dumb animals makes it all the more worse

Somone I know starved their dog almost to death, and left it on my property to die. I checked the law and it’s not illegal to starve a dog to death. It’s only illegal to sell a starved animal or beat it. Rspca, local emergency vet, council and dog pound were nearly useless. The emaciated animal was back being abused two days later.

Cruelty dealt out to animals, although publically frowned upon, is more than tolerated, it’s encouraged.

It’s not all the human race, but it’s far too high a percentage.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

>No! That’s like claiming that the biggest threat to the car is the bicycle.

:)

for many car drivers it/they are.

Sounds like you are saying, we had nothing to do with the current environmental situation.

No. The exact opposite, that the current environmental situation is a negligible threat to us. It needs to preserved for its own sake not because of any doomsdayist prophesy.

For some strange reason moll, you seem to think you are knowledgeable of environmental matters, but almost everything you say contradicts that assumption. You are “The Observer” of the environment, except your arguments are even less plausible. You totally disregard everything that is provided by people who have studied these matters from a professional level, just because it does not match up with your extremely limited view of the world. I have no idea of your comprehension of space matters, but I sincerely hope it is considerable more than you exhibit elsewhere.

>For some strange reason moll, you seem to think you are knowledgeable of environmental matters

the impression I get is moll knows well when he’s on the edges of his knowledge, spends quite a bit of time there, which involves a type of awareness, generates it even, knowing that. Involves a presence of sorts, of its own kind.

so ya know, maybe a personal angle’s not required.

transition said:

>For some strange reason moll, you seem to think you are knowledgeable of environmental matters

the impression I get is moll knows well when he’s on the edges of his knowledge, spends quite a bit of time there, which involves a type of awareness, generates it even, knowing that. Involves a presence of sorts, of its own kind.

so ya know, maybe a personal angle’s not required.

Then he should not make pronouncements in such an authoritative manner.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

>For some strange reason moll, you seem to think you are knowledgeable of environmental matters

the impression I get is moll knows well when he’s on the edges of his knowledge, spends quite a bit of time there, which involves a type of awareness, generates it even, knowing that. Involves a presence of sorts, of its own kind.

so ya know, maybe a personal angle’s not required.

Then he should not make pronouncements in such an authoritative manner.

you could assume he claims SFA authority, it’s a just a view, expressed, not much more. He has to give it some force.

so relax, world domination’s doubtful his agenda.

mollwollfumble said:

I checked the law and it’s not illegal to starve a dog to death. It’s only illegal to sell a starved animal or beat it. R

Could you provide a source for this please? What state are you talking about?

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986

9 Cruelty
(1) A person who—

(f) is the owner or the person in charge of an animal which is confined or otherwise unable to provide for itself and fails to provide the animal with proper and sufficient food, drink or shelter….

…commits an act of cruelty upon that animal and is guilty of an offence and is liable to a penalty of not more than, in the case of a natural person, 120 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months or, in the case of a body corporate, 600 penalty units.

http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/260424/POCTA-Act.pdf

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

>For some strange reason moll, you seem to think you are knowledgeable of environmental matters

the impression I get is moll knows well when he’s on the edges of his knowledge, spends quite a bit of time there, which involves a type of awareness, generates it even, knowing that. Involves a presence of sorts, of its own kind.

so ya know, maybe a personal angle’s not required.

Then he should not make pronouncements in such an authoritative manner.

you could assume he claims SFA authority, it’s a just a view, expressed, not much more. He has to give it some force.

so relax, world domination’s doubtful his agenda.

Fake News is a big issue these days on the Internet, I think in a forum such as this where information is exchanged, that some attempt should be made to ensure it has substance and not just a wildly inaccurate guess which is delivered as an unquestionable fact.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

Then he should not make pronouncements in such an authoritative manner.

you could assume he claims SFA authority, it’s a just a view, expressed, not much more. He has to give it some force.

so relax, world domination’s doubtful his agenda.

Fake News is a big issue these days on the Internet, I think in a forum such as this where information is exchanged, that some attempt should be made to ensure it has substance and not just a wildly inaccurate guess which is delivered as an unquestionable fact.

it’s a funny thing this fear of suggestibility, the suggestion so, the contagion.

does a lot of work, in the fake news business.

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

you could assume he claims SFA authority, it’s a just a view, expressed, not much more. He has to give it some force.

so relax, world domination’s doubtful his agenda.

Fake News is a big issue these days on the Internet, I think in a forum such as this where information is exchanged, that some attempt should be made to ensure it has substance and not just a wildly inaccurate guess which is delivered as an unquestionable fact.

it’s a funny thing this fear of suggestibility, the suggestion so, the contagion.

does a lot of work, in the fake news business.

what that means is that if you amplify the fear of suggestibility, plant it, then you add to the recursion involved.

good-intentioned idiots can do this. Media do it, more as a device, or hook, + add variously associations (training the audience that way).

what that means is that if you amplify the fear of suggestibility, plant it, then you add to the recursion involved.

good-intentioned idiots can do this. Media do it, more as a device, or hook, + add variously associations (training the audience that way).

Not quite like that. Fear of suggestibility reduces rather than enhances suggestibility.

Who said media was well-intentioned?

The purpose of media is to gather watchers, and that involves maximising the emotional content, which means provoking conflict. So media deliberately provokes conflict, war and hatred. That doesn’t seem well-intentioned to me.

mollwollfumble said:

what that means is that if you amplify the fear of suggestibility, plant it, then you add to the recursion involved.

good-intentioned idiots can do this. Media do it, more as a device, or hook, + add variously associations (training the audience that way).

Not quite like that. Fear of suggestibility reduces rather than enhances suggestibility.

Who said media was well-intentioned?

The purpose of media is to gather watchers, and that involves maximising the emotional content, which means provoking conflict. So media deliberately provokes conflict, war and hatred. That doesn’t seem well-intentioned to me.

of suggestibility

You have to see its reach from one person toward another, over. It lends to repressive mechanisms (influence via), and dressing up as something else. I did mention suggestion of suggestibility, and recursion, qualified the idea, I thought.

did I say media was good-intentioned?, I thought I had a poke at permeate, and obscured it a little. I’ll go with it anyway, and point out it has to appeal to good-intentions, for some respectability.

the idea of receptivity to culture already has about it the potential for suggestibility, the receptivity to culture/social environment’s innate, biological, tweaked by culture.