Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

KtsKina

Expand Messages
  • ktskina
    Evolution. Reading through your reasons not to breed, it became apparent that although you are willing to embrace and discuss people s religion as possible
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 2, 2002
      Evolution.

      Reading through your reasons not to breed, it became apparent that
      although you are willing to embrace and discuss people's religion as
      possible reasoning, that you believe more strongly in evolution,
      wether divinely incarnated or not, so I'll discuss this aspect.

      You speak of the course of nature with a passion. Why then, are you
      trying to interrupt it? Correct - tens and hundreds of thousands of
      species have become extinct due to the involvement of humans. And the
      same continued before humans. You don't see many jurassic or triassic
      dinosaur species around, these days, and its not due to the human
      factor.

      Cataclysmic disaster, ice ages, fire storms, etc - these are all
      natural occuring instances which eliminate species. Speciation can
      occur on a much lower level than your website seems to consider. A
      particular species of algae may develop in a single lake. If the lake
      dries up, it dies - having happened many times prior to humans.
      Fossilised remains of species millions of years ago do not exist
      today. Again, not because of humans.

      Other carnivorous species other than humans, have been known to hunt
      weaker species out of existence. As humans have done so to others.
      THIS is the course of nature. In many African countries, species of
      wildlife even today eat themselves out of sustainence and it is only
      due to human preservation that some still exist today. If we had left
      these alone, they too would be extinct.

      The rise and fall of species on our planet is natural. In our rise,
      we destroy many others, true. But if history is a lesson, the human
      race will not last forever, be it by natural disaster (eg, planetary
      axis rotation, seems to occur once every few million years, plunging
      the planet into an ice age, or by asteroid, etc) or manmade disaster
      (nuclear war, etc).

      If you value nature being left to its own devices without human
      intervention as you so strongly proclaim, then it is foolish to go
      against your own advice, and try to apply human intervention in the
      development of our species. We have been given the same opportunity
      of life as every other species, and there are many who have been far
      more successful - ants for instance, who outweigh us 7 to 1 in total
      content on the planet, and number in the millions more numerous.

      If we didn't exist, would every other species on the planet go on
      living forever? No - of course not. This has been demonstrated
      throughout the earth's history. Speciation is a natural development
      of evolution. What are we saving by not breeding? Just giving the
      existing species longer to live before they become extinct by one
      means or other, anyway.

      Our development, and gradual extermination of other species, IS
      NATURAL. How is this proven? We're here. We're doing it. We evolved
      to this level, naturally, and everything we do is a product of
      evolution. Yes - we have the power to destroy the planet. We evolved
      naturally to this point. It's not alien, or evil, or anything super-
      specially new that sets us apart from other species. Just as they
      developed, so have we.

      Why breed? To let nature continue its course as it has for eons, and
      uphold the right of the human race to a NATURAL extinction too.
    • Les U. Knight
      KtsKina, you wrote: ... trying to interrupt it?
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 7, 2002
        KtsKina, you wrote:
        <snip>
        >You speak of the course of nature with a passion. Why then, are you
        trying to interrupt it?<

        Actually, humanity as a whole is interrupting the course of evolution
        by terminating other species. That's what our voluntary extinction
        would avoid.

        > Correct - tens and hundreds of thousands of
        species have become extinct due to the involvement of humans. And the
        same continued before humans. You don't see many jurassic or triassic
        dinosaur species around, these days, and its not due to the human
        factor.

        Cataclysmic disaster, ice ages, fire storms, etc - these are all
        natural occuring instances which eliminate species. <

        But we know better. If you were a judge, and a mass murderer tried to
        use this same argument to justify killing a few dozen people, would
        you take it into advisement? "Your honor, Henry Kissenger's foreign
        policy was responsible for at least a million deaths, why you gettin'
        upset with me?" Sure, 65 million years ago a major extinction event
        wiped out the dinosaurs, but I don't think that makes it okay for us
        to cause the greatest spasm of extinctions since that time.

        >Speciation can
        occur on a much lower level than your website seems to consider. A
        particular species of algae may develop in a single lake. If the lake
        dries up, it dies - having happened many times prior to humans.
        Fossilised remains of species millions of years ago do not exist
        today. Again, not because of humans.<

        True, however, the background rate of extinctions is now exceeded by
        at least 100 times, and perhaps more than a 1,000 times.

        >Other carnivorous species other than humans, have been known to hunt
        weaker species out of existence. <

        While not impossible, I've never heard of any cases which weren't
        exotic invaders. Carnivores which eliminate their food supply would
        also endanger their own existence.

        >As humans have done so to others. <

        Yes, exotics do this.

        >THIS is the course of nature. In many African countries, species of
        wildlife even today eat themselves out of sustainence and it is only
        due to human preservation that some still exist today. If we had left
        these alone, they too would be extinct.<

        There's some truth to this, but I think it's misleading. Human
        pressures on habitat have created stress that require our
        intervention. We eliminate or greatly reduce predators, and then must
        control the populations those predators once controlled. Our past
        meddling now requires our present meddling.

        >The rise and fall of species on our planet is natural. In our rise,
        we destroy many others, true. But if history is a lesson, the human
        race will not last forever, be it by natural disaster (eg, planetary
        axis rotation, seems to occur once every few million years, plunging
        the planet into an ice age, or by asteroid, etc) or manmade disaster
        (nuclear war, etc).<

        Yes, there are many threats to our existence -- it's fragile at the
        top. Our more eminent threats are from ourselves.
        http://www.discover.com/oct_00/featworld.html

        >If you value nature being left to its own devices without human
        intervention as you so strongly proclaim, then it is foolish to go
        against your own advice, and try to apply human intervention in the
        development of our species. <

        If our species didn't need any intervention, then I'd agree with you.
        However, even on the continent where we evolved into modern humans,
        we have become virtual exotic invaders, displacing native species.

        >We have been given the same opportunity
        of life as every other species, and there are many who have been far
        more successful - ants for instance, who outweigh us 7 to 1 in total
        content on the planet, and number in the millions more numerous.<

        Ants do affect their ecosystems, but not adversely. Earth's biosphere
        would collapse without ants. Without humans, it would do quite well.

        >If we didn't exist, would every other species on the planet go on
        living forever? No - of course not. This has been demonstrated
        throughout the earth's history. Speciation is a natural development
        of evolution. What are we saving by not breeding? Just giving the
        existing species longer to live before they become extinct by one
        means or other, anyway.<

        That's the idea. Likewise, we wouldn't intentionally kill someone,
        though all it does is let them live longer before they die anyway.
        When we bring a new human into the world, we are virtually
        guaranteeing the deaths of other life forms, though perhaps not
        extinctions. The average North American is responsible for 82
        livestock deaths per year. If financially successful, we might build
        a cabin in the woods for retirement -- that could diminish an
        endangered species habitat.

        You and I will be dead in less than 100 years, what's so important
        about our species that we should continue it beyond the lifetimes of
        exisitng people?

        >Our development, and gradual extermination of other species, IS
        NATURAL. How is this proven? We're here. We're doing it. We evolved
        to this level, naturally, and everything we do is a product of
        evolution. <

        I saw an interview of a convicted murderer who used the same
        reasoning. "It happened, so it was meant to happen." No sense of
        responsibility. The concepts of manifest destiny and social darwinism
        are similar. "We took over this country, so it was right that we
        did." Often, gods are brought in as further proof.

        >Yes - we have the power to destroy the planet. We evolved
        naturally to this point. It's not alien, or evil, or anything super-
        specially new that sets us apart from other species. Just as they
        developed, so have we.

        Why breed? To let nature continue its course as it has for eons, and
        uphold the right of the human race to a NATURAL extinction too.<

        Glad to see that we share common ground in the end. Our voluntary
        extinction will be natural because we "evolved to this level,
        naturally, and everything we do is a product of evolution."

        We have evolved to a level that includes compassion and reason. To
        ignore these incredible evolutionary advancements, which took
        billions of years, would beŠ well, unnatural.

        Les
      • ktskina
        Hi Les Thanks for your well written reply. I was expecting to be ignored or have my intellect abused, so it was pleasant reading your reply which made many
        Message 3 of 4 , Jun 14, 2002
          Hi Les

          Thanks for your well written reply. I was expecting to be ignored or
          have my intellect abused, so it was pleasant reading your reply which
          made many good points.

          I have come to an understanding in your reply, of why volunary human
          extinction is necessary, and under the current conditions - I have to
          concur, it does make a certain degree of sense. I do not believe
          however, that it is the only option. I'll touch on the last exchange
          to illustrate this:

          >>Why breed? To let nature continue its course as it has for eons,
          >>and uphold the right of the human race to a NATURAL extinction
          >>too.
          >
          > Glad to see that we share common ground in the end. Our voluntary
          > extinction will be natural because we "evolved to this level,
          > naturally, and everything we do is a product of evolution."
          >
          > We have evolved to a level that includes compassion and reason. To
          > ignore these incredible evolutionary advancements, which took
          > billions of years, would beŠ well, unnatural.
          >
          > Les

          I agree with that. Even though we are a product of evolution, we are
          damaging the very same process that brought about our being,
          preventing other species from enjoying the same advancement that we
          underwent. As you reason, with our own evolution, we have come to a
          level of compassion and reason which allow us to recognise our own
          fallicies and now attempt to reverse them by voluntary human
          extinction.

          However, human evolution does not end here. Humans will still
          develop, emotionally, intellectually, and physically. As we can
          overcome our inherent base desires, and see the impact of our
          existence, it is equally theoretically possible that we will in time
          overcome the petty squabbles that currently divide and restrict our
          development as a species. Sound like a fantasy? If we can develop far
          enough to overcome our innate desire to breed, as you attempt to
          impress upon your readers, then with time, we can overcome any other
          faculty of decision we enter into.

          So what other options are there? How do we co-exist with the species
          on the earth while still developing and expanding ourselves? By
          fulfilling our long-term dream.. the exploration of space. This may
          sound like a delve into science fiction, but I'll keep this as
          realistic as possible.

          For instance, Jupiter's closest moon, Io, is in such close proximity
          to the planet that it is charged with static from the gas giant which
          it discharges back with enough amperes each hour, to power every city
          on our planet for a day. Each day - that's enough power to fulfill
          the energy requirements of 24 earths, each populated by 6 billion
          people. Or more realistically - to power the technology requrements
          of an expanding exploration and coloninisation of our solar system.

          This is not as far out as it sounds. The technology to do this is
          currently feasible. It is possible for us to achieve. Forget drilling
          for oil - the gaseous fuel in the same planets atmosphere attributes
          more than a billion times all the fuel ever used in human history. So
          why aren't we doing anything about it? Because humans have not yet
          evolved to that intellectual/emotional level where it is considered
          important. We're only half-way there. The world still revolves around
          money - and the cost of an expedition to set up the technology to
          take advantage of these resources, could never be justified in todays
          society. While money is frequently more important even than human
          life, our attitude doesn't yet allow us to embark on such missions.
          We couldn't fund it, because we couldn't convince anyone it is
          important enough to put everything else aside for.

          Your concern for earth's animal and plant species, I sincerely hope,
          does not extend to every piece of rock in this universe. They are not
          living, and if we can take advantage of the outlying planets, we
          should. We're not displacing or eliminating any valuable eco-system
          by doing so. The nearby planet of Mars, is capable of sustaining
          human life, if we were to create an atmosphere (also already
          technologically possible) that equated our own. At present, the
          Martian atmosphere is a hundred times thinner than that of Earth.
          Again, the primary reason it hasn't happened yet, is because of our
          preoccupation with money. They want to do more testing first? Fine.
          If money wasn't an issue, we could be sending up probes every year.
          In fact, would have been doing since space technology was first
          achieved. We can build space stations large enough to hold thousand
          of people. Technologically, we can - but don't, because again, it's
          too "expensive".

          This is not all "possible", it's practical. But with the current
          human train of thought, it is not at all realistic. It would take
          huge advances in the common social psyche before our species could
          complete these objectives.

          And how long until that next step in human evolution takes place?
          Years? Decades? Who knows. Probably about the same time it would take
          for a voluntary human extinction to have an equally profound effect
          on our planet.

          You say give evolution a chance? So do I.

          KtsKina
          nb: I can not be contacted at this email address.
        • hersherdavis
          KtsKina, I found your reply to be very interesting and very well written, but I really have to take issue with its premise; that in no small terms, population
          Message 4 of 4 , Jul 17, 2002
            KtsKina,

            I found your reply to be very interesting and very well written, but
            I really have to take issue with its premise; that in no small
            terms, population of other planets in our solar system will provide
            the answer to many of the problems we are discussing. I don't have a
            lot of time to write a deservedly longer reply at the moment, so
            instead I'll just pose a few questions:

            Do you believe that we have an obligation to "clean up our messes"
            here on Earth before we potentially make new ones on other planets?

            Do you think that there will be interest in transferring the poor,
            weak, sick and dying to other planets along with the economically
            established and healthy?

            Do you think that there will be interest in preserving Earth ecology
            once it is no longer our ecology, as we will be living on other
            planets?

            - "Hersher Davis"
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.