by TWilliam » Sun 06 Apr 2008, 05:58:17
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'T')hank you for raising the point about "isn't everything we do by definition 'natural'?" issue.
That's a tough one, since it's true that we couldn't possibly do anything UNnatural, since we are simply nature's latest experiment with life.
What I am getting at is that, unlike most life forms that blindly act according to instinct, we have a degree of choice in what we do (we could argue this point as well, but assume that we do have the ability to make choices).
Having the ability to make choices, as opposed to simply following instinct in every situation, gives us the POTENTIAL opportunity to DECIDE whether we are going to allow our instinctive drive to conquer, consume and copulate lead us into a state of overshoot from which we will not be able to recover, or whether we will decide to act counterintuitively and attempt to make changes in the way we live so that our species will have a shot at evolutionary durability in a civilized configuration.
I have stated before that the flaw in MonteQuest's reasoning may be that he assumes the human species has the capacity to make a rational decision to change the way it lives today (which WILL make life today more difficult) in the interest of long term sustainability and survival.
I'm just not convinced that making the changes we need to make is within the realm of possibility. I'm not sure there are enough people willing to sign up, and I'm certain that the current rulers would have absolutely no interest in doing away with the system they have spent their whole lives manipulating.
But thanks for raising the "it's all natural" issue, because that is a tough one.
It may be that we are going to be "natural" right up until our self-imposed "natural" extinction.
It's interesting that you bring up the issue of whether or not humanity even has the
ability to make the 'better' choice with regard to our future survival as a species, BigT. I've often commented to various acquaintances that IMO nature doesn't support
intelligent self awareness (only half-jokingly), and frankly I'm increasingly convinced that this may in fact be the case. Your observation lends credence to my assertion; it certainly seems that what appear to be the more 'intelligent' choices as far as long term survival goes - having fewer children being one obvious example - often lead to a reduction in the overall percentage of individuals that embrace such behavior.
Also, you mention our seeming ability to 'decide' whether or not we follow a path of destruction, but sometimes I wonder if that's really the case, or if it's simply a matter of whether the lemming 'decides' to run around the left or the right side of the boulder on it's mad dash to the water. It
seems as if we have a choice, but do we really? I often wonder...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', 'N')ow please SHUT UP with all the swearing!
Oh for Christ's sake, give me a break already eastbay. "Sticks and stones" and all that. Any 'injury' that words may inflict is purely self-inflicted: