Forum menu
esselgruntfuttock
Free Member
Baffles me how anyone can come to this conclusion.Prof Brian Cox explained why, as I already said.
I believe him. I was previously a big believer in ‘aliens/UFO’s’ now I’m not so sure.However. As someone said (Isaac Asimov or someone) ‘space is not only queerer than you think, It’s queerer than you CAN think’
Anyway, we’re Fubared.
Cox is great and I love him, but he's not the definitive source, and is full of ifs buts and maybe's when he discuss's the subject.
If you think about the size of the known universe & the fact that we are the only planet with what we’ve got,
We don't know that. So it's not a fact, purely opinion.
I personally doubt we'll ever communicate with another civilisation, the distances and timeslines are too great, and I'm not sure if we'll even have the intelligence to even recognise it when we see it, but the universe is vast and will continue on for a long long time, we are just at the beginning of it. The potentially habitable timeline of the universe is a magnitude more than the 500 million to a billion year max that we'll potentially exist.
Seems a bit ego centric to think that we are the pinnacle of existence in a universe that will last trillions upon trillion of years beyond us. Solar systems, Galaxies and everything within them are basically chemistry factories, even if life happens only once per galaxy, that's still 125billion potential civilisations in the known universe alone, and we'll never see a hint of them.
Mother Nature is an ‘evil’ force if ever there was a non-religious definition if evil.
That's some grade A crack you're smoking there, sunshine.
Thanks thestabiliser. Care to add anything to the debate? any evidence to the contrary?
No, you win.
Well there are no winners in this debate. Life is cruel and a struggle, that has been the history of life on earth no matter how you cut it.
The future of planet earth is far better off in the Hands of humans than Mother Nature…
Wow, so blatantly sexist and misogynist.
The term “Mother Nature” reinforces the idea that both women and nature should be subjugated
space is not only queerer than you think, It’s queerer than you CAN think’
I'll let someone else deal with that one.
Let's give 'evil' mother nature a kicking and show her who's boss.
Also as i mentioned, I don't even think we are the last word on intelligence on this planet never mind the galaxy. Look at the multitudes of different species around us, they haven't stopped evolving.
In planetary terms evolution still has a long long way to run. We were only just starting to develop from apes 2 million years ago. What will things look in in another 2million years? What way will other animals will evolve? What'll be around in 65 million years?
I mean the change from the dinosaurs to us was pretty dramatic(even the change from the beginning of the dinosaurs 250million years ago to their end was quite dramatic too), I reckon there'll be a few more dramatic changes. Getting all planet of the apes here, but ye get what I mean i'm sure. 😆
I reckon we crack on as long as we can, that's the point and our driving force really, but we are most definitely a finite species and unlikely to be the final say on this planet never mind the galaxy or the universe.
OK to be completely compliant with current parlance insert the term 'mother nature' with whatever term that suits your personal acceptance - I don't give a shit. It doesn't change the point I was making.
Language and words after all are but mere tools to infer whatever meaning we are tying to communicate. Its the meaning behind the words that matter and not the words themselves. But I'm blessed with a sufficient enough vocabulary to get my point across by whatever choice of 'acceptable' language of the current fashion.
I haven’t actually given this that much thought.
But what I do know is that we’ve been here for a tiny fraction of time and we’ll die out in a tiny fraction of time.
I doubt we’ll have a massive effect in the end picture
We should leave some spaceships full of cryogenically frozen humans floating around for the aliens to find, eventually. So they can probe the bodies and bring them back to life for a theme park attraction, or something.
insert the term ‘mother nature’ with whatever term that suits your personal acceptance
Well "Father Nature" would be more appropriate to reflect its repressive character.
But I think "Person Nature" would probably be more sensible.
Although I'm not entirely happy with the "son" in person.
Look at the multitudes of different species around us, they haven’t stopped evolving.
TRUE....BUT.....the difference is that evolution requires species to evolve to suit their environment - they evolved to benefit form their environmental conditions - survival of the fittest and all that.
The big difference with us is that we have the brain power and technological capability to change our environment to suit us therefore stopping in its tracks survival of the fittest and the process of evolution. We modify our environment to suit us rather than our environment modifying us to suit it. Therefore evolution by natural selection has been stopped in its tracks. We rule. The question is have we got the courage and conviction to rule?
Well “Father Nature” would be more appropriate to reflect its repressive character.
I'd be happy with just the term 'Nature' as asesexual as it is. its not something I've ever attributed a sex to...its just something that IS. Repressive or not, it just happens wether we like it or not.
wobbliscott
Full Member
We rule. The question is have we got the courage and conviction to rule?
We rule till we or something destroys us. Then something else comes along.
I'm not sure people living in less developed (and well developed!) countries who are very much at the mercy of nature's extremes would agree with the idea that we have the capability to modify our environment to suit us.
We can't prevent catastrophic floods, fires, tsunamis, hurricanes, volcanoes, earthquakes, heatwaves etc from killing thousands the world over. I don't think we're in charge. It may feel like that from the relative safety of the UK where we are largely immune to very extremes of nature.
Well yes...but we can only control what we can control so the best we can hope for is that we make sensible decisions ad not that we've mastered 'mother nature'. This is where we need a cool head and considered and intelligent choices as opposed to emotionally driven responses that has dominated in the last 1000 years of human decisions. We have the opportunity to let considered and demonstrated science guide us unlike our ancestors. lets take emotion out of the most important decisions that face us right now. Its intelligent and considered thought that has to prevail. BE MORE VULCAN!
’m not sure people living in less developed countries who are very much at the mercy of nature’s extremes would agree with the idea that we have the capability to modify our environment to suit us.
Talk to the Dutch. Just a question of money....and that is something we can control.
Repressive or not, it just happens wether we like it or not.
Oh that old chestnut....... it's "natural"
wobbliscott
Full Member
Well yes…but we can only control what we can control so the best we can hope for is that we make sensible decisions ad not that we’ve mastered ‘mother nature’.
We is an interesting term here tbh, cause the term we is transient.
Put it this way, what connection do you feel to our human ancestors from 2 million year ago, ie our Ape ancestors? I feel no affinity or connection to them particularly.
In 2 million years from now they are likely to look back at us similarly i guess. Cause they'll likely to be quite different from what we are today.
in that sense, even evolution is against the concept of we, as in the here and now.
Even in a shorter time scale, 10 to 15 generations from now, your specific genetic influence all but disappears.
So ultimately the driving force is solely about making sure the next or next few generations survive. Beyond that really it takes on a life of its own.
TRUE….BUT…..the difference is that evolution requires species to evolve to suit their environment
How are your gills today? Bit dry?
Of all the interesting responses I’ve found wobbliscott’s to be the most challenging (and interesting).
On one hand they believe in ‘evil’, yet doesn’t that also require a belief in ‘good’? So how could nature according to @wobbliscott ever be ‘good’? What would ‘good’ nature look like?
It is claimed (and I believe it) that what sets humans apart from other life on earth is our capacity for imagining, for recording, our ability towards co-operating with strangers at a distance, and maybe most of all for our believing fictions of our own making.
whereas all other animals live in an objective world of rivers, trees and lions, we humans live in dual world. Yes, there are rivers, trees and lions in our world. But on top of that objective reality, we have constructed a second layer of make-believe reality, comprising fictional entities such as the European Union, God, the dollar and human rights.
And as time passes, these fictional entities have become ever more powerful, so that today they are the most powerful forces in the world. The very survival of trees, rivers and animals now depends on the wishes and decisions of fictional entities such as the United States and the World Bank — entities that exist only in our own imagination.
Yuval Noah Harari, author of Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind
Now wobbliscott has me attempting to imagine what kind of ‘nature’ would be ‘good’? Because I currently see nature as mostly indifferent; ie a combination of indifferent events in an indifferent galaxy in an indifferent universe. The piper is entropy and we all have to pay the piper because A = A therefore A.
So if one defines ‘evil’ as ‘indifference’, then how would one define ‘good’? Compassion? Eternal life? A ‘caring’ universe? Wouldn’t that be some kind of God?
*’Nature’ is undefined. Are we part of nature or not?
So how could nature according to @wobbliscott ever be ‘good’?
Well you could define 'good' as according to nature, as has been attempted in the past. But that has rather ugly implications, doesn't it? So perhaps that can inform how we think about the difference between nature and humans?
The term “Mother Nature” reinforces the idea that both women and nature should be subjugated
I think you posted this tongue in cheek but it's tosh. The reason it's called 'mother' nature is that it's recognising that women are the creators and nurturers of life, which has been understood for tens or even hundreds of thousands of years.
*’Nature’ is undefined. Are we part of nature or not?
Depends on context. In some, nature is defined as that which is not human.
I always believed the term Mother Nature was used as it represents life giving and fertility such as a female, seems everything nowadays upsets someone. Personally, I will still use the term Mother Nature.
As intelligent as we may be to make stuff such as computers, cars etc.. we are generally far too stupid and selfish..
It doesn't really take that much for a society to implode. Look what happens when we have an apparent fuel / toilet roll shortage.
When climate change really starts to bite us in the not too distant future it's all going to go a bit distopian..
It’s funny watching a bunch of atheists arguing about the meaning of human existence 🙂
Always worth looking at this as an example of mother nature at her worst .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event . Decent overview but underplays just how unpleasant most of the earth's land surface after ambient temperature elevated to 35-40C
Climata change that we see won't kill all life on earth, and no more than an ice age would, but it will make life very unpleasant for billions of people, including those countries we call 1st world
wobbliscott
Full MemberThe big difference with us is that we have the brain power and technological capability to change our environment to suit us therefore stopping in its tracks survival of the fittest and the process of evolution.
Specifically on this, we don't have that power at all, as I eluded, over time evolution will still continue and it'll change us, the human race isn't a constant. It's a bit short sighted and I think egomaniacal to believe we are somehow beyond nature I think.
We are nature, imo. And we'll soon know that when a meteor, volcano or some other natural event decides to put us in our place. We can quite easily get knocked off our position of power tomorrow.
Being the king of the jungle doesn't mean you stay there forever, no matter how powerful you perceive yourself to be. A mistake many have made I'd suggest.
It’s funny watching a bunch of atheists arguing about the meaning of human existence 🙂
*must not feed*
I find the concept nature being good or evil strange too. There's not really a morality it in, it's another thing that just is, something that is there to keep mixing things up so they don't stay the same.
Nature is really just the force to mix up the chemistry of the universe and see what comes out of it. This mixing process determines that everything has limited time imo.
Enjoy it while it lasts. 😆
Depends on context. In some, nature is defined as that which is not human.
Of course, I should have made it clear I was asking/referring to the context of wobbliscott’s argument, as his characterization of nature as ‘evil’ seemed to exclude himself/humanity. But if it included us, then what is ‘good’? Because otherwise how is ‘evil’ characterised without ‘good’?
ie did wobbliscott just invent or discover God? And did you (Molgrips) conceive of humans as in someway the divine arbiters of what is ‘good and bad/better or worse’
I’ll state my case in that I tend in matters of assessment to differentiate between objective and subjective. ie if humans were to disappear then it would be objectively better in the medium/long-term for global biodiversity, background extinction-rate, pollution and animal-suffering.
And no, that family of rats/badgers/orangutans/dolphins/corals whom/whatever will not likely have the capacity to sit around a fire and tell generational stories to each othe about what it was like before when humans were here, and what it it now is like after they were gone, or when it’s like that they’ve gone.
But they and the biosphere are better off *objectively*. They’re just not better off *subjectively* from a certain human point of view.
But how bloody conceited and shortsighted of us humans to think that ‘better off’ for other species/environments only ever occurs if we say that it does?
Is this a nihilism thread? This is always good for perspective..
*correction
what it was like before when humans were here, and what it now is like after they are were gone
(Note to self: 15 min edit window vs dictating vs making toast, choose one or the other you’re not equipped for both)
must not feed
Am I a troll for even mentioning religion? I just think this would be a very different discussion if it were being had by a bunch of believers in various faiths and it’s interesting how taking a god out of the equation makes it quite hard to ascribe any special meaning to human existence.
Am I a troll for even mentioning religion?
No, but what you said and the way that you said it was trollish (or came over that way).
That’s all.
I wrote a long answer which roughly summarised would be: the OPs question and caveats are as stupid and flawed as this website for its tendency to crash the browser.
If it’s aiming to justify living life to the max rather than worrying about the future in some climate change way - climate change does and will affect those alive today, don’t think of it as saving the human race forever - it’s protecting humans who are alive during your own lifetime.
@p7eaven you should join @SaxonRider and I on bike rides, this is the kind of thing we talk about.
And did you (Molgrips) conceive of humans as in someway the divine arbiters of what is ‘good and bad/better or worse’
Not divine, no, the opposite. We are and can only be self-referential, so humans are the only ones who can decide what's good and what's not, of course.
how taking a god out of the equation makes it quite hard to ascribe any special meaning to human existence
I don't think it's hard at all - we can give it any meaning we like. I choose my own meaning which is to have a good time and help others have a good time, without doing too many things that people don't like.
But they and the biosphere are better off *objectively*.
Are they though? Who's to decide that increased biodiversity is 'good'? Humans have decided that it is, but that's only relatively recent, and is fairly sentimental. Not that sentiments aren't important - in my view they're all we really have.
Prof Brian Cox explained why, as I already said.
Have you got a source for that? I'd love to read the explanation.
Wouldn't it be cool to have an artificial intelligence evolution simulation where we can set the conditions for a specific species to evolve intelligence to match our own and/or beyond? Or of course simulate where our own evolution might go.
What if we swapped humans with Giraffes?
Or what would happen to livestock, and all the other animals we've been interfering with the breeding of for thousands of years.
I think you posted this tongue in cheek but it’s tosh. The reason it’s called ‘mother’ nature is that it’s recognising that women are the creators and nurturers of life, which has been understood for tens or even hundreds of thousands of years.
It wasn't me that said it, I was quoting Sarah Milner-Barry in my link :
And as she points out :
The idea that the Earth is a parental figure because it sustains us is a comforting analogy. But what we do not learn as children, and are often not taught as we age, is the harm caused by gendered and sexist language that reinforce gender stereotypes and hierarchies.
So your comment : "recognising that women are the creators and nurturers of life" simply reinforces gender stereotypes and hierarchies. Quite shameful really.
So your comment : “recognising that women are the creators and nurturers of life” simply reinforces gender stereotypes and hierarchies. Quite shameful really.
I don't see it that way. We don't refer to women as 'natures' it's the other way round. The phrase is portraying nature, an inert concept, as a mother therefore projecting ideas from women, not onto them.
The number of things that are actively oppressing women and forcing gender stereotypes into them is absolute enormous; the idea of 'mother nature' is very far down the list.
You tell that to Sarah Milner-Barry.
What's Brian Cox's rationale for there being no other intelligent life, anywher? I suppose it's the short time intelligent human life has existed on earth compared to 4,6 billion years and a bit of extrapolation? You can't really do that as you don't know how long intelligence will persist in some shape or form, despite a few wars along the way.
I recall an interesting articly on if there had been a previous intelligent society on earth would we know about it. The fossil record is patchy, and concentrated on where people don't live - if we all died tomorrow in 200 million years out principal exidence for widespread existance would be weird geochemical signatures.
Article on overpopulation, or rather overconsumption worth reading
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/nov/12/is-our-planet-overpopulated-we-ask-the-expert
Simply asking poor people in other countries to stop breeding seems less important than getting heavy consumers in the west to behave. UNless you want to medical science to stop improving
if we all died tomorrow in 200 million years out principal exidence for widespread existance would be weird geochemical signatures.
Depends how we died. If we all just fell down right now there'd be a pretty thick layer of fossils that some future palaeontologists would find straight away.
Simply asking poor people in other countries to stop breeding seems less important than getting heavy consumers in the west to behave.
It's a harder sell. But in any case, I think that they will stop on their own just as we have.