|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: turtoniturtoni Date: Apr 28, 2008 23:36
On Apr 29, 2:23 am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 28, 11:05 pm, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:
>
|
| Show full article (10.59Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: tgtg Date: Apr 29, 2008 03:11
On Apr 29, 2:36 am, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:> On Apr 29, 2:23 am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 28, 11:05 pm, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:>
All this is nonsense. Humans are not harmoniously part of the
ecosystem because there are too many of us. There's nothing that we do
that would be a problem if there were .3 billion humans instead of 6.3
billion. You don't need to get all mystical to use a condom.
-tg
>
>> It is easy to interpret this idea as kooky unless one takes a closer
>> look. When I studied it I seemed to get the impression that some
>> radical...
|
| Show full article (10.47Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX Date: Apr 29, 2008 07:14
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:05:45 -0700, turtoni wrote:
> Deep ecology is a recent branch of ecological philosophy (ecosophy) that
> considers humankind an integral part of its environment.
Of interest here is that when a field of study attempts to become more
inclusive in it's consideration, it is defined as a "branch".
Be that as it may, here is the center of the storm...
> Humans have no right (to reduce this richness and diversity) except to
> satisfy vital human needs."
Not a good approach. The concept of "right", which is not well defined
here, implies the problem is a more legal than the stone cold pragmatic
it actually is. It also implies that the human species must act from some
very ill defined position of non-self interest. I suppose to be defined
by a new order of priests, seers and power brokers from this "recent
branch".
> Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and
> the situation is rapidly worsening."
|
| Show full article (2.31Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: tata Date: Apr 29, 2008 07:33
On Apr 29, 6:11 am, tg earthlink.net> wrote:> On Apr 29, 2:36 am, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:
>>> On Apr 29, 2:23 am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:>
>>> On Apr 28, 11:05 pm, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:>
> All this is nonsense. Humans are not harmoniously part of the
> ecosystem because there are too many of us.
Or it's the other way around . . . there are too many of us because we
humans have not and do not perceive ourselves as harmonious parts of
the universe.
> There's nothing that we do
> that would be a problem if there were .3 billion humans instead of 6.3
> billion. You don't need to get all mystical to use a condom.
>
> -tg
>
|
| Show full article (10.46Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: tata Date: Apr 29, 2008 07:35
On Apr 29, 10:14 am, ZerkonX X.net> wrote:> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:05:45 -0700, turtoni wrote:
>> Deep ecology is a recent branch of ecological philosophy (ecosophy) that
>> considers humankind an integral part of its environment.
>
> Of interest here is that when a field of study attempts to become more
> inclusive in it's consideration, it is defined as a "branch".
>
> Be that as it may, here is the center of the storm...
>
>> Humans have no right (to reduce this richness and diversity) except to
>> satisfy vital human needs."
>
> Not a good approach. The concept of "right", which is not well defined
> here, implies the problem is a more legal than the stone cold pragmatic
> it actually is. It also implies that the human species must act from some
> very ill defined position of non-self interest. I suppose to be defined
> by a new order of priests, seers and power brokers from this "recent
> branch".
> ...
|
| Show full article (2.49Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Lord VetinariLord Vetinari Date: Apr 29, 2008 13:02
"turtoni" fastmail.net> wrote in message
news:f45cab18-3bef-42d5-ac81-4543037ac302@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
: odd that we're so self-destuctive. perhaps we're meant to be like
: that. sad but seemingly true. a reflection of our own life cycle? but
: we have philosophically invented ways to protect oursleves from
: ourselves; like law and order.
:
: in theory we should hopefully arrive at some balance in the future but
: will it still be worth living?
Three little things.
One, unless you have a good reason (like making detailed responses to the
entire posting) one should trim out the parts that one isn't responding to.
Two, "law and order" is merely an outgrowth of our natural tendency to what
is generally referred to as "ethics" (we were ethical long before religion,
or at least organized religion existed).
Three, damn it, I've forgotten what three was. Any help?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Lord VetinariLord Vetinari Date: Apr 29, 2008 13:42
> On Apr 29, 10:14 am, ZerkonX X.net> wrote:>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:05:45 -0700, turtoni wrote:
>>> Deep ecology is a recent branch of ecological philosophy (ecosophy)
>>> that
>>> considers humankind an integral part of its environment.
[snip]
>> This issue works itself. There is no 'end' to it and no final answer
>> except it's own ongoing process. Finding a moral and behavioral
>> foundation upon which an individual can take a stand in all of this, is
>> part of this process. What it comes down to, as it always does, is: not
>> absolute 'right' and absolute 'wrong' but 'what now makes sense'.
>>
>> IMHO.
>
> Sorry . . . no branch of philosophy will ever solve...
|
| Show full article (0.98Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
