It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Global Warming - a PHILOSOSPOHICAL approach

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   
This might hurt my head a bit, as me and philosophy don't usually get along.

What if.........the earth uses cyclical warming and cooling as a way to maintain some kind of equalibrium? What if it is a defense mechanism that it uses to protect some life on earth, while others perish? We all seem to believe that GLOBAL WARMING is man made (well, not all of us), but what if it is really the earth defending itself from over population or deforrestation or strip mining? What if its an event necessary for life to continue here on earth?

Should we really stand in its way and try to change the climate?

OK, thats enough for me. I have to go take an aspirin, BUT would love to hear the input of others. Philosophically speaking ofcourse. This thread is not looking for charts and graphs, just thought provoking insight.




posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   
OK, I'll bite.

Unless the earth is forcing humans to industrialise, it's just a case of cause and effect (taking the accepted scientific viewpoint).

But, if we ignore human effects all together, and just focus on cycles, then again, you appear to be giving the earth some sort of purpose. For example, ice-age cycles are just a natural response to changing variables.

You seem to be taking a very teleological viewpoint here, almost giving the earth mind and purpose. If I fall off a ocean liner into the sea and drown, it's not because the sea wants me dead. I think they call this line of thinking 'promiscuous teleology'.

Now, I think such cycles contribute to the dynamic nature of life on earth, but there is no underlying purpose in things like ice-age cycles and El Ninos.

Unless you are a pagan-type I suppose...

[edit on 30-11-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin


Now, I think such cycles contribute to the dynamic nature of life on earth, but there is no underlying purpose in things like ice-age cycles and El Ninos.

[edit on 30-11-2007 by melatonin]


But are you sure of this??????? This is why my philosophy professor and I did not get along. He was a huge believer that there never is/was a right answer to any question. When I challenged him with math, he would get mad at me and tell me not to bring science into his class.


[edit on 30-11-2007 by traderonwallst]



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

...but there is no underlying purpose in things like ice-age cycles and El Ninos.

[edit on 30-11-2007 by melatonin]


That is just a ridiculous statement. Just because we haven't defined a purpose doesn't mean there isn't one or wasn't one. Take the appendix for example.

I am no biologist, but I'm fairly sure that most organisms have a way of regulating themselves to a certain extent - heart, lungs, kidneys, etc. Why should the Earth, a virtually closed system, be any different in terms of regulation?

Obviously, the Earth is not 'forcing' people to industrialize but that does not mean that it can't react to it in some fashion. Particularly when we are talking about chemical reactions and atmospheric conditions.

If I pinch you long and hard enough, I guarantee you will react, if only as a defense mechanism. It's entirely possible that 'Global Warming' is the same thing. Whether the stimulus is natural or not (man-made or not), it could still be simply a natural reaction to conditions that exist - part of the process of creating equilibrium.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
WOW.....Kosmic we have to stop agreeing like this. People might talk!



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by traderonwallst
He was a huge believer that there never is/was a right answer to any question. When I challenged him with math, he would get mad at me and tell me not to bring science into his class.


Heh, I think you realise the problem with many modern philosophers and their virus of post-modernism. Not all philosophers are so useless though.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
That is just a ridiculous statement. Just because we haven't defined a purpose doesn't mean there isn't one or wasn't one. Take the appendix for example.


I think you're missed that I was focusing on teleology. I'm sure the heart has a function (i.e., pumping blood), but it doesn't have a purpose in the sense that it thinks 'oh well, now I don't want to pump blood' when you have a heart attack. Or that the earth thinks 'oh well, these humans have pumped out too much CO2 and therefore I must trap more heat'. It just does. That's what CO2 does, the earth has no influence on that, it's just physics.

Moreover, when orbital variations alter, climate alters. The earth doesn't think 'time to warm up' or 'time to cool down'.


I am no biologist, but I'm fairly sure that most organisms have a way of regulating themselves to a certain extent - heart, lungs, kidneys, etc. Why should the Earth, a virtually closed system, be any different in terms of regulation?


But that would be like saying that water has a purpose in becoming ice at 0'C. It just does. I don't think the earth is an 'organism'.

I don't doubt that there is a sort of interacting ecosystem on the earth with properties such as carbon cycles etc, but purpose? Nah. I don't think the carbon cycle developed for any reason other than chemistry. We can view it as having emergent types of self-regulation and feedbacks, but it is not a purposeful system.

It's sort of the same thinking that a puddle might have in believing the hole in which it finds itself has a purpose to house puddles.

Even Lovelock rejects teleology in his Gaia hypothesis.

[edit on 30-11-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Very disappointed I did not get more input on this. guess since there was no real controversy everyone past over it.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 05:35 AM
link   
During my immediate past life as I stood in my field being rained on every day and being cold and miserable, I thanked my lucky stars that the answer could come out of my mouth and my bottom at the same time. Methane...

All my cow mates and I decided to come back as humans and enjoy the benefits of a warmer if somewhat wetter place. We had a long term strategy you see, to be able to sail up wall street and enjoy the relics of new york from our newly launched global solar sailor boats.

Unfortunately I came back too soon and it's still raining and not yet warm enough. Next time I get a new life I'm going to have a word with mother earth (another one) and come back as an Albatros. That way I can fly where I like and since even more of the earth will be covered with water I can eat whenever I want as well.

And being equiped with the ultimate weapon (gull bottom) I will be able to fly over whoever I like to and drop my load were it will do most good.

Maybe on some cows in the few remaining fields who came up with this silly idea in the first place.

Very silly I know, I am just having a few light hearterd moments. Wall st Great thread idea.......



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join