reply to post by caballero
but just because it would be logical to take up the enitre earth for the survival of our species doesnt mean its right.
I didn't expound very far into this subject matter, but I attempted to touch upon it if only to utterly refute the OP's claim that humanity is the
dumbest animal - because I recognize that humanity can understand their own behavior and modify it. We are stepping, perhaps not enough for some, away
from the concept of the Earth being under the complete dominion of mankind (which is a very biblical view) and closer to the understanding that we are
a part of a network of ecology. If we wish to see that ecology preserved, or at least propagated in some form into the future, then we need to take
steps and sacrifice some of our expansion or use of resources for that environment.
The level at which we do this, however, is a whole 'nother matter entirely and geared towards a level of discussion that this thread is not suited
My only point being, that humanity is not perfect. However, we are not outside of nature - but rather are a bit player in the grand tapestry of
life... be it just a passing species or a catalyst for upheaval and change.
its not logical for one species to coexsist with an opponent species.
Oh, I don't know about that. In the big picture, every individual and every species is in competition with each other. However, there's plenty of
examples of symbiosis and cooperation between competitors within nature. In many ways, competition in economics mirrors competition in the
environment. It's not unheard of for businesses to tag-team a strong competitor, or for one business to slightly alter it's model to draw success
off of another competitor's success - the synthesis of the two rivals combined products providing a dynamo effect.
We share this planet, we must treat our planet and its numerous species with respect and let them have a chance to evolve alongside us.
That would depend upon the situation. Should we not kill rats, and instead - respect them as they scurry through our food supplies? Should we not
celebrate the fact that the Smilodon is extinct, rather than respect it's right to hunt our family members as prey? The case of the spotted owl might
seem as though it's a good and noble pursuit to save their habitat, but what about the mosquito? We banned DDT largely on propaganda that it was
causing a thinning of eggshells - but that was at the cost of an impressive jump in the resulting malaria deaths. Sri Lanka once reported nearly three
million cases of malaria infection before the spraying of DDT, which dwindled to under a hundred in the years following it's application.
DDT does have un-ignorable environmental and developmental consequences... but how do you weight these against the cost of human life? Thus far, DDT
is still in use in some of the most malaria prone nations, but generally banned throughout the world. This is a descent compromise for now, but I
think we could do better.
And of course, you have to realize that allowing other species to evolve will ultimately mean they are better are securing resources. Humanity is, in
itself, a resource. While I don't think it's likely we'll ever see an apex predator evolve which feeds on mankind again so long as we dominate the
intelligence ballgame - we are still under threat of microbial predators, scavengers, and parasites. Their evolution could have disastrous effects for
Further, though it shouldn't be taken as sort of justification or consolation, human activity has changed the environment quite a bit - and the
strain it's put on many of the local species is actually spurring a sort of "Super Evolution". This doesn't mean that life is retaliating against
our action, but merely that our actions are increasing the frequency by which genetic drift and other mechanisms for evolution occur. Smaller and more
isolated populations make it easier for genetic variability to become segmented and easier to spread over an existing population.
There's also the possibility that we will create a new form of evolution by creating the natural selector for quickly evolving creatures, or those
capable of more easily modifying their behaviors. This will come at the detriment of our current biosphere, but in the process create a whole new one.
Further, the creation of artificial life which can guide it's evolution over the course of a single generation - or multiple times per generation may
give rise to a biosphere which is not purely organic nor synthetic, by a synthesis of both.
More of my thoughts on this process here.
However, I will say here that by backing off
and respecting the current biosphere too much, we may just be delaying or offsetting a much grander paradigm shift in life and evolution. Humanity may
just be the latest in a grand cycle of extinctions/cataclysms that, in the end, work out much more in favor of diversity and evolution than if we all
took the OP's advice and collectively ate a .38 caliber Tylenol.
[edit on 4-3-2009 by Lasheic]