02 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettSo birds building nests are unnatural?
Creatures which adapt to their environment are natural. Creatures which adapt their entire environment to themselves are unnatural. Or, rather, they have fashioned an entirely unnatural environment for themselves.
Let me guess, you're going to hinge all your argument on the word "entire" although that's obviously false for humans.
02 Jun 11
Of course, the idea that hunter-gatherers are somehow more natural is just a consequence of post-colonial ethnocentrism. A direct descendent of the labeling of such cultures as savage and uncivilized, but given a romantic touch to make it sound more pallatable.
Rwingett hasn't caught on yet and I doubt he will.
02 Jun 11
Originally posted by PalynkaYes, I am. Many creatures adapt small parts of their environment to suit themselves. But a forest with a beaver dam is still a forest. A forest that has been clear cut with the intention of eliminating it and turning it into farms is no longer a forest.
So birds building nests are unnatural?
Let me guess, you're going to hinge all your argument on the word "entire" although that's obviously false for humans.
02 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettLocust plagues are unnatural, are they not?
Yes, I am. Many creatures adapt small parts of their environment to suit themselves. But a forest with a beaver dam is still a forest. A forest that has been clear cut with the intention of eliminating it and turning it into farms is no longer a forest.
02 Jun 11
Originally posted by PalynkaNo. There is no intentionality there and the damage is temporary. Mankind, however, knows that his activity is doing irreparable harm to the ecosystem (even though he may try not to acknowledge that fact). He knows that increased habitat loss is causing increased extinctions. He knows that his lifestyle is simply unsustainable and that his rapacious demands on the planet will eventually outstrip its ability to meet them.
Locust plagues are unnatural, are they not?
02 Jun 11
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettThere is "intention" to use the environment (in any possible sense that it could be used for locusts). That it destroys it is never the point for us either.
No. There is no intentionality there and the damage is temporary. Mankind, however, knows that his activity is doing irreparable harm to the ecosystem (even though he may try not to acknowledge that fact). He knows that increased habitat loss is causing increased extinctions. He knows that his lifestyle is simply unsustainable and that his rapacious demands on the planet will eventually outstrip its ability to meet them.
Now of course your views mean you've now pushed the requirement such that only beings with consciousness ("intention", in the sense that you obviously mean) can possibly be "unnatural", but then almost by definition they will always be unnatural as there is no animal who has no impact on the environment and no way humans can have no impact on the environment.
You see, the environment as a steady state is another myth that populates the imagery of views such as yours, but the environment is a dynamic system that is never at a steady state. Evolution marches on, always there. Always changing the way living organisms react to the environment. Always changing the impact such organisms have on the whole system. The notion of natural/unnatural speaks of a dichotomy that is just not there.
02 Jun 11
Originally posted by jaywill“...In the mean time we prudently should use money. ...”
[b]=====================================
I have to disagree with you here:
Have you ever done work for a wage i.e. money?
================================
Yes, of course I have worked for wages and possessed money.
And the passage that I quoted spoke of using money wisely.
It did not say do not use or possess money. ...[text shortened]... pse of the mammon of unrithteousness in the 18th chapter of the book of Revelation.[/b]
then money is not evil.
02 Jun 11
Originally posted by PalynkaNot so. I stated very early on the "premeditation", or intentionality, was the key word. Asteroid impacts which cause mass extinctions are natural events. Asteroids cannot alter their own course. Humans can.
There is "intention" to use the environment (in any possible sense that it could be used for locusts). That it destroys it is never the point for us either.
Now of course your views mean you've now pushed the requirement such that only beings with consciousness ("intention", in the sense that you obviously mean) can possibly be "unnatural", but then almo ...[text shortened]... ole system. The notion of natural/unnatural speaks of a dichotomy that is just not there.
02 Jun 11
Originally posted by rwingettThe point is never to destroy the environment. The negative side effect is not intentional, just unfortunately ignored.
Not so. I stated very early on the "premeditation", or intentionality, was the key word. Asteroid impacts which cause mass extinctions are natural events. Asteroids cannot alter their own course. Humans can.
02 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingett“...An unsustainable lifestyle that has increasingly alienated himself from nature while simultaneously depleting and destroying it. ...”
All of that is normal, or, more preferably, 'natural.' Mankind lived naturally for millions of years as a harmonious part of his surroundings. Since about 10,000 years ago, though, mankind has fashioned an increasingly unnatural lifestyle for himself. An unsustainable lifestyle that has increasingly alienated himself from nature while simultaneously depleting and destroying it.
that may cease to be true in a century or so from now when, finally, all energy is produced sustainably and all technology is made to work sustainably (this, in small part, is already beginning to happen). Humanity will learn the hard way and may cause a global environmental disaster first but will get there eventually.
02 Jun 11
Originally posted by PalynkaIf you know your behavior is causing a negative side effect and you repeatedly and intentionally continue with the exact same behavior then it amounts to much the same. Humans seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to obscure that fact from themselves.
The point is never to destroy the environment. The negative side effect is not intentional, just unfortunately ignored.
02 Jun 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonTechnology has led mankind to the brink of ruin, but he steadfastly maintains that the application of yet a little more technology will make things turn out alright in the end.
“...An unsustainable lifestyle that has increasingly alienated himself from nature while simultaneously depleting and destroying it. ...”
that may cease to be true in a century or so from now when, finally, all energy is produced sustainably and all technology is made to work sustainably (this, in small part, is already beginning to happen). Human ...[text shortened]... the hard way and may cause a global environmental disaster first but will get there eventually.
02 Jun 11
Originally posted by rwingett...and that is true because it would “will make things turn out all right in the end” providing it is all of the right kind of technology such as solar power, wind power, carbon-neutral technology, non-toxic chemical production, pollution free engines/factories etc.
Technology has led mankind to the brink of ruin, but he steadfastly maintains that the application of yet a little more technology will make things turn out alright in the end.
There is a long way to go but already such technologies are starting to be developed and it is only a matter of time before they are fully developed and implemented.
03 Jun 11
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhatever, just more of the same with you.
Once again you've avoided the salient points/questions of my post. No matter how painstakingly detailed the points are or how pointed the questions, you avoid them. Do you think there is any intellectually honesty in making an extremely vague (and false) claim to very specific points as you have here? It's yet another example of avoidance.
Evidently ...[text shortened]... orthright manner. If you had any integrity at all, you would have at least attempted to do so.
Kelly
03 Jun 11
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayLike insisting that you respond in an intellectually honest and forthright manner. Must be really off-putting for someone like you since you seem unable to do so.
Whatever, just more of the same with you.
Kelly
Still putting together that list of verses that you've specifically cited thus far to back up your points to support your claim that you "[gave] scripture" to support your position? No surprise that you've also avoided this request.
I only took a quick look through your posts on this thread, but I found none that cited any verses to support your position. What a surprise.
Are there no fundamentalist Christians with integrity? From what I can tell, they have no choice but to resort to intellectual dishonesty and evasiveness since their position is inherently incoherent. Yet another example here.