Home | Community | Message Board

Shroom Supply
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds, Feminized Cannabis Seeds, High THC Strains, USA West Coast Strains   North Spore Injection Grain Bag, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,198
man v. nature * 2
    #25028659 - 02/28/18 02:26 PM (3 years, 10 months ago)

Nature may appear brutal from a certain perspective -- even "red in tooth and claw" -- but it strikes me that it could possibly still be a more intelligent system than what man has created from scratch. Throughout history, civilization has generated more murder and mayhem than any ecosystem ever documented, with the notable exception of great extinction events -- one of which, I must point out, is right now being perpetrated by man and his institutions.

Does this seem to you to be a valid observation? Who is wiser: Nature or man? (And please, do not get carried away with the tired assertion that man is a part of Nature. I present this dichotomy strictly as between the biological world (which includes tribal societies) and man's artificial sedentary societies with their institutions and ideologies. Let's not get caught up in a game of semantics.)

I think this quote by Marvin Harris is relevant:

Quote:

For the past five or six millennia, nine-tenths of all the people who ever lived did so as peasants or as members of some other servile caste or class. With the rise of the State, ordinary men seeking to use nature's bounty had to get someone else's permission and had to pay for it with taxes, tribute, or extra labor. The weapons and techniques of war and organized aggression were taken away from them and turned over to specialist-soldiers and policemen controlled by military, religious, and civil bureaucrats. For the first time there appeared on earth kings, dictators, high priests, emperors, prime ministers, presidents, governors, mayors, generals, admirals, police chiefs, judges, lawyers, and jailers, along with dungeons, jails, penitentiaries, and concentration camps. Under the tutelage of the state, human beings learned for the first time how to bow, grovel, kneel, and kowtow. In many ways the rise of the state was the descent of the world from freedom to slavery.  --from Cannibals and Kings




Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 30,787
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25029550 - 02/28/18 06:57 PM (3 years, 10 months ago)

well we have to keep studying nature, and becoming more in tune with it to extend the cultural imperative which is really to tell stories so that we never forget nature and our history in it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/11/05
Posts: 8,062
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25029875 - 02/28/18 09:06 PM (3 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Nature may appear brutal from a certain perspective -- even "red in tooth and claw" -- but it strikes me that it could possibly still be a more intelligent system than what man has created from scratch. Throughout history, civilization has generated more murder and mayhem than any ecosystem ever documented, with the notable exception of great extinction events -- one of which, I must point out, is right now being perpetrated by man and his institutions.

Does this seem to you to be a valid observation? Who is wiser: Nature or man? (And please, do not get carried away with the tired assertion that man is a part of Nature. I present this dichotomy strictly as between the biological world (which includes tribal societies) and man's artificial sedentary societies with their institutions and ideologies. Let's not get caught up in a game of semantics.)

I think this quote by Marvin Harris is relevant:

Quote:

For the past five or six millennia, nine-tenths of all the people who ever lived did so as peasants or as members of some other servile caste or class. With the rise of the State, ordinary men seeking to use nature's bounty had to get someone else's permission and had to pay for it with taxes, tribute, or extra labor. The weapons and techniques of war and organized aggression were taken away from them and turned over to specialist-soldiers and policemen controlled by military, religious, and civil bureaucrats. For the first time there appeared on earth kings, dictators, high priests, emperors, prime ministers, presidents, governors, mayors, generals, admirals, police chiefs, judges, lawyers, and jailers, along with dungeons, jails, penitentiaries, and concentration camps. Under the tutelage of the state, human beings learned for the first time how to bow, grovel, kneel, and kowtow. In many ways the rise of the state was the descent of the world from freedom to slavery.  --from Cannibals and Kings







I see obvious differences, but not inherent ones. All those words comes down to who is and is not in charge. Going with your dichotomy nature can be a very destructive yet cold unthinking thing and with much smaller populations it's easier to see how a person may feel master of their domain. I can agree with the first postulate by seeing the willfulness of man in contrast to the indifferent workings of the "weather" and the second with the caveat that tribes had/have leaders but also in many cases a more priestly figure of authority and likely various other figures. The sense of belonging and cohesiveness got left behind for the average person but the system persisted and evolved. The best warriors and the wisest elders, then masters of trade and language and stars, people to extend the leaders authority, etc. It just kinda spiraled into what it is today as these social systems evolved. Of course there's no proof they were more noble or innocent back then. That's probably where our politicians and priests of the day skill set comes from. Craftiness, lying, manipulating. I'm not saying everyone does/did react in that manner, but it's possible therefore likely. Also the mind's capacity for creative thinking, visual and auditory memory, perceptiveness of underlying causes (logic), language and more that we imagined ourselves as animals and began injecting the thought process into that imagination.

I think it's worthwhile to see the differences in perceptions of ourselves and nature, but to also question them. I don't see it being a tired assertion but one which might add to the relevancy of the subject. To answer your question of who is wiser, nature is not wise it just is. Man is wise only when he is humble because he knows he is of nature.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


“I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather did. Not screaming in terror like the passengers in his car."


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #25030812 - 03/01/18 05:01 AM (3 years, 10 months ago)

I find two things wrong with your OP.

1. Even a cursory look over the predatory-prey dynamics that have spontaneously formed in nature shows us how heartless nature is, our modern societies for all their faults are in my opinion at least, better equipped to promote human welfare than raw nature.

2. The state is a product of economic development via the increasing division of labour, the state doesn’t force these things, it adopts them post hoc.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineFreedom
Will swim for food
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,183
Last seen: 1 month, 13 days
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #25032335 - 03/01/18 11:49 PM (3 years, 10 months ago)

What exactly do you mean by "intelligent"?

It sounds to me like you're asking if nature is more moral than man.

I think it is not just semantics, but that humans are clearly and obviously part of nature. Its very strange to me to compare just humans to the rest of nature - yes we have unique characteristics, but so do all the other forms. How can we just lump all the trillions of other forms into one group and average out their intelligence or morality or any other trait?

Perhaps there is a good reason for us to have domesticated and enslaved ourselves.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 6,610
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25032606 - 03/02/18 02:53 AM (3 years, 10 months ago)

Ecosystems are pretty full of murder and mayhem on a smaller scale, with ants brutally tearing apart grubs and whatnot.

I think it may be a valid observation that man has his thumb on the syringe and there's a needle with some bad stuff being injected into the Earth.

Nature is happier, more content, resilient, easy going, able to endure, man is fickle, sometimes. A snake can stare at a wall for 3 days and smile all the while, it can be without bother doing it. Or at least appear to be.

Who is wiser though?

Well, we have utilised nature, we have changed how it is to better suit our needs and without our touch it would not be as it is in our cities and our technologies. In the context of electricity and magnetism I think mankind is the wiser of the two, when it come to how to endure I think nature is the wiser of the two.

Tutelage doesn't sound all that bad in the right circumstances, I mean I wouldn't mind my taxes going towards my tuition being paid.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleGreen7Alchemist
Draco
I'm a teapot User Gallery

Registered: 12/28/16
Posts: 2,171
Loc: Mayami
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25032893 - 03/02/18 09:18 AM (3 years, 10 months ago)

nature.


--------------------
Trip 7
THUG - ISLAM - BIBLE
streets disciple
CHRIST IS KING.

Sunshine said: "Gangsters are super heroes"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleJokeshopbeard
Humble Student

Registered: 11/30/11
Posts: 26,088
Loc: Deep in the system Flag
Re: man v. nature [Re: blingbling] * 2
    #25032924 - 03/02/18 09:38 AM (3 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

blingbling said:
1. Even a cursory look over the predatory-prey dynamics that have spontaneously formed in nature shows us how heartless nature is, our modern societies for all their faults are in my opinion at least, better equipped to promote human welfare than raw nature.



Fucking LOL. I find this hysterical.

Modern society is absolutely horrific in regards to the promotion of human welfare. I'm sure the brainwashing provided wants us to believe that 'it's best for us all', but to that I say; LIKE FUCK.

Fuck everything to do with 'man's artificial sedentary societies with their institutions and ideologies'. Fuck em and all that they stand for.

The rest of my life will be geared towards getting as far away from that disastrously unhealthy shit as possible.


--------------------
Let it be seen that you are nothing. And in knowing that you are nothing... there is nothing to lose, there is nothing to gain. What can happen to you? Something can happen to the body, but it will either heal or it won't. What's the big deal? Let life knock you to bits. Let life take you apart. Let life destroy you. It will only destroy what you are not.
--Jac O'keeffe


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblecez
Registered: 08/04/09
Posts: 5,809
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25033106 - 03/02/18 11:27 AM (3 years, 10 months ago)

Man has the ability to overcome the tendencies nature has ascribed to him.  Man > nature.

Man’s cognition is the essence that came from an illusion that came from the primordial essence.  First was space/emptiness/nonexistence, then creation, then man. 

In identifying with space/emptiness/nonexistence, man is reunited with what created nature.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,198
Re: man v. nature [Re: Jokeshopbeard] * 1
    #25033780 - 03/02/18 04:18 PM (3 years, 10 months ago)

I'm more in tune with your perspective, Jsb. Civilization surely has a lot to offer, and it's not going anywhere anytime soon, but the planet had remained pretty well balanced, perfectly sustainably, for literally billions of years, only interrupted by great extinctions, until civilization appeared around 8000 BC. In 10,000 years we have exploded the balance of this planet to the point of crisis, taking out millions of species, and destroying the Earth's living habitats -- which of course are our own habitats just as much as they are those of others. It will take some miracle to fix this mess given the population size.

In that sense, it seems the various ecosystems, when they are healthy, operate more successfully over the long term than man's system of institutions and their associated ideological framework. That is what I meant when I suggested that man has not yet surpassed nature in terms of having a balanced, sustainable system, and that nature is therefore more fundamentally intelligent.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 6,610
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25033898 - 03/02/18 05:07 PM (3 years, 10 months ago)

Given the amount of time we've been here's that's like asking who is 'more intelligent', a toddler or a professor?

I do still think we've squandered such chances to advance ourselves sustainably.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 30,787
Re: man v. nature [Re: sudly]
    #25033988 - 03/02/18 05:58 PM (3 years, 10 months ago)

well don't just give up


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,198
Re: man v. nature [Re: sudly]
    #25034728 - 03/02/18 11:10 PM (3 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Given the amount of time we've been here's that's like asking who is 'more intelligent', a toddler or a professor?






Well that's the crux of my point. The entire myth or ethos of civilization is that it constitutes an improvement, in every way, over hunting and gathering, and nomadism, etc. When in fact, if we move this veil aside a bit, we see that this isn't quite the case. But it's relevant because the vast majority believes, unquestioningly and unthinkingly, that this myth is proper and accurate. And of course relatedly, a sea slug is billions of times more complex than our fastest supercomputer, even still. So there is an objective side of this coin which represents, in essence, a reality in which the biosphere of Earth has been fine-tuning itself for almost four billion years, and the cultural complexification of some human societies has been developing for only the last eight or ten thousand. Little wonder we have so many catastrophic problems.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 1 year, 3 days
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25035061 - 03/03/18 03:37 AM (3 years, 10 months ago)

People of the ancient times thought our resources were unlimited. That I see as the main problem which did lead to those wrong foundations of 'culture'.

But there s hope.
We know, the sun will explode in about 5 billion years.
If humans would be an overly greedy species, chances are high, that they don't manage to settle out in space (in time), because they cause too many conflicts and problems on earth, so they extinguish themselves or the exploding sun will take care of them. Problem solved.
We only can survive, when we manage to leave this planet. We have enough time, but this time is limited still.
People only will manage to settle on other planets, if they don't destroy themselves before. So they either kind of balance themselves out, which includes forms of cooperation with themselves and their habitat, or they go extinct.

Or ... AI takes over. Then we would have to think about of what value we are compared to them to have the proper right to exist anyhow.
edit: Else, chances are high that AI will take care of us in the one or the other way.


Edited by BlueCoyote (03/03/18 03:44 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
Re: man v. nature [Re: Jokeshopbeard]
    #25035088 - 03/03/18 04:26 AM (3 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Jokeshopbeard said:
Quote:

blingbling said:
1. Even a cursory look over the predatory-prey dynamics that have spontaneously formed in nature shows us how heartless nature is, our modern societies for all their faults are in my opinion at least, better equipped to promote human welfare than raw nature.



Fucking LOL. I find this hysterical.

Modern society is absolutely horrific in regards to the promotion of human welfare. I'm sure the brainwashing provided wants us to believe that 'it's best for us all', but to that I say; LIKE FUCK.

Fuck everything to do with 'man's artificial sedentary societies with their institutions and ideologies'. Fuck em and all that they stand for.

The rest of my life will be geared towards getting as far away from that disastrously unhealthy shit as possible.




How much time have you spent in the wilderness? I only ask because most people that spend a lot of time in nature and among wild animals tend to think we have it pretty easy in comparison.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25035107 - 03/03/18 04:57 AM (3 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
I'm more in tune with your perspective, Jsb. Civilization surely has a lot to offer, and it's not going anywhere anytime soon, but the planet had remained pretty well balanced, perfectly sustainably, for literally billions of years, only interrupted by great extinctions, until civilization appeared around 8000 BC. In 10,000 years we have exploded the balance of this planet to the point of crisis, taking out millions of species, and destroying the Earth's living habitats -- which of course are our own habitats just as much as they are those of others. It will take some miracle to fix this mess given the population size.

In that sense, it seems the various ecosystems, when they are healthy, operate more successfully over the long term than man's system of institutions and their associated ideological framework. That is what I meant when I suggested that man has not yet surpassed nature in terms of having a balanced, sustainable system, and that nature is therefore more fundamentally intelligent.




What do you think of the idea that the human race is like a seed pod in the sense that we take up a lot of energy to produce but we spread the genetic heritage of the organism to new worlds ie. we might be the ones that seed new planets with life. Would our environmental destruction be morally justified if we were to create new worlds?


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineBlue Wrench
Bolt Turner
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 08/16/17
Posts: 243
Last seen: 3 years, 6 months
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25035412 - 03/03/18 09:45 AM (3 years, 10 months ago)

Interestingly enough this is what the bible has been saying all along, mankind is stupid as shit compared to God. I mean if we are personifying the force of mother nature and calling it "wise" then we might as well agree it is synonymous with a supreme diety or "God."

Not trying to validate the bible or anything, just saying that observations of this sort are nothing new and your OP reminded me a lot of a sermon I heard when I was a kid in church, reminding the congregation that all the wisdom of man is inevitabley doomed towards failure. Although my experience was more to get a "So you better fucking get on your knees and beg forgiveness" sort of response.


--------------------
Bods Easy AF Link List

Most teks have too much bullshit. These methods by bod do not.


Edited by Blue Wrench (03/03/18 09:47 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,198
Re: man v. nature [Re: blingbling]
    #25035564 - 03/03/18 11:17 AM (3 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

blingbling said:
What do you think of the idea that the human race is like a seed pod in the sense that we take up a lot of energy to produce but we spread the genetic heritage of the organism to new worlds ie. we might be the ones that seed new planets with life. Would our environmental destruction be morally justified if we were to create new worlds?





But where does it stop? If all we do is grow for the sake of growth, we'll just go on to destroy other worlds too. But it occurs to me that, as one poster pointed out above, A.I. will be a major factor. It seems to me that man is not destined for the stars, but our cybernetic descendants would be perfectly suited to it. They could send out millions of robotic probes, whereas humans require a ridiculous degree of life support just for something so trivial as a single mission to Mars.


I am reminded of this bit by George Carlin:

Quote:

Ah, yeah. We're gonna go to Mars. And then of course we're gonna colonize deep space. With our microwave hot dogs and plastic vomit, fake dog shit and cinnamon dental floss, lemon-scented toilet paper and sneakers with lights in the heels. And all these other impressive things we've done down here. But let me ask you this: what are we gonna tell the intergalactic council of ministers the first time one of our teenage mothers throws their newborn baby into a dumpster? How are we gonna explain that to the space people? How are we gonna let them know that our ambassador was only late for the meeting because his breakfast was cold and he had to spend half an hour punching his wife around the kitchen? And what are they gonna think when they find out, its just a local custom, that over 80 million women in the Third world have had their clitorises forcibly removed in order to reduce their sexual pleasure so they won't cheat on their husbands? Can't you just sense how eager the rest of the universe is for us to show up?




Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineMeatSack
Stranger
I'm a teapot
Registered: 06/23/17
Posts: 227
Loc: The Netherlands Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
Re: man v. nature [Re: Blue Wrench]
    #25035567 - 03/03/18 11:18 AM (3 years, 10 months ago)

Get a cat, let it go outside, and hope it's not a complete pussy that doesn't hunt (or be lucky that you're not responsible for all those unnecessary deaths by having a cat lol), and you will find out how ruthless nature can be.
Those little fuckers pretty much torture anything they catch.
But it's not like they're purposely doing it, they're most likely just "playing" with their catch to make sure it's alive, and that it's something they can eat and that can't hurt them before they really dive in, and to keep their hunting skills up to par of course.
It's not like they're little psychopaths or something, it's all just instinct, programmed behavior that was needed in order for them to survive before they became our little helpers.

Something tells me that might be the case with humans too more often than not.
Even though most humans would claim they really have control over their own actions and they can explain the choices they make with logic, to me it seems like more often than not this is not the case and people are just doing things for whatever reason and try to come up with reasons for their behavior afterwards in order to be able to justify it.

Which leads me to the distinction a lot of people make between nature and us, as if we somehow stopped being part of nature just because we managed to figure out some more complicated things.
You might think it's semantics but I think the very fact that so many people seem to think we're so different from other animals and we're somehow not really part of nature anymore is causing us to overlook the cause of a lot of the problems we humans are causing, and you're obviously less likely to solve a problem if you don't know what's causing it.
We're actually even making ourselves sicker both physically and mentally by distancing ourselves from nature more and more, and by crating these artificial environments for us to live in, so I wouldn't say we're particularly wise. I don't know about other animals than us, but sometimes when I look at my cats I get the feeling that we're not really giving other animals the credit that I think they might deserve lol.

If anything I bet plants and/or fungi are probably wiser than any animal.


--------------------
“The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.” - Carl Sagan


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,198
Re: man v. nature [Re: Blue Wrench]
    #25035575 - 03/03/18 11:22 AM (3 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Blue Wrench said:
Interestingly enough this is what the bible has been saying all along, mankind is stupid as shit compared to God. I mean if we are personifying the force of mother nature and calling it "wise" then we might as well agree it is synonymous with a supreme diety or "God."

Not trying to validate the bible or anything, just saying that observations of this sort are nothing new and your OP reminded me a lot of a sermon I heard when I was a kid in church, reminding the congregation that all the wisdom of man is inevitabley doomed towards failure. Although my experience was more to get a "So you better fucking get on your knees and beg forgiveness" sort of response.





I am not referring to God when I use the word "Nature." Nature is self-contained and autonomous, and can evolve very much on its own.

Moreover, the notion I have put forward that man is not master of the natural world, and that we do not control Nature, goes completely against the Bible and any religious order affiliated with it. Your point doesn't make much sense to me.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 30,787
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25035770 - 03/03/18 01:03 PM (3 years, 10 months ago)

Pastoral nature is our fave, rolling hills, fruiting trees, a heard of sheep with lambs, baaa, baaaa...
This is the niche we have adapted with, along with fish and gardening - farming,
selections from nature that are both beautiful and healthy.
Some parts of nature are nasty, and some parts of humanity as well.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,198
Re: man v. nature [Re: redgreenvines]
    #25035870 - 03/03/18 01:46 PM (3 years, 10 months ago)

I might buy that, but one must realize that pastoralism and farming constitute a direct assault on the natural environment. Think of all the animals and plants that must be systematically destroyed in order for farming to be possible. The positive side which you discuss is offset by a negative and destructive side which is often ignored, glossed over or misunderstood. In any case, by any reasonable measure, it seems that, on the whole, man's experiment is running into a lot of crises, and it's far from clear whether man can remedy them on his own.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinethealienthatategod
retrovertigo
Female

Registered: 10/10/17
Posts: 1,835
Last seen: 2 months, 2 days
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #25036081 - 03/03/18 03:50 PM (3 years, 10 months ago)

man v. nature

technology v. biology

i call it

technology vs. freedom

we are surrounded by ubiquitous, inscrutable, advanced technologies that cause massive disruption to our psyche, environment and bodies. 

man is yet to invent anything that nature hasn't already invented.  i stand by and will defend this statement.

the characteristic difference between man and everything living on earth is that man has artificially created objects.  what heights could man have reached had he devoted the millennia of his developments to the natural rather than the artificial world?

the power of technology continues to grow exponentially, and its ability to assert control on the planet is rapidly increasing.  the gains technology provides do not improve the human condition.  further pains of technology are not predictable or manageable.  if the crisis is obvious it is far too late.

nature takes care of itself.  it is the exact opposite of technology.  in the absence of advanced technology man would live close to nature.
what have we sacrificed?

"progress" is a self-congratulatory myth.  it's difficult for most to loose faith in "progress"

an awareness of the true perniciousness of the technocratic path is needed to move people back to the primary source - nature.

Quote:

Our entire much-praised technological progress, and civilization generally, could be compared to an axe in the hand of a pathological criminal.  -- Albert Einstein




Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25036829 - 03/03/18 09:48 PM (3 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Quote:

blingbling said:
What do you think of the idea that the human race is like a seed pod in the sense that we take up a lot of energy to produce but we spread the genetic heritage of the organism to new worlds ie. we might be the ones that seed new planets with life. Would our environmental destruction be morally justified if we were to create new worlds?





But where does it stop? If all we do is grow for the sake of growth, we'll just go on to destroy other worlds too. But it occurs to me that, as one poster pointed out above, A.I. will be a major factor. It seems to me that man is not destined for the stars, but our cybernetic descendants would be perfectly suited to it. They could send out millions of robotic probes, whereas humans require a ridiculous degree of life support just for something so trivial as a single mission to Mars.


I am reminded of this bit by George Carlin:

Quote:

Ah, yeah. We're gonna go to Mars. And then of course we're gonna colonize deep space. With our microwave hot dogs and plastic vomit, fake dog shit and cinnamon dental floss, lemon-scented toilet paper and sneakers with lights in the heels. And all these other impressive things we've done down here. But let me ask you this: what are we gonna tell the intergalactic council of ministers the first time one of our teenage mothers throws their newborn baby into a dumpster? How are we gonna explain that to the space people? How are we gonna let them know that our ambassador was only late for the meeting because his breakfast was cold and he had to spend half an hour punching his wife around the kitchen? And what are they gonna think when they find out, its just a local custom, that over 80 million women in the Third world have had their clitorises forcibly removed in order to reduce their sexual pleasure so they won't cheat on their husbands? Can't you just sense how eager the rest of the universe is for us to show up?







I don’t mean to come off as pretentious, but I don’t think you or Carlin have fully grasped the ambiguity of life ie. you can have crackhead mothers dumping their babies and super intelligent AI at the same time, and each can be useful for spreading genetic information into the future in their own way. If AI go further into space then us I think that would be great, but I don’t think we would be far behind.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,198
Re: man v. nature [Re: blingbling] * 1
    #25037093 - 03/04/18 12:12 AM (3 years, 10 months ago)

I think what Mr. Carlin (and I) were trying to say is that perhaps man may not improve the cosmos by colonizing it, for a variety of reasons. I know this causes cognitive dissonance in people like you, but the fact of the matter is that it could possibly be the case.

And why, pray tell, do you imagine humans will follow A.I. entities into the cosmos? Not to get off topic, but do you see a future for biological man if an A.I. revolution -- a singularity -- takes place? I think that, no matter what happens, man's days (at least as biological beings) are numbered, personally.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/11/05
Posts: 8,062
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25037648 - 03/04/18 09:37 AM (3 years, 10 months ago)

People make a lot of assumptions about how AI will be but the potential for it seems limitless to me. It seems such predictions say more about an individual's imagination than likely realities.

Quote:

people like you




smh, whatever happened to speaking to the argument? This is why I don't spend much time in the political forum.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


“I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather did. Not screaming in terror like the passengers in his car."


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,198
Re: man v. nature [Re: Rahz]
    #25037708 - 03/04/18 10:32 AM (3 years, 10 months ago)

No personalism. I just mean people who believe that unlimited growth = progress.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/11/05
Posts: 8,062
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25037840 - 03/04/18 11:36 AM (3 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
I just mean people who believe that unlimited growth = progress.




Improvement, progress, these are subjective things which mean whatever you like them to mean. What makes you think the rest of the universe is any "better"? Humanity is a mixed bag. I don't claim to know, but best guess is that the universe is the same. We are it and it is us. It is you that is perceiving a dichotomy between your own nature and the rest of the universe. Cognitive dissonance?


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


“I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather did. Not screaming in terror like the passengers in his car."


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,198
Re: man v. nature [Re: Rahz]
    #25037993 - 03/04/18 12:55 PM (3 years, 10 months ago)

That doesn't make any sense to me. I never said anything about the universe being "better." What does that even mean? I also never said man was separate from nature. I drew a parallel between the self-regulated ecosystems and man's institutions for the sake of convenience. I perceive no real dichotomy between my own nature and that of the universe, and never said so.

Maybe bother about understanding my positions before you attack them?


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/11/05
Posts: 8,062
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25038126 - 03/04/18 01:58 PM (3 years, 10 months ago)

Doesn't make sense to me either, but

Quote:

perhaps man may not improve the cosmos by colonizing it




Maybe your definition of better is different from mine, but from the quote you quoted they seem the same. Blingbling didn't exactly say unlimited growth = progress (although subjectively it could be). He seemed to be suggesting that humans and other lifeforms colonize when they can because they can, like seeds. It stops when some other aspect of nature prevents it. There's no intelligence in nature being a self regulating system to whatever degree it is, it's just a product of competition and limited resources. Humans being more intelligent than the average bear (among other qualities) is what has allowed us to colonize the earth and become the primary candidate for the first brained species to create colonies beyond Earth. You seem to be conflating intelligence and wisdom which just makes things confusing, and again whatever homeostasis the Earth has experienced is primarily circumstantial, not wise.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


“I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather did. Not screaming in terror like the passengers in his car."


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,198
Re: man v. nature [Re: Rahz]
    #25038161 - 03/04/18 02:16 PM (3 years, 10 months ago)

I disagree. Nature strikes me as abundantly intelligent, so I am really at cross-purposes with everything you've written, but to get into the nitty-gritty of the nature of evolution would take us rather far afield. That said, I value your perspective, and appreciate your post.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,198
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25038170 - 03/04/18 02:22 PM (3 years, 10 months ago)

What I mean by "intelligent" is that Nature and evolution are not random processes, but unfold in an orderly and subtly structured way. I feel there is a dimension of order along with the chaos.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineBrendanFlock
Stranger

Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 3,158
Last seen: 6 hours, 29 minutes
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25038177 - 03/04/18 02:26 PM (3 years, 10 months ago)

I think you would need to be invincible to conquer nature fully.. and be able to fly..

This is like Niietzshes concept of the overman


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleFerdinando
Male

Registered: 11/15/09
Posts: 3,222
Re: man v. nature [Re: BrendanFlock]
    #25038397 - 03/04/18 04:17 PM (3 years, 10 months ago)

yes and maybe lend (on) how we succeeded if we suceeded

success is possible in many ways

taking care of weedds

putting positive things in the garden

meditating

going high

I am giving good pushes

I have also screwed up

I think there is infinite potential

I think the state can approac infinitely good (or infinitely positive).


--------------------
which is bad and which is good
dudelew and
dudelew

Nothing helps in the end like understanding the wisdom-producing aspects of our experience, that is the three charectistics


Edited by Ferdinando (03/05/18 05:56 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 30,787
Re: man v. nature [Re: Ferdinando]
    #25038682 - 03/04/18 06:41 PM (3 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Ferdinando said:
yes and maybe lend (on) how we succeeded if we suceeded

success is possible in many ways

taking care of weedds

putting positive things in the garden

meditating

going high

redgreenvines is a man of big success and he is sharing here

and I am giving good pushes

I have also screwed up

I think there is infinite potential

I think the state can approac infinitely good (or infinitely positive).



hey
please do not quote me that way, and use my name in context of success, I am no millionaire or anything.
please do not use my name to make your post meaningful.
we are each here on our own merit.
please.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleFerdinando
Male

Registered: 11/15/09
Posts: 3,222
Re: man v. nature [Re: redgreenvines]
    #25039678 - 03/05/18 05:44 AM (3 years, 10 months ago)

I'm sorry, I didn't think about that

we all did our best

man has more merit than dogs


--------------------
which is bad and which is good
dudelew and
dudelew

Nothing helps in the end like understanding the wisdom-producing aspects of our experience, that is the three charectistics


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleFerdinando
Male

Registered: 11/15/09
Posts: 3,222
Re: man v. nature [Re: Ferdinando]
    #25039684 - 03/05/18 06:15 AM (3 years, 10 months ago)

I think there is no limit to the merit we can have
or how much merit we can have

the more merit one has the better one has it (I think)

have a good day


--------------------
which is bad and which is good
dudelew and
dudelew

Nothing helps in the end like understanding the wisdom-producing aspects of our experience, that is the three charectistics


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleFerdinando
Male

Registered: 11/15/09
Posts: 3,222
Re: man v. nature [Re: Ferdinando]
    #25039982 - 03/05/18 11:02 AM (3 years, 10 months ago)

I think I have it OK now, redgreenvines


--------------------
which is bad and which is good
dudelew and
dudelew

Nothing helps in the end like understanding the wisdom-producing aspects of our experience, that is the three charectistics


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25041384 - 03/05/18 09:20 PM (3 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
No personalism. I just mean people who believe that unlimited growth = progress.




I never made that argument, your projecting.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25041418 - 03/05/18 09:32 PM (3 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
I think what Mr. Carlin (and I) were trying to say is that perhaps man may not improve the cosmos by colonizing it, for a variety of reasons. I know this causes cognitive dissonance in people like you, but the fact of the matter is that it could possibly be the case.

And why, pray tell, do you imagine humans will follow A.I. entities into the cosmos? Not to get off topic, but do you see a future for biological man if an A.I. revolution -- a singularity -- takes place? I think that, no matter what happens, man's days (at least as biological beings) are numbered, personally.




Ok, so you don’t want us to destroy the environment, but creating new ones in space is not on either? I would think that if one loves life that they would like there to be more of it no? Personally, i would like us to keep environmental degradation to a minimum and if we can, spread life to the stars. Unfortunately there are some trade offs that have to be made to achieve these two goals, trade offs that are likely best assessed on a case by case basis.

Regarding AI and humans in space, the only truthful thing I can say is that I don’t know what will happen. We don’t know how far AI will go. Anyway the future of the human race is extinction, whether that be through environmental degradation or maybe we will evolve into a new species that kills all remaining sapiens.So we agree on that at least.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblepineninja
Dream Weaver
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/18/14
Posts: 12,242
Loc: South Flag
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #25041437 - 03/05/18 09:38 PM (3 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
What I mean by "intelligent" is that Nature and evolution are not random processes, but unfold in an orderly and subtly structured way. I feel there is a dimension of order along with the chaos.




Maybe the point at which we began to ask the question was the very moment when an understanding of the order was turned into an unknowing chaos.

Ie the fact that we separate and question shows that we no longer understand ourselves.

The chaos is an unravelling of order and within that fog we now have the gall to question as if our lives depend on it.....and do.

Vs is confusion.
Reliant or not is where we are now.


--------------------
Just a fool on the hill.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/11/05
Posts: 8,062
Re: man v. nature [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #25041445 - 03/05/18 09:41 PM (3 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
What I mean by "intelligent" is that Nature and evolution are not random processes, but unfold in an orderly and subtly structured way. I feel there is a dimension of order along with the chaos.




Perhaps there is only chaos in the mind. Nature has parallels to intelligence, but to call it such seems at a lack for words. :wink:


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


“I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather did. Not screaming in terror like the passengers in his car."


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblepineninja
Dream Weaver
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/18/14
Posts: 12,242
Loc: South Flag
Re: man v. nature [Re: Rahz]
    #25041453 - 03/05/18 09:46 PM (3 years, 10 months ago)

Said it better than I could.:thumbup:


I know that DQ said he didn't want to see this as a point but I also feel its important.


--------------------
Just a fool on the hill.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds, Feminized Cannabis Seeds, High THC Strains, USA West Coast Strains   North Spore Injection Grain Bag, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* NATURE OF LORD-NATURE OF TEACHER dattaswami 555 4 06/04/05 10:03 AM
by Icelander
* Natural Selection Pressure on Humans
( 1 2 3 4 all )
psychomime 5,464 72 08/11/05 02:47 PM
by Icelander
* Welfare
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Demon 8,475 114 02/26/03 06:43 AM
by z@z.com
* Natural/Man Made
( 1 2 3 4 all )
SpecialEd 4,492 64 04/17/04 04:28 AM
by SpecialEd
* Let's define the word "natural"
( 1 2 3 all )
Dogomush 3,619 40 12/12/02 12:29 AM
by andrash
* Why do we exist? How? - A compilation of theories and ideology
( 1 2 3 all )
PerfectChaos 4,587 50 07/22/05 02:22 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* The nature of.. nature.
( 1 2 all )
RedHarvest 4,419 26 10/04/01 09:00 PM
by MrKurtz
* Dualistic nature of oneness ninjapixie 280 0 11/24/04 08:00 AM
by ninjapixie

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,354 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2022 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.048 seconds spending 0.014 seconds on 18 queries.