tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4279672263960519133.post2262699165637595940..comments2023-06-25T00:59:08.411-07:00Comments on Bobnoxious Thoughts: Climate Change: Human Dilemma & Moral ImperativeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04859327499732223696noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4279672263960519133.post-84715010436451719172011-06-26T21:11:48.052-07:002011-06-26T21:11:48.052-07:00Excellent rebuttal, John. Perhaps it's a parad...Excellent rebuttal, John. Perhaps it's a paradigm that I'm stuck in, but I can't break away from an anthropocentric perspective on this topic. Granting the evolution into something "different", it's still "us": "our" future selves. The sun's expansion is what I was referring to when I posit that galactic colonization is a necessity, at least to avoid the one known, guaranteed, threat to life on the planet. If we prioritize our survival over the integrity of our ecosystem, because it's our continued survival at stake, the ecosystem cannot be compromised to the point that it would reduce our chances of continued survival. Any human interference in the ecosystem that has the risk of minimizing our chances for survival, is unethical. I think we're arguing for the same thing, but from two very different directions, now that I re-read what we've both written, I'm just looking at ecological conservation from an anthropocentric standpoint, where what we do, MUST be good for us and not entail any risks to our continued, flourishing, survival.Bobhttp://bobnoxiousthoughts.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4279672263960519133.post-7285586163182597032011-06-25T14:57:17.601-07:002011-06-25T14:57:17.601-07:00Bob, I challenge the assumption that the most para...Bob, I challenge the assumption that the most paramount consideration should be "indefinite" survival of our species. Excluding any natural events which causes massive mammal extinction (solar flares, volcano eruptions, asteroids or gamma bursts) the assumed life span of the sun will limit life on this planet. However by then the human-mammal species will have either perished or evolved into something completely different.<br />The most paramount consideration of our species must be where our place is in the eco system of this planet, because only by this notion we are true to the nature of nature.<br /><br />It is also not "Any act that opposes our survival as a species or risks our demise as a species" which is "unethical", it is any act which prioritizes our survival as a species over the integrity of the global ecosystem (or selected subsystems) which is both unethical and utopia in terms of long term survival.<br /><br />Furthermore, the claim "we humans are the most important species on the planet by virtue of our sentience, sapience and our evolutionarily advanced stage as it regards our intellectual capabilities." is clearly disproved by the way we collectively behave. The human species is both the only species to knowingly destroy its only habitat in sight and doing this at a rate which demonstrated clear neglect for its own offspring.<br /><br />If the human species, at this point in time, does not develop a clear notion of the pitfalls of its current behavior, it is pointless to seek galactic expansion, as this will only relocate/expand our logical fallacy to the rest of the galaxy. The assumption that we can just continue the basic principle of our lifestyle while eating our way through the galaxy is another human delusions of grandeur - chance are that another species will see us as resource raiders and stomp on us like we stomp on locusts.<br /><br />While the approaches you suggest will prove to be helpful in the implementation of a future development strategy for this species, we'll first of all need to establish a global understanding of our place in the eco system - and that place isn't even one of "primus inter pares" - as George Carlin correctly put it: We're monkeys which are barely out of the jungle - nothing more, nothing less.John L. R.https://www.facebook.comnoreply@blogger.com