Us humans...

[SanDimas]

Am I allowed a naked picture for my avatar?

Not if it's one of you.

NICE TO BE LOVED AND APPRECIATED

Mr Dave?

[PALM MOD]

I always thought Dypsis Dean and the Palm MOD were one and the same???

Pardon my innocence...Im new here.

Nope - definitely two different distinct multiple personalities of the same alter ego.

[Dypsisdean]

Survival of the fittest is useless if no one can survive so there is actually a pretty big incentive to do something. Ignorance is the problem. Ignorance of the fact that killing off too many species harms our own ability and chance to survive.

As far as how humans treat themselves and others, perhaps some day we can do enough genetic manipulation that we can get the human species to evolve beyond greed, hatred and ignorance.

Axel,

I'm really not trying to be difficult but isn't ignorance one of those aspects of human nature that I was implying will always be with us? Sure ignorance is the problem, but I could just as easily say (and I think I did) that human nature is the problem.

And as to who will be supervising this genetic manipulation to get us beyond greed, hatred, and ignorance - what if their human nature is not of that persuasion, and they are still controlling and greedy?

[Stevetoad]

Axel, if we kill off so much of the earths life that it dooms us, that is still the natural order of things. Just another failed life form. Odd are that we could kill off enough life to severely deplete our populations and then the whole life cycle starts over again. Much like a locust plague. If it wasn't humans that wiped out the dodo bird but say a swimming monkey that made its way over to that island and ate them all would it be "natures way" ? What is the real difference? Because we feel/know its wrong? Mother Nature is not loving, she's not all knowing, she's not mean, she's not judging, she know no wrong or right, she feels no mercy, she simply rewards the creatures that can adapt. Mother Nature would be the best buisiness owner ever. If you don't perform you get fired. It's harsh and blut but its the only way life can survive.

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

Survival of the fittest is useless if no one can survive so there is actually a pretty big incentive to do something. Ignorance is the problem. Ignorance of the fact that killing off too many species harms our own ability and chance to survive.

As far as how humans treat themselves and others, perhaps some day we can do enough genetic manipulation that we can get the human species to evolve beyond greed, hatred and ignorance.

Axel,

I'm really not trying to be difficult but isn't ignorance one of those aspects of human nature that I was implying will always be with us? Sure ignorance is the problem, but I could just as easily say (and I think I did) that human nature is the problem.

And as to who will be supervising this genetic manipulation to get us beyond greed, hatred, and ignorance - what if their human nature is not of that persuasion, and they are still controlling and greedy?

I am not disagreeing with you, I see it much the same way. But human nature is also the solution. If human nature was all just ignorance, then we'd get nowhere. Yet no matter how much crap happens and how much crap we do to each other, somehow, things get better. As for the dilemma of whether we could free ourselves of our own crap, remains to be seen if we could actually pull it off. As I quoted, some would call that the "rapture of the nerds".

Axel, if we kill off so much of the earths life that it dooms us, that is still the natural order of things. Just another failed life form. Odd are that we could kill off enough life to severely deplete our populations and then the whole life cycle starts over again. Much like a locust plague. If it wasn't humans that wiped out the dodo bird but say a swimming monkey that made its way over to that island and ate them all would it be "natures way" ? What is the real difference? Because we feel/know its wrong? Mother Nature is not loving, she's not all knowing, she's not mean, she's not judging, she know no wrong or right, she feels no mercy, she simply rewards the creatures that can adapt. Mother Nature would be the best buisiness owner ever. If you don't perform you get fired. It's harsh and blut but its the only way life can survive.

I get your point, and I actually agree we are not separate from nature, I think the opposite perspective is actually the troublesome one. But since we know that killing off too many species dooms us, then why do it?

[Stevetoad]

I'm not so sure that we have done anything (yet) to doom us. We are more likely to kill ourselves off over differing beliefs than clear cutting a forest for agriculture.

[Dypsisdean]

I get your point, and I actually agree we are not separate from nature, I think the opposite perspective is actually the troublesome one. But since we know that killing off too many species dooms us, then why do it?

Because it is in our nature. And around in circles we go.

I was thinking that any large overly successful mammal would eventually end up destroying the environment. It just happens to be us. Suppose that we never evolved, and instead the elephant, with a few key successful mutations, became a dominant and highly successful species - thereby populating the world as successfully as we have, with billions, or tens of billions, of elephants.

Well have you ever seen what elephants can do to a forest, or a small lake, etc. - pushing down large trees, and pooping up a storm in the waterways? Imagine what the environment would look like, the species destroyed. And it would only be that way because of their nature, nothing else - no lack of morality, and not because of their ignorance. But purely "natural." Just doing what was in their nature that allowed them to become the dominant mammal.

[pogobob]

I always thought Dypsis Dean and the Palm MOD were one and the same???

Pardon my innocence...Im new here.

The green guy is God, and he will make you extinct if you piss him off!

[Stevetoad]

I agree Dean.For all the plants and animals we have destroyed many have flourished. Look and rats. If not for us they would never be where they are today. It's simply survival of the fittest and we are in the unfortunate situation to not only be a huge impact but also feel bad about it. I also feel that we like to think that we are extremely important to the earth. We aren't. If we disappeared tomorrow nothing would miss us expect our pets. Life would go on and another animal would step up into our place. Same way you rarely see 2 top predictors in the same area. We filled a niche that makes it hard for competition to occurs. Once there were a few hominids fighting for our spot in the world and they failed while we prevailed and are now the top species on earth. Just the simple act of growing a garden changes evolution. If not for our "non native" plants that make up our gardens small birds and rodents would be more likely to be killed and eaten. Dam a river or build a house you changed the earth and effected evolution. Have a bird feeder or bird bath now those birds have a leg up because of you. No mater if you think your doing good or bad for the environment.

[Stevetoad]

I always thought Dypsis Dean and the Palm MOD were one and the same???

Pardon my innocence...Im new here.

The green guy is God, and he will make you extinct if you piss him off!

I carved a stone figure of him and sacrifice palms to him.

[PALM MOD]

I always thought Dypsis Dean and the Palm MOD were one and the same???

Pardon my innocence...Im new here.

The green guy is God, and he will make you extinct if you piss him off!

Or bring you back if you repent.

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

I get your point, and I actually agree we are not separate from nature, I think the opposite perspective is actually the troublesome one. But since we know that killing off too many species dooms us, then why do it?

Because it is in our nature. And around in circles we go.

I was thinking that any large overly successful mammal would eventually end up destroying the environment. It just happens to be us. Suppose that we never evolved, and instead the elephant, with a few key successful mutations, became a dominant and highly successful species - thereby populating the world as successfully as we have, with billions, or tens of billions, of elephants.

Well have you ever seen what elephants can do to a forest, or a small lake, etc. - pushing down large trees, and pooping up a storm in the waterways? Imagine what the environment would look like, the species destroyed. And it would only be that way because of their nature, nothing else - no lack of morality, and not because of their ignorance. But purely "natural." Just doing what was in their nature that allowed them to become the dominant mammal.

Nice image, a world overrun by elephants. Well, after "Planet of the Apes III" comes "Planet of the Elephants". I suspect in the end there's a lot more to it than just survival of the fittest, though.

I agree Dean.For all the plants and animals we have destroyed many have flourished. Look and rats. If not for us they would never be where they are today. It's simply survival of the fittest and we are in the unfortunate situation to not only be a huge impact but also feel bad about it. I also feel that we like to think that we are extremely important to the earth. We aren't. If we disappeared tomorrow nothing would miss us expect our pets. Life would go on and another animal would step up into our place. Same way you rarely see 2 top predictors in the same area. We filled a niche that makes it hard for competition to occurs. Once there were a few hominids fighting for our spot in the world and they failed while we prevailed and are now the top species on earth. Just the simple act of growing a garden changes evolution. If not for our "non native" plants that make up our gardens small birds and rodents would be more likely to be killed and eaten. Dam a river or build a house you changed the earth and effected evolution. Have a bird feeder or bird bath now those birds have a leg up because of you. No mater if you think your doing good or bad for the environment.

Hey Steve, are you denouncing the Prius driving, native gardening, whole Foods shopping while wallowing in white male affluent liberal guilt way of life ?

[Dypsisdean]

How's this?

What if you were told we could bring back most of the habitat and species that have disappeared in the last 100 years from DNA that is stored in various locations around the world. But in order to make it work, we would have to reduce the world population by half, go without electricity for 6 hours every day, eliminate most of the personal transportation system, and we would all live exclusively in massive high rise "mega-cities" to reduce our footprint on nature.

There would be a few other changes like a severely limited selection of food and beverage types, fabrics, jewelry, building materials, etc.

In exchange you would be guaranteed of living in modern comfort with the knowledge that you were giving the Earth back to countless species and assuring their continued survival. Any takers???

[Stevetoad]

How's this?What if you were told we could bring back most of the habitat and species that have disappeared in the last 100 years from DNA that is stored in various locations around the world. But in order to make it work, we would have to reduce the world population by half, go without electricity for 6 hours every day, eliminate most of the personal transportation system, and we would all live exclusively in massive high rise "mega-cities" to reduce our footprint on nature.There would be a few other changes like a severely limited selection of food and beverage types, fabrics, jewelry, building materials, etc.In exchange you would be guaranteed of living in modern comfort with the knowledge that you were giving the Earth back to countless species and assuring their continued survival. Any takers???

I get your point, and I actually agree we are not separate from nature, I think the opposite perspective is actually the troublesome one. But since we know that killing off too many species dooms us, then why do it?

Because it is in our nature. And around in circles we go.

I was thinking that any large overly successful mammal would eventually end up destroying the environment. It just happens to be us. Suppose that we never evolved, and instead the elephant, with a few key successful mutations, became a dominant and highly successful species - thereby populating the world as successfully as we have, with billions, or tens of billions, of elephants.

Well have you ever seen what elephants can do to a forest, or a small lake, etc. - pushing down large trees, and pooping up a storm in the waterways? Imagine what the environment would look like, the species destroyed. And it would only be that way because of their nature, nothing else - no lack of morality, and not because of their ignorance. But purely "natural." Just doing what was in their nature that allowed them to become the dominant mammal.

Nice image, a world overrun by elephants. Well, after "Planet of the Apes III" comes "Planet of the Elephants". I suspect in the end there's a lot more to it than just survival of the fittest, though.

I agree Dean.For all the plants and animals we have destroyed many have flourished. Look and rats. If not for us they would never be where they are today. It's simply survival of the fittest and we are in the unfortunate situation to not only be a huge impact but also feel bad about it. I also feel that we like to think that we are extremely important to the earth. We aren't. If we disappeared tomorrow nothing would miss us expect our pets. Life would go on and another animal would step up into our place. Same way you rarely see 2 top predictors in the same area. We filled a niche that makes it hard for competition to occurs. Once there were a few hominids fighting for our spot in the world and they failed while we prevailed and are now the top species on earth. Just the simple act of growing a garden changes evolution. If not for our "non native" plants that make up our gardens small birds and rodents would be more likely to be killed and eaten. Dam a river or build a house you changed the earth and effected evolution. Have a bird feeder or bird bath now those birds have a leg up because of you. No mater if you think your doing good or bad for the environment.

Hey Steve, are you denouncing the Prius driving, native gardening, whole Foods shopping while wallowing in white male affluent liberal guilt way of life ?

Guilt? No guilt here. Nature has spent millions of years creating us. To think that I know better than millions of years worth of trial and error would be laughable. There's a reason we are what we are, because it work well. So for me ill sit back and enjoy my blink of existence and not get to hung up on every new panicking press release.

[sur4z]

YAWN!...Skynet wont care about the habitat (yet the cockroach will survive)...but you all can drone on!

[Funkthulhu]

I think another problem is that people tend to think of Nature as a thing that makes conscious decisions in the evolution of new species and precognition as to what species will be needed to fit open niches. Evolution is random and fills niches as they open because it can also happen very rapidly. Nature is a system, not a conscious entity.

As for the human species being a part of or outside of nature, obviously we are part of nature. Everything on this planet is natural, but we are no longer as connected to the forces of nature as we once were. We living inside controlled environments while destroying the outside one, we eat anything and everything and we change the landscape to accommodate our preferred foods (cows, corn, etc.), and we have no predators to keep our numbers in check so we can keep breeding ad nauseam. What we are doing to this planet is part of nature, but it is not natural. The progress of species evolution for many has been accelerated, but only in so far as those species that share our artificial environment. Any species that can not adapt to where we live and how we change our environment will die. When we die, all those animals that somehow managed to tag along will be taxed again to adapt to our absence. Many of those may die as well.

It is interesting that in the aftermath of the Chernobyl catastrophe the human exclusion zone has become one of the riches ecosystems in eastern Europe. Bears, wolves, deer, and other large mammals as well as birds of prey and even large game fish have all surfaced in this area and thrived. Meanwhile the rats, pigeons, and even roaches are so severely depleted in the area as to be almost a non-presence.

Yes, we are part of nature, but we are also the only species that can consciously choose where, when and how to alter our environment. As conscious beings that can observe and understand the damage we are causing, we need to consciously choose to mitigate that damage. We are the only species that can so severely alter the entire world and because of that we are also the only species that can undo the same damage.

It sounds cheesy, but "With great power comes great responsibility". That we are intelligent enough to have this debate also means we are smart enough to do something about it and we should, because nobody else will do it for us.

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

How's this?

What if you were told we could bring back most of the habitat and species that have disappeared in the last 100 years from DNA that is stored in various locations around the world. But in order to make it work, we would have to reduce the world population by half, go without electricity for 6 hours every day, eliminate most of the personal transportation system, and we would all live exclusively in massive high rise "mega-cities" to reduce our footprint on nature.

There would be a few other changes like a severely limited selection of food and beverage types, fabrics, jewelry, building materials, etc.

In exchange you would be guaranteed of living in modern comfort with the knowledge that you were giving the Earth back to countless species and assuring their continued survival. Any takers???

How about this: what if what if all it took is to take the billions of dollars we spend on weapons and we invested that in a Manhattan project for sustainable renewable energy and invest in an infrastructure that supports wildlife. More than 3/4th of tax dollars go to defense, imagine what that could buy. Next take those million dollar CEO salaries and reinvest those as well.

[bgl]

Interesting discussion. One quick little comment though in reference to Axel's statement above: "More than 3/4th of tax dollars go to defense". According to information that's easily available (just google for it), here's where U.S. tax dollars go:

Health Care: 22%

Social Security: 20%

Defense: 20%

Safety Net: 13% (whatever that is)

Federal retirees, veterans: 7%

Interest: 6%

And the remaining 12% to a bunch of miscellanous.

[trioderob]

he bowhead (Balaena mysticetus) had long been assumed to live to be perhaps 50-60 years old. However, recently-killed bowheads, when carefully examined, have been found to often have ancient harpoon tips lodged in their blubber, and the only way they could have gotten "in there" was in the hands of ancient native harpooners.

This finding spurred research to find out just HOW old these whales may be. Scientist Jeffrey L. Bada and his associates analyzed the ration of 2 mirror forms of aspartic acid in the lenses of bowhead eyes, which changes at a measurable rate over the years. The results on the five males whales tested showed that the YOUNGEST was 90, four ranged in age from 135-180, and one was seemingly over 211 years old when recently harpooned.

Edited October 2, 2013 by trioderob

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

Interesting discussion. One quick little comment though in reference to Axel's statement above: "More than 3/4th of tax dollars go to defense". According to information that's easily available (just google for it), here's where U.S. tax dollars go:

Health Care: 22%

Social Security: 20%

Defense: 20%

Safety Net: 13% (whatever that is)

Federal retirees, veterans: 7%

Interest: 6%

And the remaining 12% to a bunch of miscellanous.

Yes, I was wrong about the defense dollars, I must have mixed it up with a different statistic. Although the numbers I get on Google don't say 22% on health care.