What is Man's role? Well if our words and actions are to be judged, then it appears quite clear that our position on this planet is for the annihilation or enslavement of all lifeforms, including our own; the destruction of the natural resources that have clothed, fed, housed, enriched and advanced us for millenia; and to ensure that all who come in our wake will have us placed in museums as examples of special not-to-be's.
Note: 'special' as in 'relating to species', not as in 'unique'
~~~
I'm so sick. D: Went to bed at 1am, woke up at 2pm. Lay in bed playing with iPod for another 30 minutes. Then...did nothing. Head was pounding with CONGESTION D: And now drinking honey lemon water yay :D It's scaldingly hot, which is...perfect.
~~~
Not much as happened lately, I guess. Went to Passionflower, and it's fucking epic. Tastiest desserts ever. Expensive as all hell, though. Saw Amanda working xD
What else...oh, yeah, Henry's 18th. Disappointed that I only stayed for like an hour, but it was a damned fine hour. Suits are awesome.
~~~
Actions speak louder than words...but speaking is an action. (SIDE NOTE: I JUST RAN OUT OF TISSUES D: D: D:) (SIDE NOTE TO THE SIDE NOTE: STOLE THE LAST TISSUE BOX FROM THE PANTRY) If I want to support a friend, am I obliged to instantly go for the action-route, or should I accept that talking is just as important and try that first?
~~~
Finished the $1 book I bought from the 2nd hand bookstore on-campus. "From the House of War", by John Simpson. I don't think he has a donkey, though D: Commentary on the Gulf War (1990-1991). Very interesting insights that I didn't know about before, such as the widespread lack of genuine support for Saddam Hussein in the leadup to and aftermath of the fighting. Veiled hints as to widespread failures by the Allies and influential humanitarian groups.
Fucking hippies.
Frequent Rotation – February 2024
1 month ago
4 comments:
I'm bored, so I'm gonna try and pick a fight with you :).
Your pessimistic view of the development of people on Earth is sort of Malthusian, but just like Malthus, you fail to take into account technological innovation that will probably save us. Besides, maybe we'll find other planets to 'exploit' before we run out of resources here.
I put parentheses around 'exploit' because I disagree with your apologetic attitude towards the consumption of natural resources. Man *should* manipulate his surroundings to build a world of his liking for himself, even if it means spoiling the natural environment. Nature is only valuable as long as it contributes more to people in its undistubed state than if taken apart for resources.
Probably? Probably. Depends if the masses will let such technological innovation be implemented. Nuclear power already offers hope, a way out of enhanced climate change...but nobody will support it. The technology may exist, but whether we can use it or not is a different matter entirely. And simply spreading our exploitation to other planets is not a solution, just a temporary stopgap measure.
Of his liking. But 'Men' do not have a single liking. To what end is this exploitation taking place? "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?" - Matthew 16:26.
Valuable. How do you measure the value of Nature?
Well, we may never have to find a 'permanent' solution. Perhaps we can keep finding more planets to supply resources, assuming we need to in the first place - technology should be able to give us more with less.
I think it's quite likely that we'll be using nuclear power sooner or later. If climate change turns out to be as serious as some claim (or we start running out of fossil fuels), I'm sure people will become less picky about whether it's nuclear power or solar, wind, etc.
I wasn't assuming that people should have a single liking, and perhaps there isn't even a need to identify *an* end for which the 'exploitation' is taking place. If people want the ground to be mined for metals to go into luxury cars, then so be it. Nothing more to be said.
I didn't know you could quote the Bible! But I think that quote is mostly irrelevant to our discussion. I think the quote is saying that it's folly to go for power at the expense of one's individuality and...happiness?
Lastly, how would I measure the value of Nature? Well, obviously the value of Nature is very subjective. So it can't really be measured. But I tend to think that a laissez-faire environment (not in the 'nature' sense of the word) is not a bad way of producing outcomes that reflect people's valuations of Nature.
Yeah!
What he said.
Post a Comment