The reason people liken us humans to a virus is because we share some similar characteristics such as:

an exponential pattern of growth,
an underlying destructive nature towards our host (Earth) to ensure our survival.

If a meteor was heading towards earth, of course humans will try and stop it...who wouldn't? No creature wants to die.

But does that mean that:

on the off chance that a Armageddon style incident will occur, and only us hero-humans will be there to save the day...JUSTIFIES...The 50,000 odd different species that go extinct each year, largely due to human impact, pollution and of course human poverty.

Natural, unnatural, a philosophical argument more than anything else...point is we don't need to be Bruce Willis to save the world, we've got enough problems here on earth to sort out first.

Vincenze.

ps. Technology is neutral, it's what we do with it that makes the difference.

Well put. Any deep green would support an all-out effort to save the Earth- not just for humanity, but for all species. It doesn't justify the destruction going on (not for heroic feats) but to satisfy the insatiable greed of a self-ordained 'chosen' species.

Better to ask whether we should intentionally kill off entire species because they threaten humanity (see wolves, or bird flu). Then you start to see the differences in the green values- if that's the goal.

If the question is whether the development of current technology which (may or may not) enable us to save the Earth one day is worth the destruction it took to get here, my answer is NO. Better to go down with honor, at peace with the Earth, than to save it from an asteroid so it can suffer a slow and painful death at the hands of a species with no compassion for other forms of life.

a liberal in redsville

"The evolutionary reason for humans?"

The reproductive organs of the plastic flower.

All human development has been aimed at that purpose all along, how else would plastic flowers propagate?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

The fact that, as a species, we fit the medical definition of a cancerous tumor on the planet means that instead of using that potential for something beneficial -- oh, I don't know, like helping the universe become more aware of itself -- we've used it for ecologically devastating self-satisfaction.  Because humans have so much more power than other forms of life, we also have much more responsibility.  Unfortunately, we've shirked that responsibility.

Jeff Hoffman

(Apologies to Monty Python)

Jeff,
It bums me out that for someone who is obviously such an optimist in the long view, you seem to get yourself so upset and disappointed about things in the short run.  While there is much to be disappointed about, it might also be worth bearing in mind that sometimes the means to a virtuous end are not virtuous themselves.  In other words, sometimes bad things need to happen in order to work towards the ultimate good.  How else could it work - we humans are animals, not deities, and so we have to learn from our mistakes and civilize on the fly.  I'd like to see a charismatic (or grouchy, for that matter) megafauna save the entire planet from total extinction if an asteroid were indeed heading for us.  We humans may be annoying little brats right now, but may be it's all part of a larger process.  I think even in the shittiest circumstances there has got to be something positive to get from it - so long as we're paying attention.

Accel2,
Don't mean to bum you out, have some beer or something and chill.  However, I don't agree with you.  Humans will not save the Earth from a meteor or anything else.  Any astrophysicist or even physicist can tell you that blowing up an object like that in the movie would just cause more pieces to hit the Earth, causing at least as much and probably even more damage.  We have nothing along the lines of the type of technology that would force a meteor or any other such object to miss us.  I don't know where this fantasy came from (watching too many movies without checking actual scientific facts?), but it's ridiculous.  Furthermore, no one is even trying to develop this type of technology.  The only technology along these lines being developed is for the military.  There's no profit in developing this type of technology, so the government would have to pay for it.  Can you imagine the fascists who run the U.S. doing that?  I certainly can't, and don't know if it's even possible, anyway.

The fact is that humans have destroyed life as we know it -- yes, I said "have," as in past tense, not present or future tense -- by their selfish, materialistic, anti-spiritual and anti-environmental behavior; it's only a matter of time.  While I never give up hope, I do not realistically expect to save anything except whatever could grow back after we're gone.  Humans are not like a child that just has to mature.  The mature cultures, with people who lived naturally, were almost completely destroyed by civilization.  What's left now is a humanity that resembles an adult criminal, not an immature child that merely needs to learn from its mistakes.

Jeff Hoffman

Notice that the chance of the asteroid hitting Earth has risen from 1 in 1600 to 1 in 1000...

I hope the trend doesn't continue, at this rate it'll be 1 in 1 in no time!!!

Vincenze.

Large asteroids have hit the Earth in the past and will do so in the future.  To quote the eminent physicist Michio Kaku, "we live in a bad neighborhood in space" regarding asteroids.  I certainly support efforts to develop a technology that would divert a large asteroid from the Earth, so long as those efforts don't destroy other species or ecosystems in the process.  I agree with Birdboy: if we can't develop this technology without destroying other species or ecosystems, it's best to just let nature take its course.

Jeff Hoffman

I was using the meteor thing as a metaphor, Jeff.

It's apparent from this and other threads that your pessimism is beyond dialogue so you can continue with your depressing posts unabated.

So long as you feel you are living your life the best you can, then I guess that's what counts, anyway!

Enviro-Fascists,

When you stop heating your homes, driving your European cars, and burning fuel flying to Europe, then you will have attained credibility.

Until that time comes, when Enviros stop burning fuels to survive, you'll continue to be transparent hypocrites.

Thank you,
Captain America

America First The World Second

Captain America,

Your comment left a bad taste in my ear...

No one said we all should go and live in the jungle like hippies, heat your home fine...do it by buying the most energy efficient heater.  Drive your car, fine.  Buy a hybrid and catch public transport when it's available.  

Not heating your home out of spite is not the answer, what will that achieve? Supporting, promoting and discussing new eco-friendly technologies, is part of the solution.  

Talking about the problems in the world is part of the process; it's not going to change over night!  I'm sure that most environmentalists would stop using fuels if there was a better alternative.

A hypocrite is someone who is against something but then does exactly that, so if I preached about the effects of fuel then jumped in my V12 Ferrari and yell burn-fuel-burn!!! ok, hypocrite...

I can't speak for anyone else, I know that I recycle, I catch public transport (as much as it sux) and I would buy a hybrid if I could afford it.  Am I a hypocrite because I drive a normal car on weekends?

It's not about pointing the finger, blaming people it's about working together to find solutions, we all admit we've been living beyond the earths capacity...we were all born into it...no one is saying they are saints...

But it's time to make changes...

Vincenze.

I think the captain maybe putting us on vince. If so, I don't find his attempt at humor very effective.

He does provide a great example of what NOT to do when arguing our side of the enviro debate though.  

Thus vindicating once again the wisdom of the founding fathers' trust in free speech and dialectic discourse.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Yeah perhaps, but if he has anything relevant to debate I'm happy to do so...  I think we can move on from name calling now.

Vincenze.

I think a lot of the issues arise with personal outlook on these two issues. Is human evolution a purely chaotic event, in some ways like life is? That is my personal opinon. Are we a species funneling towards eusocialism, like a massive ant colony? Or are we on a determined path to a final goal, such as 'destruction of the planet, with little to remain' like Jeff suggests? How do we know without depending on a higher power to tell us? I'm serious, how can we ever know without knowledge of the meaning of life?

I think that Jeff's (and the rest of us environmentalists) suggestion/outlook on human species is purely a value judgement. Who is to say that global warming is not a good thing? If you step back and think about all the things that will evolve in the next eon after we are all gone, and how well they will be adapted to warmer temps, persistent toxics, and mercury, how can you say that the future wealth of biodiversity is a bad thing?

Who's to say that the second smartest guy in the world (cap'n crunch over here) isn't right about AMerica being the only thing that matters? Who's to say that the Islamic fundamentalist isn't also right just as much as Cap'n is? What if they both by being right will create something way more important in the world after all?

What's wrong with value judgments?  Every stand taken is based on them.  Your analysis about what might happen in the distant future and whose point of view is "right" is a gross over analyzation.  Figure out what you stand for and take a stand!

Jeff Hoffman

That was my point Jeff. Without taken a stance nothing happens. But with several sides taking a stance, things, such as wars, court conflicts, drawn out arguments, murders, barfights, jail terms (both you and I can think of hundreds of others) happen. Who is to say that those things aren't the right things to happen? We are talking about evolutionary need for humans, and in a lot of ways I have an outlook of deterministic processes punctuated by chaotic events, which then lead to multitudes of possible outcomes, none of which are explicit and oftentimes utterly unpredictable.

So, I guess what I am saying is that global warming is a damn good thing as are persistent toxins, and the best thing that we as humans can do is use, use, use until we deplete resources needed for us, which is when our civilizations will end, as has happened before, everything is plunged into Middle Age type 'chaos' or even better, into a complete destruction of the human race. Then there won't be people that are concerned specifically with what they think is right and new species of songbirds will take off without any consideration for morality and ethics and they will procreate and there won't be any more need for ecologists, economists, doctors, lawyers, humanitarians, foresters, industrial engineers, truck drivers and short-order cooks.

I think that stance (which I think a lot of people actually have and I am considering: do what's best for you in the short-term, so that you can breed and maybe pass on your genes in a multitude, so that your progeny lives on) might be right for our species. Maybe our boom-and-bust cycles like the ones experienced by snowshoe hares and other r-selected creatures is just longer, and adheres better to our k-selected species.

Atreyger,
I think that your position is nothing but a rationalization of a totally selfish attitude.

Jeff Hoffman

Atreyger can't be serious. Despite outward appearances for too many humans, I have to believe that the need for meaning and purpose is intrinsic. If you really believe what you're saying then we all might as well hang it all in before we do more damage. I can't believe that the point of human life is to consume the Earth until it's so depleted it can no longer support life. I think the goal is wholeness -- as individuals, as communities, as nations, as a planet, and ultimately the universe and cosmos. It's like those nesting dolls, the smallest is contained in the largest. It's not value judgements it's intrinsic value -- a different meaning of the word. It's not me saying I'm right and you're wrong, it's differences coming together to create a mosaic the energy of which tends toward wholeness. Unless, of course, crap gets in the way. The goal, the vision is not the crap, however -- it's moving beyond it towards a sense of participating in the whole.
   Unfortunately I do believe Ateyger is right about one thing: a lot of people do take that stance: It's all about me, now, nothing else matters. Others have a very fatalistic perspective: it doesn't matter what I do, what's gonna happen is gonna happen. Lots of folks don't feel connected to the Earth at all and so have no feelings about it one way or another. It's nothing more than a grocery store to them or an inconvenience when the weather gets in the way of their plans. And there are airheads who don't really think beyond the surface at all. Me, I've always thought about stuff like this, exploring consciousness in different ways over the years, seeking direct experience and then attempting to translate it into words. My answers may not be yours, but I do know there's more to life than meets the eye, so to speak. Evolution is not just about adapting to a physical environment, it's happening on every level from the body to the mind to the soul to the spirit and everyone and everything from trees and rivers to cats and fungi are part of it. (At least that's my belief, crazy though it may sound).

I was being sarcastic in the previous post and I was trying to make a point that by taking a stance without understanding the opposite side of the issue, nothing would get solved. If you can understand why people are not concerned with long-term consequences, maybe you can try to appeal to their short-term desires.

I don't think that the humans would really ever accomplish: 'consume the Earth until it's so depleted it can no longer support life'. If you believe that then you give us way too much credit.

I'd say, "capture that sucka and mine the hell out of it"....LOL

Hey, we all need a lil humor <grin>

I NEED to look towards a bright future in my job everyday. Since my own future appears damn limited, I'm dedicating what time I have left to improve the futures of our children (not that I even have offspring but, I do have plenty of nieces and nephews who deserve a good future).

Selfish and self centered people who don't look past the present are easy to understand, because we all come from that place as kids.  Unfortunately, many people never grow up, but they're still allowed to make adult decisions.  One major group of myopic people who don't look past next week's profits are business people.  (My source for this is a former economist for U.S. Steel.)  What short term desires of these people could we appeal to that would create a good result for the Earth?  Things like a healthy and clean environment don't seem to be working.

Jeff Hoffman

...but, seriously, folks. When I saw the dramatic conclusion of the movie, the first thing that came to mind was; "Oh, great! The world was saved and we can now go back to the petty wars, pollution and religious persecution...Yippeee!" <G>

Maybe PR campaigns and the need for PR? Whistle-blowers? Bigger and better media coverage? More money going to education with a better emphasis on environmental issues? Unbiased coverage of the issues within media? Things that would keep these people in check even with their want of greed, etc.? Punishment of the selfish through our own selfish interests? Collaboration with people who have similar goals with you and open-mindedness about nuances of those goals? Not letting your philosophy consume your actions and break up alliances?

Just some things I can think of and while not all of them are achievable, many are and, hopefully, will be achieved soon.

Wow...Jeff and atreger have really taken this topic to a philosophical level.

You guys both have good points.

Atreger, I agree that we need a better understanding of why some people don't give a toss about the environment and only care for their obvious immediate need.

Jeff, I agree that the reason for this is probably a lack of 'growing up' or maybe wising up...or maybe a general selfish nature.

Most organisms rarely think beyond a generation.  Eat; sleep, reproduce and I've done my bit.  Us humans also fall into this category.

But now we have proclaimed ourselves as the most intelligent species in the world...and it's time to start acting like it and think for the future...

If we can't do that we can't really call ourselves intelligent, only lucky Neanderthals.

Vincenze.