-
NoVoted for by Weydon.
I don't think so. There are some fairly reasonable similarities between the complexities of the balance of the Eart and the balance of a lifeform on the Earth, but that's just it. There some similarities in looking at an atom and looking at a solar system. It's not really all that similar aside from a bare bones glance though.
The Earth is just like every other planet or planet-sized rock hurtling around without a sun. Only it's had some chemical reactions and development at a pretty much perfect distance from our sun. Creatures and life evolved ON it, and everything is constantly evolving (or arguably devolving) due to the actions and natural occruances ON it. Humans have a fairly large scale affect in our adapation of technologies on the iompact of life ON Earth, but I don't think the the rock itself that happens to have life within it is self-regulating. Life finds a way whenever it can. This was not Earth's "intent".
-
pure sophistryVoted for by Auxiliar.
Through sophistry, any set of systems can be seen to be cohesively systematic, especially in the pseudo-apodeictic terms of science. I believe in a chaotic world where everything affects everything, and the effects are never truly predictable before the fact. This theory only persists due to the growth of the environmental cause during the seventies, which, not without its valid and humanitarian roots, is mainly supported by those living in the first world whose neoliberal economic guilt manifests itself this way.
What is seen as intent by the encyclopaedic compilation of natural phenomena that the human race has achieved is nothing but likelihoods of probable reality in lieu of the improbability naturally naturally ocurring in the mind, contrasting human discovery. The theories of human evolution and cosmogony do not prove that there is some demiourgos named mother earth or some demiourgos that designed mother earth. They don't prove that this is even the best of all possible worlds, either, which isn't even that interesting seeing as possible worlds are only ever seen through the eyes of those on this world as Descartes understood. But rather, this proves that this is the most probable worlds. And, that this most probable world is conceived as conscious in as far as our environs and, to a lesser extent, the means of production will allow us to believe they are beautiful has been proven time and time again through anthropological study, even in societies without a hint of other life on earth.
Such things are not what I believe Liberals to hold true. They are what Conservatives say that Liberals hold true, unfortunately, and that is the disappointing part. The Gaia Hypothesis was totally concurrent with the lunatic fringes of western culture. All we need to do is wait, just as the Hegelians had to wait for the Marxists, Structuralists, and Jared Diamond.
Adding your reply:
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
April 20, 2006
Weydon
April 20, 2006
April 5, 2007
Edit | Reply
In your 'opinion' you're pretty much describing what minnaloushe is saying, only in terms that you can agree/disagree with, she has implemented a theory that the Earth self-regulates, and calls on you when you say "life find a way whenever it can", to get you to clarify your point of view, your starting point, the fundamental question, does something higher intervene with the Earth's activities? For one, we haven't found life on any other planet, doesn't mean that no planet is alive. We can take the question of a planet being alive two ways, theistic or atheistic, does it have a soul or does it just do? And Self-regulation on a planetary scale is beyond our comprehension, except for all those similarities you seem to discount. The planet is obviously a self-regulating system, and obviously maintains us, and by saying earth, that includes us, as we would include a germ or blood cell in our bodies, we don't conciously affect it, but it conciously affects us, but when we notice, we take corrective action, as does the Earth, droughts, floods, disease, to rid what ails it.
I mainly just want you to ease off on her for trying to understand where you stand, she was just asking why couldn't you consider god, or however you would consider a higher being, to be the earth itself? Why couldn't you just answer that instead of belittle her reply? Get over the differences you obviously have and just discuss the issue that you had the great opportunity to be apart of. If you are right in this discussion, than you better take a different approach, you're acting very closed minded.
Weydon
April 5, 2007
Edit | Reply
God, meteors, lightning in the former chemical soup of our atmosphere, or a various mixture of the above most likely.
"volution's flaw, from an atheistic point of view, is that they can't account for how it all started"
...Earthaliveution(?)'s flaw, from any point of view, is that they also can't account for how THE EARTH started. So the Earth's alive, and then thought really hard and grew people. Where did the Earth come from?
"In your 'opinion' you're pretty much describing what minnaloushe is saying, only in terms that you can agree/disagree with"
Not at all. I do not believe the Earth is sentient and a god-force in itself. I think it's a rock with water and life on top of it. Minn thinks "my" "invisible man in the sky or whatever" is a ridiculous interpretation of a "god-force" in comparison to a sentient planet. How are we pretty much describing the same thing?
"does something higher intervene with the Earth's activities? "
Maybe every now and then, somewhat indirectly and all that.
"does it have a soul or does it just do? "
It's a rock. It's virtually identical to every other planet or asteroid or moon in our solar system, only it varies in size, chemical composition, and distance from the sun. It was in the perfect balance to sustain life. Technically there's a decent chance MINIMAL life is on other planets and/or moons in our solar system, in their own "perfect" balance. It doesn't mean they have lesser-souls as a moon.
"The planet is obviously a self-regulating system,"
The things on the planet obviously are. The planet itself is just there. It's like when sociologists say there a self-regulating household. The HOUSE isn't regulating things, the people inside of it playing different roles do.
", but it conciously affects us, but when we notice, we take corrective action, as does the Earth, droughts, floods, disease, to rid what ails it."
The Earth is not CHOOSING to flood or drought us. It's not like it randomly causes a hurricane like we can randomly swat a fly at will. It's why hurricanes occur most in one area. Tornadoes in others. Floods in others. It has to do with environment, unstoppable and fairly random depending on the conditions. If the Earth was "conscious" of us and didn't like (for WHATEVER POSSIBLE reason) the people of Canada it would create a nation-wide mudslide. It can't. It won't. We can predict FAIRLY well the creation of things like hurricanes based on the conditions in the atmosphere that generate hurricanes. Mixtures of different fronts in humid environments. All part of a system just rolling around, like what happens when you throw a superball really hard into a rubber room. It will bounce around like crazy, constantly hitting different spots. Sometimes it may be hard to predict, but it always only reacting to its random start.
And the Earth wouldn't SEND disease. Disease is a lifeform just like us. It doesn't send bears, it doesn't send us, it doesn't send viruses.
"to rid what ails it."
btw, that's INCREDIBLY insulting. So the thousands that die in natural disasters, are "for the best"? It rid what ailed us! We're better off without them. Quit sucking up TO THE EARTH, and think of your fellow man.
"I mainly just want you to ease off on her for trying to understand where you stand"
What are you guys friends? Or the same person?
"he was just asking why couldn't you consider god, or however you would consider a higher being, to be the earth itself?"
I can see and interact with the Earth and COUNTLESS other floating rocks in the universe, none of them doing anything but obeying the laws of physics.
"Why couldn't you just answer that instead of belittle her reply? "
"Her" complete innocent reply was "not some invisible god in the sky or whatever". Why wouldn't I belittle she who belittles my beliefs?
"et over the differences you obviously have and just discuss the issue that you had the great opportunity to be apart of"
What a great opportunity! Can I put this on my resume?
I didn't stick my tongue out and call her stupid, I said what I thought. It's a debate.
"If you are right in this discussion, than you better take a different approach, you're acting very closed minded."
I'm sorry, I guess I should agree with you "two" and thus be more open-minded. Defending one's beliefs does not make you close-minded. I was willing to hear what she "and" you had to say, but it wasn't enough to make me think the Earth itself is alive.
April 5, 2007
Edit | Reply
Weydon
April 6, 2007
Edit | Reply
Oral Fixation
April 23, 2007
Edit | Reply
Well said.
Before humans, though, I believe it was self-regulating in a way. This can be interpreted different ways. I'm talking circle of life. You know, the bobcats eat the rabbits until they're scarce while the cats flourish and thrive. When the rabbits are scarce, the cats' population dwindle and the rabbits flourish. It's a viscious cycle, but it's just the way it is. It's natures way of keeping something like checks and balances. Everyone's equaly important.However, I think we've evolved too far for the Earth to keep us in check. We're outsmarting it with GPS, shotguns, umbrellas and cars. We develop ways to overcome natures way of saying 'don't kill that spiny poisonous bug. You'll die'. Guess what? I have some cute high-heels that would kill it dead with never no mind. We have to be smart enough (and stop arguing over it) to set laws that say 'don't shoot or touch the national emblem because we already killed about 90% of them, so please wait until they flourish again to shoo them'. Or something like that.
So pretty much, we're killing our Earth. The Earth can't fight back consciously. Just goes to show that evolution is a slow process to begin. Once we comprehended this, we could string together a thought like 'hey, if I bang that rock on that rock, I can start a fire and cook food for my woman'. That bug can't think like that. Maybe he never will. But adaptations like jaws of death to bite off my foot will take a long time. If life lasts long enough on Earth, I think ants are going to be shooting little ant-bullets from thier bodies like acid or something, and elephants are going to be purple and hidious. With no tusks. And cows will be poisonous.
Nature WILL find a way. But nature will find a way on any planet.
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free