Ishmael

[Variety of Cells]

Anyone in the Rifftrax community read any Daniel Quinn books?  I personally am a big "fan" of them, in that I agree with what they say.  Any comments?  Any one who hates them? 

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

im over here and waiting on your post

[Variety of Cells]

No one has even touched this topic, but a discusion came up in the another topic http://www.rifftrax.com/smf/index.php?topic=1901.msg49391#msg49391 about stuff that relates to Ishmael, so I'll continue it here.

I've been asked to list the laws of nature.

Here it is, as good as I can explain it.

A creature may compete the best it can to catch its food.  But it may not seek out competition and kill it (unless the creature plans on eating the competition it kills).  It also may not destroy the competition's source of food.  Also, a creature may not take more than it's going to eat.

This general rule keeps each species in a certain harmony with each other.  They are competing, but they don't wipe out the competition.  This promotes diversity, something that is incredibly important in nature. 

Most native people's followed this rule.  They only took what they could use, and didn't kill off species of animal just because they would eat their food.  They didn't have to.  Food was all around them.  They just had to work to hunt and gather it.  Like Sarcasm said, the earth provides plenty of food.

Our society does not live within this rule.  And it seems to benefit us.  But what it really does is allow for an unchecked population.  Unlike global warming, you can't deny that the earth is going to be overpopulated sooner or later.  Right now we are betting that science will fix it sometime soon.  I doubt it.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

Ive heard dumbed down versions of that argument before.  But heres the thing, and we need to establish it before we can go on.

Does evolution exist?  If so does it make mistakes?  Further is it a good thing a bad thing or neutral.

[Variety of Cells]

Ive heard dumbed down versions of that argument before.  But heres the thing, and we need to establish it before we can go on.

Does evolution exist?  If so does it make mistakes?  Further is it a good thing a bad thing or neutral.

Fair enough.  I say, yes, it does exist.  I'm not sure what you mean by mistakes.  There are species that work where they live, and there are species that eventually don't.  The ones that don't work any more become extinct.  If you consider those mistakes, then yes I guess evolution makes mistakes.  I see it as just a part of evolution.  There is no place where evolution is supposed to end up, so there can't really be mistakes.  Evolution is not a conscious thing, and since there's no goal it is trying to achieve, it can't make mistakes.

Evolution is not bad.  I don't see how it could be.  It is a natural part of the continuation of life.  It's a good thing for life on this planet.  It ensures that there will be diversity and that one disease isn't going to wipe out the whole planet.  I would venture to call it a good thing.  It's good for life anyway.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

It ensures that there will be diversity and that one disease isn't going to wipe out the whole planet.

This i see as the big problem in the argument.  If we are inevitably a result of and still in the continuing process of evolution.  Who is to say that our insessant growing isnt a part of evolution.  Farming the plow the sidewinder missle could all be steps in evolution  since it cant make mistakes since everything is for the greater good then well you can see what i am getting at. 

[Variety of Cells]

It ensures that there will be diversity and that one disease isn't going to wipe out the whole planet.

This i see as the big problem in the argument.  If we are inevitably a result of and still in the continuing process of evolution.  Who is to say that our insessant growing isnt a part of evolution.  Farming the plow the sidewinder missle could all be steps in evolution  since it cant make mistakes since everything is for the greater good then well you can see what i am getting at. 

Yes, I do see what you are saying.  I'm just contesting that we are living outside of evolution. We are living outside of evolution and the laws of nature.  Evolution is not a linear process.  Spiders don't go from spider 1.0 to spider 2.0.  They just change.  Some work, some don't.  They do get increasingly complex, but that doesn't mean it's better than the previous species, because the previous species is probably still around.  If something doesn't work, eventually it will die.  I'm arguing that our society does not work, and eventually this society is going to die, because the planet just can't sustain it.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

oh i wasnt saying we are living outside.  I was saying that we are not only a part of evolution but a natural part of nature as well.  Just as the same as a virus or disease   Our actions can be no more deemed evil than the spiders.  (at least for the sake of this argument)

I'm arguing that our society does not work, and eventually this society is going to die, because the planet just can't sustain it.

Are you implying that society is a living evolving thing as well?

[Variety of Cells]

oh i wasnt saying we are living outside.  I was saying that we are not only a part of evolution but a natural part of nature as well.  Just as the same as a virus or disease   Our actions can be no more deemed evil than the spiders.  (at least for the sake of this argument)

I'm arguing that our society does not work, and eventually this society is going to die, because the planet just can't sustain it.

Are you implying that society is a living evolving thing as well?

I was disagreeing with you.  We might be a part of evolution, but we are not living within the laws of nature, and therefore aren't really natural.  Our actions may not be evil, but they do not follow the laws of nature.  And that will eventually bring around the death of this society.  That's why I suggest we change. 

Ummm, well, I think there needs to be a diversity of societies.  There needs to be many different ways to live so that we don't all die out.  But again, one society is not better than another, and does not have the right to wipe the other out.  You could say that societies evolve and get more complex and split off and change with time, but again, if they don't follow the laws of nature, they will eventually die out.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

heh thats where we disagree, i dont think that we can truly be outside of nature therefore are actions are of course natural

[Variety of Cells]

heh thats where we disagree, i dont think that we can truly be outside of nature therefore are actions are of course natural

Well I agree with that.  We can't help but live inside nature.  But that does not give all of our actions a certain validity.  Even you agree that just because something exists and was created by natural means does not mean it is the best choice.  Sometimes things happen that seem to have no positive effect.  The only difference with humans is that we generally have the ability to predict the effects of our actions.  And when humans can see that a choice is going to be detrimental, but it is still made, then that can be considered a wrong choice.