|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/30/2005 11:41:01 PM | | Thanks, Dharma, I've enjoyed your posts too and believe I hold similar views, although perhaps a little more cynical. Are you Buddhist? (I won't be offended if you don't answer) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/30/2005 11:56:02 PM | Are you Buddhist?
Not exactly, Dear Lord (Lord Buddah, Lord Jesus, Lord Shiva, Lord Gaia, etc... 'lord' has so many names that a name doesn't make much sense, sometimes...semantics, somewhat) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/1/2005 12:25:44 AM | | Yes, I feel pretty much the same way, particularly with so much overlap of underlying moral sentiments. It was just that I associated Dharma with the Buddhist notion summing up the sentiments you express here. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/1/2005 1:07:05 AM | | I very much like Buddhist ideas. I wouldn't call myself Buddhist, but very much like that way of thinking. I can't really call myself any label that is right now. :) I'm a philosophical/religion/science mutt--or something like that? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/1/2005 11:19:26 AM | Mutt ... that's an interesting notion. I wonder what the philosophical, religious/scientific consequences would be.
As far as I understand it, a 'mutt', as you are using it defines a single species. (it also means stupid - 'muttonhead', which hardly seems to describe you  ). That relates somewhat to Jimmy's post on species interbreeding to produce new species. Of course, the best examples of species variation are from the selective breeding of domestic animals.
One of the issues that perplexed Darwin and his contemporaries was the notion that interbreeding between purebred strains always diluted the differences. So how could beneficial mutations ever be preserved? It wasn't a question answered in Darwin's lifetime (at least not publicly - Mendel had done his work on what later came to be called genetics, but it wasn't publicized). Another example of the notion that scientists (or anyone, for that matter) may come up with good ideas but with gaps in the knowledge which expose the ideas to profound criticism until additional knowledge fills in the gaps. (When I think about Darwin's hypothesis in this way - and the way that science has filled in many of the unanswered questions to clarify the mechanisms, the argument for evolution seems even more compelling - as Count has been hammering away at).
Such is the case with the Big Bang and prebiotic 'evolution'. We don't have all the answers. My impression from Quantum Physics would be that most of us aren't even equipped to think about the processes in action before, during and even after the Big Bang, let alone understand it. Does that make it nonsense - just because YOU can't understand it - or even concieve of a world where it could happen? I think such a judgement would be profound arrogance. Does the Big Bang preclude the notion of God? I don't think so. To me, it makes him much more awesome and impressive than any notion of the more traditional Christian God. That seems to be an opinion shared by many of the proponents of evolution here. Perhaps many would choose not to use the word God, but then weren't we admonished not to use it and told that even if we tried to use it, we would never make sense of it anyway? Does any of this deny Jesus? - NO.
So, it seems we have a situation here where some people are trying to learn a little more about how God accomplished his magnificent creations, accepting that they and their peers will stumble and wander down blind alleys along their journey. Nevertheless, that journey continues and I would argue that we are making progress. Would you deny that? Would you have us stop contemplating cosmology and evolution? would you have us stop teaching it?
At the other end of the spectrum seem to be people who want to deny, ridicule, obstruct and even halt this avenue of seeking truth. Following the seekers of truth and mocking them at every misstep and wrong turn. At least that seems to be expressed by some posts here. Why is this? Why shouldn't the more curious among us continue to indulge our curiosity? Hasn't it benefitted us all. Is it difficult to imagine that continuing to pursue knowledge will yield even more benefits? Does anyone have an inside track on which particular avenue of pursuit will yeild the greatest benefits?
Thankfully, there also appears to be a vast middle ground which we are all able to occupy. No individual can hope to understand everything, or accomplish everything, but together, from the humblest grain of cosmic dust to the human race and beyond into who-knows-what, we know everything - and God, because God IS everything. And perhaps daily by our efforts accomplish new things and new understanding never accomplished before. Perhaps glorifying God, or whatever you wish to call the vastness of the world, by making it more than it has ever been before.
If there is one notion, Dharma with which you and I may disagree, it is perhaps the notion that humankind has a special place within God's world. I can't make that judgement and certainly feel that humankind stumbles regularly because it believes that it is better than everything else. I'm sure you would agree with that, but I would go further and ask if you don't think it is possible that God could do even better. Perhaps humankind is just as expendable as the dinosaurs in God's vast scheme. I would argue that we shouldn't make the assumption that preserving humankind and what humankind values is what God wants. Having humans pursue those goals may be what God wants, but He may have other plans. I haven't figured out if that should alter our priorities, but it leaves me feeling a little more hopeful when I get too depressed about the irresponsible side of humankind. Gaia will figure out a way to take advantage of any mess we create. Our motivation to do better should be that if we leave it to Gaia, her solution may not include humanity.
As I reflect on all of this, my opposition to adding ID or creation to a science curriculum remains strong, but I begin to wonder if it could be important to introduce the ideas which develop from spirituality. What, for example is the role of love in evolution? A bond between 2 individuals? - or an essential driving force for socialization and the development of civilization? A motive for altruism? Our ability to defend and contribute to our society, even to our own disadvantage? I've always been fascinated by the downfall of empires. That seems to happen when society becomes selfish. Can the Western empire avoid a similar fate? Can consumerism alone sustain us - or do we need spirituality? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/2/2005 6:23:46 AM | Okay, folks, I'm sorry. I was going to get to the end, like Late kept saying, "read the thread." It's a long thread, though. Anyway, I almost pulled it off, but I just can't bite my tongue on these:
In every religion there is judgement of God. People go out of their way to critisize Christianity but many religions have hell and God's judgement , sufferings and stuff like that. Christian God (Jesus) offered Himself as a sacrifice for us while "pagan" gods demand OUR sacrifice for them. The thing is that God loves us and does not want us to suffer etc. Noah's flood happened in the Old Testament.
Sort of off topic, but I gotta. First off, sure, gods make judgements, but so do humans. I think one of the bedrock problems with the debate here is that many Christians take the theory of evolution personally. As though it's a direct attack on their faith. No dice, man. Particularly when, in this post, the ignorance just jumps up and screams hello. I'm not busting on Christianity here, but God had a _lot_ of sacrifices coming his way in the OT, and, while I won't presume to speak for all others, _my_ Pagan gods don't ask for anything _from_ me, but rather _for_ me. And (this one might be a jab) Christ _did_ sacrifice for the world, but, while he's credited with doing it once for all time, those I worship make seasonal, even daily sacrifices, just the same as I do (give/take thing). Which, to tie this in to the thread, just rather shows a bit of how we tend to paraphrase the "other side's" position on things, evolution included, without getting to the core of understanding.
For someone to say that one day there was a "single cell thing" and then that one cell said to itself "lets be two" and then became two and etc , I mean that is just not reasonable and not Biblical.
And this one, because it's ironic. Paraphrase: For someone to say that one day there was a "single divine being" and then that one being said to itself, "let's make them in our image" and commenced to create a world, etc. Reasonable...? No more/less than the existence of the _process_ of evolution, surely? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/2/2005 6:46:57 AM | Okay, I'm apologising again, but this one's just too juicy. I'm kicking myself because I didn't catch it until Tsur brought it back.
There is a very good scientist M. Behe. He does not believe in God. He wrote a book called "Darwin's black box" (biochemical challenge to Evolution) not long ago.
Just tell me, is this the same Michael Behe that's mentioned prominently in the Institute for Creation Research's infamous "Wedge" document? This may be antagonistic/confrontational, but _someone_ just lost a whole lot of credibility... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/2/2005 6:47:30 AM | | Oh, and I promise to finish the rest of the thread before I post again. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/2/2005 6:42:05 PM | I was joking a bit with that ‘lord’ idea. My point is that I see value in many forms of religion—though I don’t feel like any one represents my belief and experience. That is interesting that you point out the ‘superiority of humans’ idea.
There are ecofeminists who critique both religion and Darwinism on these grounds—that reality is not ordered in an up/down way (a pyramid with God at the top and ‘lower’ below, usually something like God, then-man-woman-nonhuman animals- and nature at the bottom). Many pre-Christian belief systems imbue all of nature with spirit and divineness. I believe this is a more accurate understanding of reality. The theory that humans evolved from ‘primeval soup’ is similar in some ways. Again, we find man on top as the apex of species development. I believe enough evidence has been presented for evolution as I've described. I think the 'big bang' is an interesting theory, but we are far from proving that. That is an idea. There are more than two options. Many, many scientific theories have not even been thought of yet. I have to frame my ideas within existing language, science, and religion... to be somewhat understood.
I believe that human beings are unique and beautiful, but not superior. Unique is not synonymous with superior. Dolphins have unique faculties. People always choose an attribute they have (that the ‘lower’ does not have to show ‘superiority.’) Dolphins can scan each other in 3D; that’s a quite impressive sense, indeed! I don't think dolphins are superior to people, but they are unique. I also don't think people are superior to dolphins. If dolphins had an oppressive mentality (and also maybe thumbs, and thus a way to make technology) humans might be under their imagined ‘rule of superiority’ because this ‘superior’ ability of echolocation. I don't think they have this mentality (that, oddly, might be partly a product of an inflated ego because of technology?)
I believe human beings, whales, dolphins, chimps and a few other mammals play the ‘brain,’ spirit and conciousness role of Gaia--the planet as a whole. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/2/2005 8:33:56 PM | | I have always thought humans developed ways change their world (technology?) because they are simply a chronically dissatisfied species. Thimbs or not! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/2/2005 8:44:46 PM | I could argue that the dissatisfaction stems from a variety of sources that teach people that they are not natural--part of nature. Many things people DO, though, aren’t ‘natural’ in the sense that these actions harm both humans and other creatures… this inflated want to control other species and nature is harmful to both... The ‘want to control’ came FROM the ‘want to control,’ which comes from the idea that people are superior which comes from ... (but this is somewhat circular.. we need different feedbacks in thought)
Human beings, without advanced technology are natural. I am not saying all technology is bad, but that there is too much too fast and neither the Earth, nor humanity, can keep up. The most immediately dangerous form of technology is genetic engineering. I tend to wait for scientific consensus before I state what I think, but I cannot wait for this one. This is about 50/50 and I KNOW this is BAD NEWS. I'm sorry if I seem go a little off topic... but refer to my corn post to see how this relates to evolution. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/2/2005 8:53:05 PM | Okay, first off, sorry about the multiple posts there. Didn't realise no one else was posting, and I got carried away. This is for Trewq, just the start. Kinda working on the rest.
1. Is there any reason to believe in your theory rather than some other version of creationism?
No, not really. It’s a theory, might prove something, but like other theories, is not exclusive.
1a. If you believe that some animals -- for example, dinosaurs -- were not saved on the Ark, explain why you believe the Bible is incorrect.
Trick question. Whether or not dinosaurs were on the ark does not prove the Bible correct/incorrect. While there are references to animals that can be interpreted as “dinosaurs” in the Bible, there is no evidence stating that they continued to exist at the time of the ark. Nor were there specific references to marsupials on the ark, but it is generally assumed that they were included. I can’t say what animals were or were not included, but, presumably, all extant fauna were.
1b. Why are many Christians evolutionists?
Many Christians have the ability to intellectually accept the process of evolution as possible and not in conflict with the idea of original creation.
1c. If you are a young-earth creationist: Why are many creationists old-earth creationists?
I’m not, but a lot of creationists accept the interpretation of the six “days” of creation to be ages, as it allows a worldview accepting both Biblical creation and the evidence of great age of the Earth.
1d. If you are a young-life creationist: Why are many creationists old-life creationists?
Not sure I quite get this one, but, see 1c. Answer’s the same, basically.
1e. Some people say that scientific creationism does a disservice to Christianity by holding Christianity up to ridicule. How would you answer that charge?
Theories do not cause ridicule. People criticise what they don’t understand and ridicule what they refuse to accept. It’s on them. The theory may be sound. Besides, many scientists were ridiculed for what they asserted; it didn’t make them wrong. | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 488 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/2/2005 9:00:48 PM | Sometimes I wonder if we’re like the thermophile bacteria in the compost pile. Their digestion and living heat it up. At first, the heating benefits them because it’s their optimum growth temperature. But as their population continues to grow and produce heat, they actually end up killing and suppressing themselves.
Dharma, don’t the actions of many other species end up harming themselves as well as other species? Even the development of photosynthesising bacteria and plants (during the Proterozoic), which produced oxygen as a by-product, is thought to have been incredibly harmful initially to many species at the time. All the remaining oxygen-intolerant microbes survived the now-toxic atmosphere only in restricted habitats.
------------
Kudos Feral for trying to answer the questions :) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/2/2005 9:08:16 PM | I would like someone to explain the young/old Earth dichotomy.
Dharma, don’t the actions of many other species end up harming themselves as well as other species? Even the development of photosynthesising bacteria and plants (during the Proterozoic), which produced oxygen as a by-product, is thought to have been incredibly harmful initially to many species at the time. All the remaining oxygen-intolerant microbes survived the now-toxic atmosphere only in restricted habitats.
I think that is a good example. My bias is, as a human being, I'd like for us to be smart enough to understand these processes and not do that to ourselves.
Plus, we have the capacity for ethics and understanding the intrinsic value of others... we don't put that to task enough ('we' meaning some with the power to do so. A child in Africa, right now, has much less power than someone in the US, for example.)
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/2/2005 9:13:14 PM | John:
"A reasonable man adapts to his environment. An unreasonable man adapts his environment to himself. Thus, all progress is the result of unreasonable men." -Benjamin D'Israeli
Dryad:
Thanks, I'm working on it, but it's kind of tough, since the questions seem to be aimed specifically at YEC and problems with it that have been covered many times. Fun part is, I'm not even Christian!
And, Dharma:
Like Dryad says, a lot of events in Earth history (localised or global) have been because one or another type of organism has become "dominant" and changed its environment, simply by living, thus destroying its own niche. One of those things that drive change and evolution, I believe.
I'd like for us to be smart enough to understand these processes and not do that to ourselves.
Good call, by the way. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/2/2005 9:29:40 PM | Queitjohn,
Well I think that logic is forever changing. What we think is logic today will be changed tommorrow. You are right by saying that some people never grow because they are bound by one way of thinking and refuse to accept anything else. This is ignorance and ignorance is bliss. I have never confound myself to one way of thinking. But I really don't understand your question.
God bless and take care,
Jimmy | |
|
dud
|
Joined: 9/9/2005
Msg: 492 | |
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/2/2005 9:34:00 PM | This comes back to the misapplication of Darwinism into Social Darwinism (not just biology, but to social institutions) in the sense of laissez-faire capitalism, and in more extreme forms, Nazism and eugenics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
This is in no way is meant to say that the ideas of evolution are related to the above--things have taken an ironic twist lately... (that, above, was some twisted people trying to justify evil towards others), but that we must understand that scientific theory is framed around mental frameworks and the INTERPRETATION of that is also... even more the manipulation of science theories, after the fact, can be twisted into what was not expected. Much like people who hate can take a 'Holy' work and twist to 'justify' hatred and bigotry, people can take a scientific theory and twist the same...
I ALWAYS say there should be tremendous caution when trying to apply most any 'ecological' theory to human beings, for various reasons (including the above, if history teaches anything). Like I said before, I have to try to explain my ideas within existing frameworks, which all have flaws.
I tend to think human beings are 'natural,' but we have ethical abilities (that are unique to few species) and have those for a reason. NEVER should ecological theory or religion be twisted into racism or hatred. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/3/2005 2:55:17 AM | | By the way, I don't think the link I gave is a very good primer of the idea of 'social darwinism' for those who have not heard of the idea--VERY different from biological evolution ideas... I'll give something better when I get time. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/3/2005 8:24:52 AM |
dogs always will have baby dogs and they will never become anything other than dogs which breeders have proven
You obvoiusly do not understand evolution if this is your opinion. Breeders have proven exactly the oposite of this. There are now so many dog species that members of one breed, are entirely difrent from members of other breeds. Take for example, the yorksire terrier and the great dane, aside from the obvious practical problems, the two breeds canot produce viable offspring. Thier sperm are of difrent types and so canot naturaly produce a viable, gamete capable of growing into a fully developed adult and producing offspring of its own.
These tw breeds did not exist until we created them through selective breading. If it were not for the proces of evolution, then these two breads would have to be capable of producing viable offspring, but they canot and never will, because specisation has taken place and they have become seperate from each other despite having a comon ancestor.
It exactly the same as the fact that we canot have viable oofspring with a gorila despite having a comon ancestor. Specisation has occored and removed our ability to interbread whe we became to geneticaly difrent to have healthy children.
So Evolotion HAS been PROVEN by dog breeds, not disproven. The fact that a dog will always have do puppies is a charcteristic of our naming conventions, not of thier genetics. we could just as easily call toy breads (peaks, terriers, pomeranians, ect) something else altogether...
I recomend renaming them Gops! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/3/2005 5:33:12 PM | That's really interesting, Bright. Do you have a source for that information? ........ fascinating! As a funny aside to that, many years ago I watched a female dog back up to a box to help a much smaller male dog out, but that certainly isn't to say they'd have had viable pups, or pups which, in turn could breed.
Feral - no worries - I enjoy your input, so post away as long as the mods don't mind. - I guess some of us were just taking a break! As much sense as your Disraeli quote makes, I think I would have to disagree with him. Not because I believe that humankind has a right to mess with the environment as much as that seems to be the way that life has evolved (and thus an underlying principle of the notion of Gaia). I don't support any right for humankind to alter the environment, rather accept the notion that it does so merely by its existence. What I am trying to get across as loundly as I can is that we'd better be careful how we go about it, or we may just render ourselves extinct. Houses, air conditioning, central heating, transportation, communications, even the internet are adaptations of our environment in one way or another. The likes of the ozone hole, overfishing, loss of rainforest and global warming probably shouldn't be termed 'adaptations' as much as very serious notifications of our FAILURES to adapt. I think your later comment to Dharma reflects a similar view. Dryad raises a rather humbling and worrisome extrapolations of our present 'success' by pointing out that success sometimes precedes disaster. Would we even be here if the tremendously successful photosynthesizing organisms hadn't depleted and poisoned their world? Maybe that's our job too! .... to make way for the next cycle of evolution. In the meantime .....
I'd like for us to be smart enough to understand these processes and not do that to ourselves. Me too!
Have I missed the religious take on human long-term survival, or is it just not considered important? This is certainly something that worries me, since an assumption that we are going to be 'rescued' or subject to some cataclysmic human-saving, but earth-irrelevant event in the near future would make long-term survival for humanity an unnecessary concern?
Jimmy, I'm not sure which of my questions you were referring to - maybe I ask too many! I guess you may have been referring to the religious right and wrong question which you seem to have answered in your later post. The logic of a Christian and the logic of a scientist (to take but two examples) may be different because they come from very different viewpoints with different sources of underlying information. It doesn't necessarily make either of them wrong and perhaps final agreement between them, as in the arrangement of our solar system, indicates the point where we all come very close to understanding.
Finally, recent events made me realize that studies of evolution and the arguments related to them are not merely musings on the hypothetical mechanisms of our origins. They are an important and imperative investigations of mechanisms utilized by human predators (mostly pathogens) to breach the defences erected against them by medicine. Aren't we currently growing ever more concerned about the potential evolution of an avian infuenza virus into a human virus triggering a worldwide influenza pandemic? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/3/2005 6:23:02 PM | Dharma, where did social Darwinism come up? Not saying I disagree, I just don't remember anything earlier mentioning it. As far as it goes, though, I've seen some Creationist arguments that the existence of the theory of evolution gives rise to such things! Can you believe that?
QJ, I have to disagree, if only on a point of semantics:
Houses, air conditioning, central heating, transportation, communications, even the internet are adaptations of our environment in one way or another. The likes of the ozone hole, overfishing, loss of rainforest and global warming probably shouldn't be termed 'adaptations' as much as very serious notifications of our FAILURES to adapt.
It's not a _failure_ to adapt to the environment that causes these things, but the effects of our adaptations. As to the "religious" stance on whether or not environmentalism is important in view of the impending Rapture:
"We don't have to protect the environment -- the Second Coming is at hand."
-- James Watt
And, before I get slammed for bashing, I know there are plenty of folks who don't take this view. I just think it's funny, and there really are people out there who think like this. Pray. A lot. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/3/2005 10:06:11 PM | Okay, dig it. Got some good stuff from another thread. Seemed to be veering this way, so I'm serving as a junction here.
Eagleeye
I think it should be stressed in school that everything is a theory regarding who we are and how we got here, and children should be encouraged to study a variety of beliefs and philosphies and adapt one that they believe in.
Feral
Eagleeye, is that the evolution/creation debate, or are you talking about comparative religion?
Eagleeye
Both Feral. Evolution can be taken as a theory, just as creation stories.
Feral
Actually, evolution _is_ a theory, as opposed to a "creation story."
j-roc
Eagleeye,
I think what you are reffering to is the mechanics of evolution, such as the Darwin theory of evolution. Evolution in itself is a fact, the mechanics of it are still a theory. For example, penguins (my favorite animal) use to have a hollow bone structure, like other birds, and were capable of flight. They have since evolved....or adapted if you will, to better suite their environment.
.....
Maybee we can discuss the politico-media absorption of the issue here, more specific is good.
Any one who knows me already knows that I belive that both theories are true, the more interesting debate is how it affects politics and thus our rights in the brass tacks real world...
I think its fair to teach intelligent design in a school run via the conveniences of science, as long as science is not neglected, and the religious teachings are at least relatively varied...
j-roc
If intelligent design is to be brought up in school I think it should be taught, not preached. I do not think it should be included with the regular curriculum, rather offered as an option which could give partial credit towards the sciences.
Intelligent design in itself could be considered science, but many of the religious express it as fact and push their beliefs unto others when trying to discuss the theory.
And now, here we are. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/4/2005 1:26:49 AM | Feral - I have to agree with your disagreement and stand corrected - thanks.
Thanks also for the Watt quote - James G Watt, Reagan's secretary of the interior in the early 80s, although the quote verges on the mythical - attributed to Watt but not recorded. Regardless, it demonstrates how some religious beliefs could have a negative impact on our future survival. Google comes up with some informative (and maybe scary) links for social Darwinism. Not quite the same as 'social evolution' which seems to come up with links to a broader range of ideas on mechanisms related to social change.
Dharma, since no-one else has given it a shot, my understanding of Young Earth Creationists are those who believe that the origins of the world are exactly as described in the Bible. Created in 6 days and with an age estimated from the Biblical chronology in the 6,000 - 7,000 year range. Other creationists accept that the 'days' of Genesis may be interpreted as ages (there is some controversy over the interpretation of the hebrew word for the time period (yom, I think) since it doesn't strictly mean a day, although some argue that its context implies strictly days). The geological time frame of the evolution of the universe and life isn't incompatible with the latter - what you term 'Old Earth Creationists', although that doesn't imply that they agree with Evolution.
I'm not sure how you define 'natural', Dharma. Is an anthill natural? What about oxygen? Or the humus in soil? All the products of organisms toiling away and producing something that wasn't there before. The difference with humans is perhaps that we seem to do things with such efficiency that we are one of few organisms that has been capable of triggering catastrophic environmental changes. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/4/2005 1:51:12 AM | | Dunno about the Watt quote, myself. Just found it somewhere, thought it was funny and had a (possibly sick) bearing on how some folks might view the issue. As for the distinction between social evolution and social Darwinism, they do have different pragmatic meanings of course, but, while social evolution describes the changes in culture over time, social Darwinism gets twisted into something resembling eugenics. You're dead on about the YEC/OEC dichotomy. Good show, there. And, I'm afraid I have to disagree on "efficiency" being the only difference between humans and other animals that alter their environments. No other animal has been recorded to build machines. True, a great many do use tools (simple machines, yes, but hear me out), but only humans have created _automated_ tools, almost artificial, environment-altering "creatures" in their own right. Sure, the distinction does seem to be one of scale, but that also leads one to consider the scale of impact we have on the environment. Not going pro or con on this, just pointing out that, while humans are _not_ separate from their world, their almost pathological attempt to either make it so or convince themselves of it hamstrings them more than they may realise when the time comes to deal with the consequences. | |
|
|
| Page 20 of 156
|
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 |
|
Home
login 
