Please define how we "CONTROL 'natural' selection". I'm quite curious to hear this one.
Please define how we "CONTROL 'natural' selection". I'm quite curious to hear this one.
To an extent we do. We allow people with genetic disorders to breed, and whilst we think it's nice a PC at the moment, it's disasterous in terms of evolution and natural selection. Whilst I don't think we can go back to fighting to the death for our womenfolk, I don't think we should encourage people with deficiences to breed - ginger people, or people with beards for example 
As an example, look at the quantity of 'dodgy' housing estates, and the people that populate them in the main
As an example, look at the quantity of 'dodgy' housing estates, and the people that populate them in the main
well, for starters we still can't breed dinosours.
if you use the analogy of computer programming on our control on genetic technology.
we are just in a stage of modding, we can identity what sort of information does what, cut and paste it around, improvise a bit and chunk out something a little bit different,
but we are still very very far away to the stage where we can create something from scratch, engineer life and dictate natural progression.
if you use the analogy of computer programming on our control on genetic technology.
we are just in a stage of modding, we can identity what sort of information does what, cut and paste it around, improvise a bit and chunk out something a little bit different,
but we are still very very far away to the stage where we can create something from scratch, engineer life and dictate natural progression.
I'd look at it from the other POV. We don't control natural selection but neither does natural selection control us anymore. Since we don't have any natural predators anymore, thus no selection process, people with genetic deficiencies are pretty much encouraged by the environment to reproduce simply because they can.
you forgot about viruses and bacterias? little things that kill human on a consistant basis?
Indeed, that's a clear sign that we are still controlled by natural selection although not as strong as it is with other animals, it has it's limits. Viruses can't really make a difference between a normal person and one with ,as an example, Down Syndrome. Both will be affected in a similar way, both will have similar chances of either dying or evolving their immunity.
Yet if you would take, let's say a deer with any visually impairing malformation, it wouldn't get the chance to procreate since it would probably be killed by a predator which it couldn't see.
PS: Shouldn't I be on your ignore list?
here's another POV.
If it is a fact that human will not be eliminated by natural selection, that includes natural forces such as tyhoon, tsunami, interplanetery collisions.
Our only way to go out, will be self destruction, if that is the case, does it make us a better or worse species?
I dunno, maybe the system think I should listen to you?
If it is a fact that human will not be eliminated by natural selection, that includes natural forces such as tyhoon, tsunami, interplanetery collisions.
Our only way to go out, will be self destruction, if that is the case, does it make us a better or worse species?
I dunno, maybe the system think I should listen to you?
Another example: intelligent people tend to focus on careers and have children later in life, less intelligent people are more likely to have larger families earlier on. Seeing as your children are more likely to have some sort of problems the later in life you have them, this is a two fold effect that means the average person is slowly getting less intelligent, so as a race we're devolving.
JJ72 - I think the reason to be unsure about making a species extinct is that we've never really tried. I suspect that a fair proportion of the species on this planet could be made extinct if every single person tried, and went out of their way*, to kill off all the examples.
*By this, I mean to go as far as government run task forces dedicated to the elimination of the species
IMO it depends on from where you are looking. If we are looking from a human's POV, having such an unstable society that it can implode, then we are worse as a specie.
From another point of view: We are social life forms so if we fail at one of our most rudimentary features, to coexist up to the extent that we are in danger of neutralizing ourselves, then it would be a good riddance.
But then again, I don't think we would be capable of doing that for the reason mentioned above, we are social beings.
Simple: Ban Children unless you got far enough in education, and then only between the ages of 25-30
The point is that we COULD do it if we wanted to. It would take a lot of time, money and effort to actually do it, but rats couldn't get together, decide to exterminate humans and actually even begin to accomplish that.
Here's a question for you. Can I say "I believe in extra terrestrial life" and "I don't believe in extra terrestrial life" at the same time and be logically correct? IMO they are mutually exclusive, so saying "I believe in extra terrestrial life" means you are excluding the possibility of there not being extra terrestrial life. If you say "I believe there is probably extra terrestrial life" you are leaving open the possibility of there not being extra terrestrial life.
I would imagine it to be very effective against larger animals, but clearing out frogs, snails, or grasshoppers and all those fishes will be rather damn hard.
unless you do it like in the matrix, you block out the sun and destroy the whole ecosystem.
of course that's discounting the concern of sustaining our own life after we do that.
It's illogical to say that, because in both statements you are referring to "believe" as "a faith that something is true."
hence it's a contradiction.
saying you believe in extra terrestrial life does not exclude the possibility of its non existence, it just states your faith, you supposition that there are life out there. Although you don't "know" the real answer as a fact.
it's a subscribing to a "plausible truth.", in contrasts to a "confirmed truth."
I think you are not very clear with the application of the word "believe in", my quote had already stated that "believe in" does not always mean "accepting a known fact.", it can also refers to something a possibility that you wish for.
IMO there is no doubt that there was/is/will be extraterrestrial life simply because it can be proven from a mathematical and logical point of view.
EDIT: Just realized, this is going WAY off-topic
EDIT: Just realized, this is going WAY off-topic
well black death did not need plans to kill one third of europe, they didn't even need to speak to each other.
so if they can do that without planning or improvising tools, maybe they are potentially much more lethal?
but then, the thing is you cannot prove that we human can extinct all life forms, you have not so far make me believe it is plausible in fact, lets say suggest a way to kill those fishes living 6000ft under water?
why would we want to save the dogs in South Korea when it seems people in authority are incapable of looking after dogs in the UK (you know those two police dogs that died after being left in a hot car....) if we can't sort out our own problems here how on earth are we going to make a difference over there.
We should stop trying to get other cultures to change, cultures which are very different from our own that we don't 'understand'. Those dogs are bred to be supply meat, much like chickens or pigs which are bred to supply meat. They aren't your everyday slobbery cuddly labrador who is a faithful companion. Although it seems tides are changing in Korea, they have eaten dog meat for centuries. I can imagine all the sorts of greeny do-gooder won't-eat-anything-that-casts-a-shadow vegan types that have signed it, slowly crying themselves to sleep at night over a cup of liquidised tofu wondering why this world has to be so cruel, when the simple fact is it comes down to culture. If we try and forcibly change people's culture we're in a whole heap of shit
Consider it from another perspective. Imagine if someone tried to get a petition going to ban black pudding or haggis in this country. There would be uproar.
I own 2 dogs, by the way.
We should stop trying to get other cultures to change, cultures which are very different from our own that we don't 'understand'. Those dogs are bred to be supply meat, much like chickens or pigs which are bred to supply meat. They aren't your everyday slobbery cuddly labrador who is a faithful companion. Although it seems tides are changing in Korea, they have eaten dog meat for centuries. I can imagine all the sorts of greeny do-gooder won't-eat-anything-that-casts-a-shadow vegan types that have signed it, slowly crying themselves to sleep at night over a cup of liquidised tofu wondering why this world has to be so cruel, when the simple fact is it comes down to culture. If we try and forcibly change people's culture we're in a whole heap of shit
Consider it from another perspective. Imagine if someone tried to get a petition going to ban black pudding or haggis in this country. There would be uproar.
I own 2 dogs, by the way.
Can I see the math/logic which tells us that existence of life elsewhere is highly probable/almost certain? Don't tell me it's Drake's formula...
On topic - didn't sign the petition as I don't agree with it.
We tried to eliminate rabbits in Australia by introducing myximatosis. There are still rabbits, but myximatosis runs rampant.
Humans are not a single organism, we co-exist with a number of other organisms, many of which live inside us in our guts. Without them we would die. Actamel call this "good bacteria".
It is impossible to irradicate a virus, infact virus' already have a natural predator called the phage. Phages evolved at the same speed as virus', it's a natural cycle - when a particular bacteria blossoms so do the phages: Like foxes and rabbits. However mutagen rates are fairly constant and sufficient to allow numerous evolutionary paths for any given bacteria at any given time.
Extra terrestrial life is quite likely to exist, we make this deduction based upon the sheer scale of the universe and the fact that, right at the bottom of the food/organism chain, amoeba's employ fission to create new life and do so under conditions which are recreatable in a celestial sense. Therefor logically life does exist, and has done at different times in the life span of the universe (afterall, Mars was once where Earth is).
Therefore we can also make the deduction that, on a universal scale, Humans are absolutely inconsequential, and indeed if there is a God then Humans clearly are not the intended end-goal (on the ground that we cannot survive indeffinitely on Earth because Earth itself will die, and if we travelled planets we would be exposed to different environmental conditions which would favour further evolution).
Infact with the impending energy crisis, shifting of the jet stream and other ecological evolution and social dellapidations in progress it's quite possible that the Human population will suffer a significant population decrease within either our lifetime or the life of our children. Not that i'm a subscriber to the Jehova's Witnesses or anything, we've already survived plenty of doomsdays - but i'm building to a point here.
Krakatoa is a volcano, and in 1883 it had a very famous explosion. However geologists also believe that it had a much bigger erruption around 45000 years ago. When I say much bigger, we're talking super volcano big - like the one under Yellowstone in America (that's a bit overdue). Now factoring in the rate of genetic mutation it is possible to estimate the Earths Human population at the time of this erruption based upon the gene variety in the world today, the estimated Human population of Earth 45000 years ago is 15000. It seems we dont do too well against super volcanoes, and we're due one anytime.
So I ask again, just what is meant by "important"? I think if you ask the gaia we live on, the answer is "only me".
Humans are not a single organism, we co-exist with a number of other organisms, many of which live inside us in our guts. Without them we would die. Actamel call this "good bacteria".
It is impossible to irradicate a virus, infact virus' already have a natural predator called the phage. Phages evolved at the same speed as virus', it's a natural cycle - when a particular bacteria blossoms so do the phages: Like foxes and rabbits. However mutagen rates are fairly constant and sufficient to allow numerous evolutionary paths for any given bacteria at any given time.
Extra terrestrial life is quite likely to exist, we make this deduction based upon the sheer scale of the universe and the fact that, right at the bottom of the food/organism chain, amoeba's employ fission to create new life and do so under conditions which are recreatable in a celestial sense. Therefor logically life does exist, and has done at different times in the life span of the universe (afterall, Mars was once where Earth is).
Therefore we can also make the deduction that, on a universal scale, Humans are absolutely inconsequential, and indeed if there is a God then Humans clearly are not the intended end-goal (on the ground that we cannot survive indeffinitely on Earth because Earth itself will die, and if we travelled planets we would be exposed to different environmental conditions which would favour further evolution).
Infact with the impending energy crisis, shifting of the jet stream and other ecological evolution and social dellapidations in progress it's quite possible that the Human population will suffer a significant population decrease within either our lifetime or the life of our children. Not that i'm a subscriber to the Jehova's Witnesses or anything, we've already survived plenty of doomsdays - but i'm building to a point here.
Krakatoa is a volcano, and in 1883 it had a very famous explosion. However geologists also believe that it had a much bigger erruption around 45000 years ago. When I say much bigger, we're talking super volcano big - like the one under Yellowstone in America (that's a bit overdue). Now factoring in the rate of genetic mutation it is possible to estimate the Earths Human population at the time of this erruption based upon the gene variety in the world today, the estimated Human population of Earth 45000 years ago is 15000. It seems we dont do too well against super volcanoes, and we're due one anytime.
So I ask again, just what is meant by "important"? I think if you ask the gaia we live on, the answer is "only me".
wow so many points to comment on .. so I'll just mention a few...
Humans may not be more important than other species of animal but we most definitely are superior. We have traits and characteristics that allow us to achieve things of which no other animal is capable.
We do not control natural selection, what we can control is our immediate environment to a relatively small degree. This may well have altered the course of human evolution but it is by no means under our control.
Law is to a large extent defined by the society to which it belongs and is also heavily informed by the "moral" framework of that society.
Is Morality relative? well that depends on which phylosophy you tend towards. Satre for example was a believer of Moral Relativism. Then there is Moral Nihilism and Moral Utilitarianism and many other takes on the meaning of Morality.
Lastly, the probability of other life existing somewhere in the universe is increasing day by day as we find proof of extrasolar planetary systems in our own galaxy. To date 353 such Exoplanets have been discovered. http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/
Humans may not be more important than other species of animal but we most definitely are superior. We have traits and characteristics that allow us to achieve things of which no other animal is capable.
We do not control natural selection, what we can control is our immediate environment to a relatively small degree. This may well have altered the course of human evolution but it is by no means under our control.
Law is to a large extent defined by the society to which it belongs and is also heavily informed by the "moral" framework of that society.
Is Morality relative? well that depends on which phylosophy you tend towards. Satre for example was a believer of Moral Relativism. Then there is Moral Nihilism and Moral Utilitarianism and many other takes on the meaning of Morality.
Lastly, the probability of other life existing somewhere in the universe is increasing day by day as we find proof of extrasolar planetary systems in our own galaxy. To date 353 such Exoplanets have been discovered. http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/
Save the whales, Catch them all!
tbh kiling any animal for food is just the same as killing dogs. (i cba to read the rest of this thread and it wouldn't change my mind anyway) I don't mean to sound ignorant but as humas we wil kill everything we can.
tbh kiling any animal for food is just the same as killing dogs. (i cba to read the rest of this thread and it wouldn't change my mind anyway) I don't mean to sound ignorant but as humas we wil kill everything we can.
CARE?
Lmao humans come first, then the rest And tbh who cares if they're eaten? Ya don't complain when pigs are grown to be eaten by humans..
Lmao humans come first, then the rest
And tbh who cares if they're eaten? Ya don't complain when pigs are grown to be eaten by humans..Birds.
/thread
Save the dogs in south korea
(97 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG