b3ta.com board

Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 5231498 (Thread)

but that mechanism

and everything behind it created and adapted everything on the planet to become most suitable for life on earth, and continues to do so , you may think its aimless, thats part of the delusion of our culture, but in reality its methods is what keeps everything rolling on, and our interference ( our cultural vision) is acting against all these laws of nature, against the process of life itself, which is why the shit will hit the fan more and more the harder we try to control everything.

(I_am_B, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 3:25, archived)

Why do you have so little faith in intelligence?

Intelligence is much faster than evolution, and has all kinds of added extras like the ability to plan ahead, and value things theoretically rather than just produce empirical results. Us intelligent lifeforms are the new generation, and evolution is our senile old grandparent.
All evolution is good for is proving what kind of organisms can live, and it never makes its mind up.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 3:36, archived)

Not every culture is deluded by our cultures delusion, aboriginals, small isolated hunter gatherer tribes and certain american indian tribes ( to name a few) still has intelligence, but our agricultural cultures have forgotten this intelligence because they have been deluded by the lies of our culture.
If we re-learnt this intelligence and 'had' intelligence like you mention we would not interfere.
What you see as intelligence in our cultural vision is founded on lies.

Why do you have so little faith in nature ?

(I_am_B, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 3:48, archived)

Just as a thought experiment:

suppose Lembit Öpik has his way and we develop sophisticated anti-meteor devices. Then suppose a huge asteroid is discovered heading for earth. Presumably you'd argue that we should let nature take its course, rather than deflect the asteroid? If so, what good does that do? If not, is the asteroid not part of nature in your estimation?

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 3:55, archived)

there was a study

on asteroids that showed that we can not deflect them as shown in hollywod blockbusters due to the composition of their structures, our efforts with missiles would be absorbed and would create a nuclear fallout on top of the asteroid hitting us.
Space sails will not work either as the size of them would not be sufficient to do anything.
There would be nothing we could do apart from go underground and hope.

(I_am_B, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 3:59, archived)

I saw that study too

which is why I didn't specify how this system would work. You have to suppose that we've thought of an effective way, for the purpose of the question.
I think it might put you in a dilemma. You mustn't avoid the dilemma by putting up technical obstacles.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:02, archived)

we would not get that far

if we created something that could do that, it would be used on earth for other means or by unavoidable accident before hand and we would wipe ourselves out anyway ,so we would not have to ( or would be able to )worry about the asteroid/

(I_am_B, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:06, archived)

But your lack of faith in technology aside,

the interesting question is whether supposing the situation arose you would side with people, technology and life, or nature, burning space rocks, and death from above.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:10, archived)

the only solution would be

to leave the earth in space ships, but agriculturists in space will never work, and id hate to be stuck in a smaller space-ship with loads of people that believe agricultural lies drifting in the hope of finding somewhere to go, so i would stay on the earth.

(I_am_B, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:13, archived)

It's an asteroid-deflector

that works in an unspecified way.
It's not a giant escape pod. We haven't got one of those, in this thought experiment. What we've got is a device capable of deflecting the asteroid. Is it acceptable to you to use this device, or not?

I'm getting the impression the answer is no...

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:15, archived)

i think you live in hope

too much of our culture.. maybe it was too many scifi films of man conquering everything ray harry-housen could throw at us.
This device would destroy us anyway, so why bother.

(I_am_B, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:21, archived)

I know you think that.

I'm getting that message loud and clear.
But you won't answer the question.
It's a hypothetical question to test your consistency. It doesn't have to have any likelihood of happening.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:22, archived)

destruction by asteroid

or destruction by man made asteroid/planet killer,,
death both ways...
at least if we dont try to build an asteroid killer we half the destruction possibilities

(I_am_B, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:24, archived)

The asteroid-deflector doesn't have the incidental effect of killing us all.

You just made that part up, because the idea that technology might save life on earth from a natural disaster would undermine your whole value-system (in which nature is a benevolent god and technology only causes harm).

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:28, archived)

it depends

you can have technology thats good and tech thats bad.
With our current cultural vision designing it we will fail and double our chances of detruction, it would become inevitable.

But if we had a cultural change to our vision ( that has happened lots of times in human history) to bring it more in line with the cultural vision that evolved with man from the start of time then we would have every hope of surviving.

(I_am_B, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:31, archived)

So assuming ... that,

you would deflect the asteroid?

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:33, archived)

depends what happens to man

the tech and intelligence we know today , NO, it would not work.
The tech of a new ( remembered )vision driving us, YES.

Hypothetical question for you :

If you realised everything your cultural vision was founded on was a lie and would lead to human extinction, would you still believe the lies and carry on to fit in with the flock ,or would you drop that cultural vision ?

(I_am_B, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:39, archived)

I'll come back to that, because we haven't got to the best bit yet.

You've chosen to deflect the asteroid. This is because, in the judgement of you, a human, it's what's best for nature. Are you comfortable with that?

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:43, archived)

your trying to put words into it

you put into the hypothetical question an asteroid mechanic that was foolproof and not dangerous to life on earth in any way, something that we will NEVER reach with our current cultural vision. So in your hypothetical question that will never come true the answer would be yes, but in reality the answer would be no.

(I_am_B, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:51, archived)

you're not in principle adverse to deciding what's best for nature.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:52, archived)

every creature

on the planet has an inbuilt desire to live,
thats part of nature, to deny it is to deny you are part of nature.

To sometimes give as good as you get is part of nature too.

But to try to conquer is not.

To think ( agricultural vision) you are above nature and outside of its laws is foolish, and unintelligent.

(I_am_B, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:58, archived)

Hmmmm

I don't normally take part in these sort of debates, but I'm kind of duty bound to respond here. The way I see it, the 'problem' with intellect and logic is that they're practiced by fallible, emotion-driven humans. There is no such thing as an unbiased intellect except in the most rarified, trivial circumstances. Human intellect is almost always informed by need or desire, perceived or actual, however unwittingly or covertly. For this reason it is flawed when use as a sole tool for human improvement, not in theory perhaps, but almost always in actuality.

(

mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:08, archived)

I'm not sure what you're saying

but I'm big on fallibility.
What's the implied other tool for human improvement?

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:14, archived)

he trying to explain

in the grand scheme of things whats bad for you may not be bad for other things, and that our delusion of controlling things is affected by our delusion that what is good for us 'must be good for everything else'

(I_am_B, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:18, archived)

I mean I'm not big on intellect, but you already knew that :)

Ha ha, the other tool for human improvement? None was implied (or at least that was not my intention... I see now how you drew that conclusion though). 'Improvement' is relative, changeful, in the eye of the beholder, and therefore ultimately illusory: Medicine improves in efficiency, so more people survive, so more people need food, so more people starve. An extreme and probably silly example, but you know what I'm saying.

(

mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:19, archived)

not just people

the more people and more food for people there are, the less of all other life on the planet there is,
the planet only has a limited amount of bio-mass that it can support.

(I_am_B, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:25, archived)

Sounds a bit buddhist.

I think progress occurs. New solutions lead to new problems, of course, but that's the joy of living. Though I do agree, in a way, that it's all pointless. But we should keep striving forward anyway, 'cos it's fun.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:37, archived)

there is a way that everything 'works', and thats if we leave nature alone.

These problems only occur when we interfere, and we create 'programmes' to try to compensate for the flaws that this interfering creates.
To keep on reinforcing the flaw will just leave a lot more to crumble.

(I_am_B, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:42, archived)

Hehe, sounds like laissez-faire economics.

I wish you were a free market advocate instead of a back-to-nature type. You'd be great at it.
By the way, I like problems. Having no problems to solve would be terminally boring. It would be a static situation, like an argument without criticism.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:45, archived)

its not static

every creature encounters problems that it needs to overcome all the time, even un-agricultural man..
but to create programmes to try to get around the flaw that your vision creates will just make things worse

(I_am_B, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:53, archived)

I'll go to bed now, since it's 5 in the morning and I might have work tomorrow afternoon.

Was fun ranting with you, as usual.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 5:00, archived)

hehe nn

i was thinking the same :)

(I_am_B, Tue 18 Oct 2005, 5:02, archived)