I'm not sure what you're sayingbut I'm big on fallibility.
What's the implied other tool for human improvement?
(,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:14,
archived)
What's the implied other tool for human improvement?
he trying to explainin 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'
(,
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.
(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 peoplethe 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.
(,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:25,
archived)
the planet only has a limited amount of bio-mass that it can support.
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.
(,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:37,
archived)
nothere 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.
(,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:42,
archived)
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.
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.
(,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:45,
archived)
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.
its not staticevery 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
(,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:53,
archived)
but to create programmes to try to get around the flaw that your vision creates will just make things worse