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.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:51,
archived)
So
you're not in principle adverse to deciding what's best for nature.
( ,
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.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:58,
archived)
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.