<p>mj93 = Malthus' ghost</p>
<p>And a lot of the reason we have societal customs is because of the concept of "decency" and "courtesy". It helps when people are a bit more polite to each other, it makes things run much more smoothly. Certainly better than the posturing and killing of malformed babies not to mention social darwinism of our caveman days. I just think it's a little misanthropic and disingenuous to place animal's lives over humans. Do not assume for even a second that we impact this Earth in any meaningful, lasting way.</p>
<p>DerrickA,</p>
<p>Such a statement is tantamount to the belief that human beings are the "best" species on the planet. If us humans feel pain in our nerve endings, it's HORRIBLE. But who cares about the monkeys and the whales? Their nerve endings obviously aren't equal to ours.</p>
<p>"Don't worry, the Earth is very resilient ... Do not assume for even a second that we impact this Earth in any meaningful, lasting way."</p>
<p>As I said before, science is not a reliable source--current theories are constantly replaced as new information is recieved. I don't mean to imply that science is "useless", just that it isn't the be-all-end-all of what is true and what is false. For these reasons, it's hard for us to say how much "suffering" the Earth can handle. But I assure you, it DOES have a breaking point (like anything else). </p>
<p>So really, who knows whether or not global warming is the real deal? And if it is, to what extent? But personally, I'd rather not take the risk.</p>
<p>Less people=less fossil fuels burned. :)</p>
<p>"..the posturing and killing of malformed babies not to mention social darwinism of our caveman days."</p>
<p>Unfortunately, physical pain is a part of life. It is necessary in order to keep the food chain moving. Certain cultural practices that are looked down upon today were accepted in those times.</p>
<p>Anyways, the fact is that the Earth will be no longer habitable in yes, a billion years. Even before the sun goes red giant, its luminosity will increase as it ages. Some models predict that the Earth will become uninhabitable for life within a billion years due to this increasing luminosity of the sun, unless humans find a technological solution to the problem (for example, by shooting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere or by pushing its orbit outwards).</p>
<p>Even then, humanity is doomed, even if it escapes into space. Since entropy will only increase and all other potentially habitable stars will burn out, their energy becoming unusuable (as massive clumps of hydrogen are not concentrated enough to form new stars).</p>
<p>Anyways, "Rare Earth" and "Life and Death of Planet Earth" (Brownlee and Ward) are excellent books. You seem interesting, mj93. What do you think of vegetarianism? Or moral relativism? </p>
<p>Have you heard of Edward O. Wilson? Have you read his books? He's somewhat more moral than I am - but I still find his books very interesting.</p>
<h1>I was like you when I was younger (I was moral relativist, nihilist, vegetarian, anti-anthropomorphic chauvinism, I hated most societal constructs, I disdained pretty much everyone). I'm still the same - it's just that it isn't new to me anymore. Now I've just accepted that life is pointless and that I can't really do anything about it. Sometimes I do vent against society. But I'm merely an ant in a large supercolony.</h1>
<p>There's also the spectre of combining man and machine. We might be able to enhance our mental and physical abilities with this. </p>
<p>Are we more civilized than before? We're more technologically advanced, that's for sure. But we're still the same humans in stone age brains, who are amusingly motivated by strong (and ultimately flawed) convictions.</p>
<p>But meh, I guess I like learning. I agree though - large segments of the human population could be killed off with no loss of informational content (a bunch of humans who are pretty much the same and who just consume more and more resources contribute a lot less informational content than an ecosystem that has not been discovered - due to the redundancy within the bunch of humans). But as the balance of power lies - there will be protests against the killing of those peoples - due to the moral values that have been constructed.</p>
<p>Of course, if the world has an infinite lifespan, then we wouldn't care if ecosystems were destroyed - since they'd have time to recover. Unfortunately, due to the increasing luminosity of the Sun, the fact is that there is so little time for any of the ecosystems to recover, and as a result of that, our current ecosystems are so precious in terms of the unique informational value that we can yield from them.</p>
<p>So what now? Well, humans can actually prolong the life of the world' biodiversity (even after the point that biodiversity would get extinguished if humans did not exist). They are the only species capable of doing this. And until we are capable of this, we should minimize the damage done to our biodiversity. </p>
<p>Also, people tend to fill in empty niches. If an empty niche exists and there are few constraints in the way of food or disease, people will respond to the new environmental cues as such, and reproduce more (they will shift more towards r selection than K selection). This might reduce the effectiveness of the plan (unless everyone responded to the same plan for generations - and this is unlikely).</p>
<p>==</p>
<p>HOWEVER....</p>
<p>The fact is - most of the world's energy input is gone to waste. Positive energy comes from the Sun - this energy can be used to reduce entropy locally on the Earth. </p>
<p>The fact is - humans can design technologies that capture more of this energy, and use it for more productive purposes. This is also the rationale behind the theorizing of the Dyson Sphere (also at least we'd get energy that's usable - and use that to beam to the Earth - instead of unusable heat energy that only heat up the Earth).</p>
<p>The interesting thing is that more energy will be coming from the sun as its luminosity increases. But much of that energy is unusable heat energy.</p>
<p>Which brings up an interesting question: which forms of electromagnetic radiation are the most usable ones? For most of history, it has been the ones that are in the wavelengths that get absorbed by chlorophyll A and chlorophyll B (the ones that plants can convert into usable energy). What of technologies like solar power? What are their ideal wavelength? The answer's not on the top of my head though.</p>
<p>And as the sun ages, its blackbody spectrum will shift towards the longer wavelengths (less energy) - though there will be a net flux increase of all forms of energy as it ages. Currently its peak wavelengths are in the visible range (IIRC). As it ages, its peak wavelengths will shift towards the right - and the implications of this? More infrared radiation that gets trapped by clouds and CO2.</p>
<p>Ah, I love this.</p>
<p>==
By the way, CO2 levels were much higher in the Earth's past. They are lower now though - but the Earth's temperature has remained stable due to the increasing luminosity of the Sun.</p>
<p>==
Anyhow, I don't moralize on basis of ephemeral feelings of pain or pleasure (of individual humans who are going to die anyways). I actually moralize on basis of "usable informational content - information that isn't wasted on entropy". Though living systems do ultimately increase entropy (in the universe) - the tremendous local reduction in entropy is amazing. And humans can serve to dramatically increase the entropy of living systems by the indiscriminate cutting up of them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As I said before, science is not a reliable source--current theories are constantly replaced as new information is recieved. I don't mean to imply that science is "useless", just that it isn't the be-all-end-all of what is true and what is false. For these reasons, it's hard for us to say how much "suffering" the Earth can handle. But I assure you, it DOES have a breaking point (like anything else)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you don't trust science, what do you suggest we turn to? Religion? Astrology? Science is what is most reliable, and it's changing to get better, not to cheat us out of what is in the future. You have to accept the fact that science is always changing because of the way time is. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I totally agree, but that problem is exacerbated by the fact that we live in such a large scale society. There are just too many different people with different needs under the same government. In a tribe, each person is relatively similar to her/his neighbor, and the 'government' is small or non-existent. For those reasons, less compromise is necessary, and (relatively more) balance and stability inevitably ensue.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's what China has done with the 1-child limit. Although their strict enforcement has cut down the population, it is far from perfect. Since boys are more highly prized than females, it has led to a lopsided gender ratio because many female fetuses are aborted to give way for the many families that want one male child. This brings down the population count even more, but people are worried that it might lead to the proliferation of gangs and such because of the excess of males. </p>
<p>Furthermore, I disagree with the fact that tribes would be a better way to govern society. You're taking the connected world for granted. Separated tribes means there will be much more misunderstood communication, less exposure to worldly affairs, not to mention less access to information. Reducing ourselves to what we were in more primitive times is not going to work, and people suffered just as much then as they do now, just in different types of situations.</p>
<p>"If you don't trust science, what do you suggest we turn to?"</p>
<p>Shritzo, you have a "we need more and more progress!" mentality that is very common in our culture. Sure, science will bring us "better" material goods that will, for a while, make our individual lives "easier". The cycle will continue forever, and that's basically our definition of Progress--a constant stream of new and better material goods, regardless of need.</p>
<p>If we really need to have a belief system to turn to with all our questions (like science, astronomy, religion), we should look back to the traditional Native American religions. We could learn basic principles on how to live on Earth, some of which we seem to have forgotten, like: "When it comes to the Earth's resources, only take how much you need, and when you're done, return as much as possible." Such an idea could be applied to our current society in numerous ways, i.e., the huge, beige house way out in the x-burbs craze.</p>
<p>"I disagree with the fact that tribes would be a better way to govern society. You're taking the connected world for granted. Separated tribes means there will be much more misunderstood communication, less exposure to worldly affairs, not to mention less access to information."</p>
<p>Imagine that the human population on Earth is comprised solely of tribes. Is there a NEED for a tribe in Australia to be connected to a tribe in Greenland? No. It's true that a tribe in Town X might need to contact the neighboring tribe in Town Y on occasion, but in order to do so, they won't need very high-tech communication.</p>
<p>Anyways, this whole tribe good/tribe bad debate is really pointless, because we're never going to be able to return to our tribal roots. I'd say it's close to impossible.</p>
<p>"..people suffered just as much then as they do now, just in different types of situations."</p>
<p>True, but the population was smaller, therefore less people were suffering. The resources of the planet were more equally spread out among the people, which also contributes to the fact that less were suffering. No matter what type of society we live in, people will suffer. However, suffering today is on a much more massive scale compared to suffering then.</p>
<p>InquillineKea--thanks for the informative posts .. i'll look into those books.</p>
<p>"What do you think of vegetarianism?"</p>
<p>I disagree with the idea of vegetarianism. The food chain is going to continue whether or not an individual Human decides to eat other animals. Basically, if you don't eat a chicken, the chicken will end up being eaten by some other creature, Human or otherwise. And if the chicken doesn't get eaten, it will end up eating other creatures, which ruins the point of not eating the chicken in the first place.</p>
<p>"What do you think of .. moral relativism?"</p>
<p>Not having heard of moral relativism before, I just wikipedia'd it, and that's exactly what I believe. Haha, I thought I was the only one who thought that, and lo and behold there's a whole centuries-old philosophical theory out there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Shritzo, you have a "we need more and more progress!" mentality that is very common in our culture. Sure, science will bring us "better" material goods that will, for a while, make our individual lives "easier". The cycle will continue forever, and that's basically our definition of Progress--a constant stream of new and better material goods, regardless of need.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Science is not based on bringing in better material goods. That more has to do with consumerism than pure science. Science has more to do with understanding the world around us. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Imagine that the human population on Earth is comprised solely of tribes. Is there a NEED for a tribe in Australia to be connected to a tribe in Greenland? No. It's true that a tribe in Town X might need to contact the neighboring tribe in Town Y on occasion, but in order to do so, they won't need very high-tech communication.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would prefer living in the way the world is now because of the fact that living in a disconnected tribe would merit less knowledge and understanding of our universe and our surroundings. It's the global facet of life and the act of knowing that I would miss if society were dictated by tribes. We'd all be living in closed, small, sheltered worlds.</p>
<p>^Exactly why we will never be able to return to our tribal roots. People are used to living the way we live now, no matter how destructive and unnecessary many of our practices are.</p>
<p>I never said science was BASED on bringing in better material goods. It just has that effect.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I disagree with the idea of vegetarianism. The food chain is going to continue whether or not an individual Human decides to eat other animals. Basically, if you don't eat a chicken, the chicken will end up being eaten by some other creature, Human or otherwise. And if the chicken doesn't get eaten, it will end up eating other creatures, which ruins the point of not eating the chicken in the first place.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But on the other hand - the fact is that the ecosystem is going to be healthier if we all became vegetarians. Why? It takes a huge amount of plant matter to feed animals. Most of the plant matter is gone to waste in the form of heat and entropy (only around 10% of it goes up the food chain into usable forms made by the animals). This is also corroborated with the further point of statistics on US land usage. 90% of the corn grown in the US is fed to pigs. Very large percentages of the US land usage is used on farming (both on corn and on pigs). Pigs need land to graze on (same with cows and such). The fact is that we can fit A LOT more humans onto the planet if we all became vegetarians, because we'd be able to feed more humans with the same amount of space.</p>
<p>
[quote]
True, but the population was smaller, therefore less people were suffering. The resources of the planet were more equally spread out among the people, which also contributes to the fact that less were suffering. No matter what type of society we live in, people will suffer. However, suffering today is on a much more massive scale compared to suffering then.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How do you necessarily define suffering? The easiest way to increase suffering is to increase the population - since there are more people - there is a greater net amount of suffering - assuming that every person had an equal amount of suffering. The fact is - humans were in dire poverty for much of history - the situation in Africa today are not necessarily much worse than they were millions of years ago (in fact, people are comparatively more well off today). There were corrupt governments, large-scale massacres, slavery, widespread discrimination, etc. in the past. Yes, the European colonization of Africa may have made Africa worse off. But we think of Africans as suffering precisely because we are materially well off compared to them. If we look at history, we see an amount of suffering that is almost inconceivable. </p>
<p>On the other hand though - we don't know of the death rates due to starvation in the past (other factors may have been more significant). We can say that some populations had more problems with starvation than others - and that a lot of populations didn't have too much of a problem with it - seeing that their genotypes did not code for fat metabolism in the same way as the Pima Indians did (i.e, very low levels of it, leading to obese phenotypes in current conditions).</p>
<p>^Interesting facts about vegetarianism .. however, it would only truely be necessary for us all to become vegetarians if there was a shortage of land and corn (which their currently isn't, as far as I know).</p>
<p>"How do you necessarily define suffering? The easiest way to increase suffering is to increase the population - since there are more people - there is a greater net amount of suffering - assuming that every person had an equal amount of suffering."</p>
<p>That's exactly what I meant.</p>
<p>"There were corrupt governments, large-scale massacres, slavery, widespread discrimination, etc. in the past."</p>
<p>Sorry, I don't think I clarified well enough. I didn't just mean that there was less suffering at any random point in history, I meant that there was less suffering when we were hunters and gatherers in tribal days (before the agricultural revolution).</p>
<p>
[quote]
however, it would only truely be necessary for us all to become vegetarians if there was a shortage of land and corn (which their currently isn't, as far as I know).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While there may not be a shortage of land or corn - the fact is that local economies do matter a lot and that trade is often restricted within a local community. With that in mind, we can do a lot more to feed the poor and hungry if we replaced all of the animals with corn and other plant matters (and other countries can do the same - and then they'd have more plants for local consumption). The problem though is that they must be traded, and since the poor have almost nothing to offer, there is little incentive for such trade.</p>
<p>Sure, there isn't a shortage of usable land in Siberia. Nor is there one in North Dakota, Montana, or Kansas. But every additional acre of land that gets used destroys more biodiversity in the process. And, there is a shortage of usable land in South America. Guess what happens then? Farmers slash down and burn rainforests. And that's to raise their beef cattle. And these farmers only do it because they need to do it. They don't see many other options. They quickly exhaust the fragile topsoil of the rainforests with this grazing. This effectively destroys more ecosystems</p>
<p>A corollary is that feeding the poor may or may not increase the population. It will decrease the death rates, for sure. But on the other hand, the poor may respond by having fewer children (since they are sure that each individual child is more likely to survive). </p>
<p>==</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sorry, I don't think I clarified well enough. I didn't just mean that there was less suffering at any random point in history, I meant that there was less suffering when we were hunters and gatherers in tribal days (before the agricultural revolution).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But how do you know that there was less suffering when we were hunters and gatherers? How can you be reasonably certain of this? One thing is certain - hunters and gatherers had much lower lifespans than the vast majority of humans today. And lifespan is a good indicator of quality of life. In fact, we have better qualities of life for the same lifespans than we had in the past - before we had technology to make our lives easier and more leisurely.</p>
<p>==</p>
<p>
[quote]
I disagree with the idea of vegetarianism. The food chain is going to continue whether or not an individual Human decides to eat other animals. Basically, if you don't eat a chicken, the chicken will end up being eaten by some other creature, Human or otherwise. And if the chicken doesn't get eaten, it will end up eating other creatures, which ruins the point of not eating the chicken in the first place.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>However, humans raise chickens to BE eaten. The fact is that the chickens wouldn't exist if they weren't raised to be eaten There is thus, more suffering when chickens are raised. It's completely unnecessary to raise animals for some human urges that humans themselves cannot control - urges that are socially influenced and totally unnecessary (a product of our evolutionary past). And in the process of doing so - we take up valuable land that can be better used for other purposes. And you say that land is not an issue? Look at the rainforest destruction</p>
<p>One analogy I often raise in such debates: humans could raise humans to be eaten. Is this any less desirable than raising chickens to be eaten? (moral concerns aside)</p>
<p>Amount of suffering = suicide/depression/burnout rates, mass starvation, racism, prejudice in general, complication of government, % of people whose basic needs are met, % of people who are satisfied with life.</p>
<p>IMO, "we" cultures (tribes) have less suffering than today's "me" culture.</p>
<p>Regardless, we will never be able to get back to our tribal roots, at least not until our population has shrunk a bit.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Amount of suffering = suicide/depression/burnout rates, mass starvation, racism, prejudice in general, complication of government, % of people whose basic needs are met, % of people who are satisfied with life.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ah but how do you know that the amount of suffering now is greater than it was in the past? It may be your opinion that it is the way it is, but if you can't cite sound reasons for it, then it's a flawed opinion.</p>
<p>You seem to imply that lesser suffering => more civilized. I agree that the connotation of civilized has been modified by modern prejudices. However, I believe that such definition of "civilized" is too narrow, and open to a lot of undesirables. In one way, what if Mars had citizens - all of who were suffering? Would that make us any less "civilized" than we are now?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Regardless, we will never be able to get back to our tribal roots, at least not until our population has shrunk a bit.
[/quote]
</p>
<h1>And how are our tribal roots more desirable than our current modern beliefs are? </h1>
<p>Anyways, people are pretty much biologically the same as they were thousands of years ago. The fact is that they're still people influenced by their environments. If you bring a stone age human into this environment, then he'd be just like most of us are now. Many humans are so superficial that it's pathetic, but there are a few of them who actually are enlightened enough to propose reasonable solutions to our problems. That consists of a small minority of them, of course, but frankly, humans were never better off in the past. Sure, their actions impacted the environment less just because there were FEWER of them. That does not make them any more morally superior than they used to be.</p>
<p>Of course, the Native Americans may have land usage strategies that we respect due to their belief systems. I respect them for that - however, what makes their religions any more superior than moral values based on sound science? Edward O. Wilson and Jane Goodall don't believe in those moral values - yet they do hold moral values based on their scientific research. It's just that not enough people subscribe to their moral values. </p>
<p>Good resource management that is guided by scientific principles - this is becoming a powerful force in academia today.</p>
<p>====</p>
<p>
[quote]
By 'intelligence', I'm assuming you mean lack of instinct. When it comes down to it, that's really what human 'intelligence' is. Instead of running on thousands of years of collective wisdom (instinct), we have 'personal choice'. That makes us way more prone to mistakes (and shortsightedness) than all other species. If you look at it from that perspective, we have the LEAST intelligence of all species on the planet.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>On the other hand, we're more adaptable to changing environmental conditions than other animals are. The fact is that other species of animals cannot adapt to such changes, and they die out as a result of that lack of adaptation. In other words, they are stuck in their evolutionary past, and since their phenotypes are pretty much set up at birth - they are prone to mistakes - mistakes that are inevitable for them. Sure, humans have more opportunities to make mistakes - since they have free choice - but they're not inevitable for them. The fact that we could be otherwise just makes our own mistakes look worse- when in reality - they're a lot better than being entrenched in our genes.</p>
<p>On the other hand, humans are among the few animals whose phenotypes are not pretty much set up at birth - since they are so adaptable.</p>
<p>==
Anyways, mj93, I admire your courage to bring up on such a topic (I thought like you did when I was an 8th grader, but I never had the courage to bring it up on the online forums I visited). But I think that your beliefs do have some double standards that are not necessarily compatible with each other - beliefs that are ultimately mistaken. And online debating can sometimes be helpful - but the fact is that most debates are with people who are so entrenched within their moral systems that they engage in hopeless acts of circular reasoning and utter culturally chauvinistic statements (since after all, they had the freedom to do so).</p>
<p>I'd like to pose a question - is "being civilized" necessarily contingent on what happens in other countries? If so, does that "being civilized" depend on the moral beliefs that the citizens hold, including potentially altruistic beliefs?</p>
<p>
[quote]
]We have almost no free time in our lives--it's all spent on obligations that keep this (way too) complicated society running.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We have more free times in our lives than ever before. In the past, we had to grow our own crops, wash our clothing using washboards, rely on primitive means of transportation, go without flush toilets, etc... The fact is that we're just not growing our own crops for ourselves - instead, we're working for corporations that pay us wages that we can in turn use to buy crops from (wages that allow us to do a lot of other things).</p>
<p>Sure, we have to spend some time on obligations that keep our society running. Is this necessarily bad, if it results in less time wasted than before? (when we had to rely on obligations that kept ourselves running?)</p>
<p>The fact is - people have different skills and values - and trade (within a society) makes us all better off.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe in moderation, and I also believe that science can't be trusted. If you look back to science 200 years ago, you'll find many statements that were "facts" then, but are now considered incorrect. I believe that 200 years from now, scientists will look back on us and say, "look how little they knew".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So which of our scientific theories do you think will be incorrect in the future? The fact is - we know a lot more than we did in the past - and there just aren't a lot of opportunities for new Copernican revolutions. Science is a predictive endeavor, and what we do is to arrive at increasingly predictive approximations with new science. Sometimes, a shift in paradigm or model is needed for those increasingly predictive approximations. And frankly, we've been able to predict almost nothing far before 500 years ago. And look at what we have now? A very sophisticated understanding of our own bodies, of entire ecosystems, of entire habitats. Sure, we don't know enough. But that doesn't demerit our current science by any means.</p>
<p>
[quote]
children must be schooled for 15-25 years just to function in it. And what are the positive effects of this? Uhh.. there are none.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Here is where I agree with you. I'm very skeptical of public schooling - where large percentages of the population are unable to demonstrate even basic mastery in skills - even after 12 years of schooling - large percentages of the COLLEGE population cannot properly use bus schedules, locate Iraq on a map, etc.. But schooling is not an inevitable part of civilization. It's just a movement that has sprung out of the intuitions of people - a movement that has frankly achieved few of its aims.</p>
<p>Nonetheless - we're still more knowledgeable than we were in the past. Instead of traditional beliefs, we have to rely on beliefs that are supported by individual institutions (be they churches or the National Academy of Sciences).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Exactly why we will never be able to return to our tribal roots. People are used to living the way we live now, no matter how destructive and unnecessary many of our practices are.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I still don't see why returning to tribal roots would be better, and now that you're denying that going tribal will ever happen, why you'd still be supporting that notion. Even if for some reason we DID revert suddenly to tribes it's human nature to go forward, so it wouldn't stay that way for long. Why do you think in the typical story, more often than not, the protagonist goes from small town to big city?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I never said science was BASED on bringing in better material goods. It just has that effect.
[/quote]
It does have that effect, but science brings many other effects than just that.
I don't understand why you don't trust science when you are already indebted to it by living in this society. You're welcome to go and live in the wilderness for a year or two like Thoreau. When you get sick, you're prescribed medicine: a result of science. When you sit at a computer, typing, science made that possible. Sitting comfortably in a building when it is sweltering hot or freezing cold outside: because of science. You're communicating ideas through the Internet: another one of the countless actions made possible by science. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Humans were never better off in the past. Sure, their actions impacted the environment less just because there were FEWER of them. That does not make them any more morally superior than they used to be.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed, InqulineKea.</p>
<p>I stopped myself from answering in this thread mainly because I thought it was a joke. It's not, and it's sick.</p>
<p>Humans are undeniably more civilized now, with their discoveries, innovative technologies, governments, and whatnot. So what if the planet's being destroyed? Is old nature so much more sacred than new-age skyscrapers? Are you willing to throw away medicine and let people die because you believe nature to be worth more than a life? There is no point for all this "holier than thou." There is never a reason to bring human beings to the sacrificial altar.</p>
<p>And in olden times, when the human life expectancy was at what? 30? You think they were satisfied? You think that having to constantly work to hunt and make food (and continually risk your life doing so) is equivalent to having one's basic needs? Being able to sustain life is not the same as living. Never knowing anything more is not a replacement for contentment.</p>
<p>I personally adore the "me" culture, mainly because there is no reason at all to put others ahead of oneself. I am an individualist. I will not be blamed for the actions of others. I refuse to give to the undeserving.</p>
<p>Yes, there is such a thing as human superiority -- we find a problem, and we can solve it. Monkeys use basic hand-tools and we're amazed. Trains run and we complain about the marring tracks laid across mountains. Why?</p>
<p>
[quote=John Galt, Atlas Shrugged]
And then there's your 'brother-love morality. Why is it moral to serve others, but not yourself? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but not by you? Why is it immoral to produce something of value and keep it for yourself, when it is moral for others who haven't earned it to accept it? If it's virtuous to give, isn't it then selfish to take?</p>
<p>Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he's keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.</p>
<p>You know that you can't give away everything and starve yourself. You've forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn't built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"Ah, but how do you know that the amount of suffering now is greater than it was in the past?"</p>
<p>Daniel Quinn (a very highly educated author) describes a tribe in his book, Ishmael. I admit that my opinion about tribes living simpler, happier lives is rooted mostly in his descriptions. It's obvious that in a tribe there's a lot less "going through the motions", which also plays a big role in my perception of tribes.</p>
<p>"You seem to imply that lesser suffering => more civilized."</p>
<p>I don't mean to imply that. As I've mentioned before, suffering is a part of life on Earth and the food chain could not go on without it. </p>
<p>"And how are our tribal roots more desirable than our current modern beliefs are?"</p>
<p>Glad you asked. Generally, tribes practiced moderation. They took what they needed and worked hard enough to survive. However, they didn't take too much, and they didn't work too hard. Moderation is the byproduct of a of a tribe, or "we" culture. Members of a "we" culture do not let things get out of hand, they don't stray from their track and they keep the goal in mind. For example, a tribe member knows that the goal of life is to have "cradle-to-grave" security. In order for that to happen, he needs to have enough food, shelter and clothing to last him a lifetime. Once he reaches his goal, he doesn't continue to search for more food, shelter or clothing. On the other side of the spectrum is our "me" culture, where we continue to gather resources long after we're satiated, clothed and warm. Tribes practice moderation, while we believe in "progress" (a word with a connotation much too positive for it's meaning).</p>
<p>"however, what makes (Native American) religions any more superior than moral values based on sound science?"</p>
<p>Science is constantly changing as new information is gathered. Not that that's a bad thing, in fact, it brings meaning to many a scientists' life. The only thing is, because science is constantly morphing, we never know what's true and what's false. For these reasons, it's impractical and risky to base one's beliefs on science.</p>
<p>"The fact is that other species of animals cannot adapt to such changes, and they die out as a result of that lack of adaptation."</p>
<p>Are you implying that Humans are the only species on Earth that will never die out? We won't go extinct, EVER? Also, you mention that other animals make mistakes. I'm sure that's true, but the affects of their mistakes are not comparable to the detrimental environmental affects of our mistakes. Also, other species do not have greed, or shortsightedness.</p>
<p>"Sure, (earlier Humans') actions impacted the environment less just because there were FEWER of them."</p>
<p>Exactly. That was one of the main points of my OP: if their were simply less of us, we could maintain moderation in the effects we have on the planet.</p>
<p>"Sure, we have to spend some time on obligations that keep our society running. Is this necessarily bad, if it results in less time wasted than before? (when we had to rely on obligations that kept ourselves running?)"</p>
<p>Much more time is wasted than ever before. Our current "needs" are completely out of hand--they go way beyond our true needs. Our "needs" include mowing the lawn, going to college, fixing the TV, knowing how to read, write, speak at least two languages fluently, have twenty different clothes outfits, building a new house when old houses are still habitable, formal wear, 'moving up', and taking vacations. Our true needs include water, calories, nutrients, shelter, fire, and some clothing. Tribe members recognize that fact.</p>
<p>"So which of our scientific theories do you think will be incorrect in the future?"</p>
<p>Who knows? Not me. I can't predict which parts of today's science will be considered true or which will be considered false in 200 years. That's why I don't take the risk of believing any of it--I'm just a lowly human--and I can speculate, but in the end, I must admit to having no idea. Think of it as an agnostic approach.</p>
<p>"Even if for some reason we DID revert suddenly to tribes it's human nature to go forward, so it wouldn't stay that way for long. Why do you think in the typical story, more often than not, the protagonist goes from small town to big city?"</p>
<p>Back before the agricultural revolution, most tribe members lived relatively pleasant, content lives. It was a small minority that began to believe in "progress" as we define it--the movement grew, and eventually other tribes were cornered, attacked, or the children were simply drawn in by the glamour of the new agricultural movement. Imagine being there--you can grow your favorite foods repeatedly until you have enough to last all winter! You can see why children were drawn into the idea. The tribal elders couldn't stop them. So really, humans aren't "progressive" by nature. It was a small subgroup that forced everyone into what is now considered "me" culture.</p>
<p>"When you get sick, you're prescribed medicine: a result of science."</p>
<p>Herbal medicine was around long before modern science ever existed. I have a teacher who recently returned from Tanzania, where he spent a day with the Hakas (sp?). He sprained his ankle badly. He told the class, "I remember just wishing for an aspirin and a band-aid". The tribe 'medicine man' put his foot in a bowl with some sort of liquid and said a prayer. In a couple of hours, his ankle had returned to normal. Based on my teacher's testimony, it seems that our science can't stand up to thousands of years of tribal wisdom.</p>
<p>Taggart--I know someone with a very similar perspective to yours. It's interesting. Hmm.. a good word to describe it would be "all-or-nothing". There's no gray area for you, is there?</p>
<p>"You know that you can't give away everything and starve yourself."</p>
<p>That quote is the perfect example of an all-or-nothing mentality. It implies that you have two choices: give away everything and starve yourself, or keep everything and let the other guy starve. Why can't the person in question keep what he needs to survive, and give away his extra resources?</p>
<p>One more thing--</p>
<p>InquilineKea, about vegetarianism and how it relates to local economies:</p>
<p>Small, family farms can be a positive part of any thriving local economy. I'm a strong supporter of organic meat, because I believe that factory farms are detrimental in every way.</p>