Adahn

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]We do have good intentions, I just hope it's enough. What will we do if it's not? We can't fix things faster than we break them, it just doesn't make sense. I expect we will reach a turning point where the consequences of our actions will begin to affect us. Then, we will find something to alleviate the consequences, while the problem worsens.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If it doesn't happen, then that's a good thing, but I really can't see anything undoing what we've already done.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]With all that mostly cleared up, what do you think the ideal society for man would be like? What would be the best way for man to coexist with his environment? It doesn't have to be a utopia, of course.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]That's actually not what metaphysical means at all.[/color][/size][/font] [b]met·a·phys·i·cal[/b] [url="https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dmetaphysical"][img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg[/img][/url] ([color=red][font=verdana, sans-serif] P [/font][/color]) [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html"][b][color=#0033ff]Pronunciation Key[/color][/b][/url] (m[img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ebreve.gif[/img]t[img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gif[/img][img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif[/img]-f[img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gif[/img]z[img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gif[/img][img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gif[/img]-k[img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif[/img]l) [i]adj.[/i] [list=1] [*]Of or relating to metaphysics. [*]Based on speculative or abstract reasoning. [*]Highly abstract or theoretical; abstruse. [*][list=1]Immaterial; incorporeal. See Synonyms at [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=immaterial"][color=#0033ff]immaterial[/color][/url]. [*]Supernatural. [/list] [*]often [b]Metaphysical[/b] Of or relating to the poetry of a group of 17th-century English poets whose verse is characterized by an intellectually challenging style and extended metaphors comparing very dissimilar things. [/list][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Unless you're using some other definition of the word, my proposal that things metaphysical in nature must be in some sort of balance with other metaphysical things is a topic that cannot, by definition, be tossed away.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]Karma has nothing to do with the personification of Nature. Each and every time you say, "The Earth will do this," "It has what it needs," etc, you're personifying Nature. So now if you'll stop treating Nature like some higher power, perhaps there can be some rational discussion coming from you for a change.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Very well, I will not treat nature as an entity.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] I hardly doubt I'm postulating anything. If you were to read what the effects were of a singular strike, imagine that all over the globe. Some areas may avoid direct strikes, but radiation and such have this nasty habit of getting carried over longer distances, what with wind currents and such.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I very much doubt that even nuclear warfare could eliminate all forms of life on the earth.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] I think you underestimate the destructive power of conventional weaponry.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Very well, annihilation of our enemies can be done without the use of nuclear weapons.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] They were always spread around the globe, but the Middle East was the breeding ground...the nerve center...the mind, if you will. Knock out the mind, and you knock out the body. It's really psychological warfare. Fallujah is a perfect example of this. Terrorists were using the US pull-out from Fallujah back in April to show how the US were a bunch of Imperialistic cowards, who had been beaten back by the "Freedom fighters." We take Fallujah, and we have a major psychological advantage. I think you're not even considering psychological warfare, actually.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]It was not my will to discuss warfare. I know very little, if anything about it. I will not challenge you.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] We don't need to use nuclear weapons to win this war. There are no political pressures that deter us from using them; there is no retaliation that deters us from using them. Frankly, I find your comments regarding political pressure very asinine. "If we had political immunity, we'd use nuclear weapons." [i]Please[/i]. There's a reason we've avoided nuclear warfare for the past 50+ years, and it's not political. The only two times to my knowledge that the US has used nukes are Hiroshima and Nagasaki, cities whose later generations still show the after-effects of nuclear radiation, even some 50 years later.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Very well, retaliation has nothing to do with the choice whether or not to use nuclear weapons in any situation.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] You do realize that Thoreau, Rousseau, and a few other Naturalist Philosophers didn't exactly have their heads on straight? I notice how you claim to want "Balance," and yet your solutions are often so far skewed on the other end of the spectrum that you can't possibly be supporting balance at all. Destroying the planet is on one end of the spectrum; your idea is on the extreme other end.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Allow me to clarify myself. I propose a balance between what is necessary for survival of humanity and what is comfortable. Not knowing where that balance lies, I proposed something drastic. I'd rather ensure survival completely than doom myself. If you can find the balance, I'd appreciate hearing where it lies. Until we hit that midpoint, our chances of survival are slowly dropping.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Okay...then if you don't expect any type of technology to help...why do you say research isn't enough? By that I mean, you don't expect anything good from it, I gather, and yet you're saying fuel research isn't good enough, which implies you want something productive to come out of it? Let's see you reconcile this one. [/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I don't expect our efforts to come close to the midpoint, where the environment is no longer being harmed. If I am wrong, then that's good.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Um, no. I wasn't. Tree-hugging hippies aren't doing anything more than chaining themselves to trees and causing political strife. They're not helping. They're like the environmentalist equivalents of Michael Moore.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I am not, never have been, and never will be a hippie. I will, however, argue for a balance between survival and comfortability, where nature is what must equilibrate.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][font=book antiqua][size=2][color=blue]Cool, cool... No qualms at all (pretty solid, in fact). But... what's balance have to do with your soul idea? :confused:[/color][/size][/font][/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Just that if souls follow the law of Balance, they can't have originated from nothing. They must have existed (in one form or another) for all eternity. They can't simply be 'created' from nothing at all. Matter/energy follow the same rules. Every bit of matter/energy that exists today has existed for eternity in one form or another.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]First, I will make an assertion. Balance is in all things. My support is simple. Chemistry, Math, and Physics all rely completely on balance.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If you wish to challenge my assertion with any point, I will defend it.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Having asserted that, I will apply it to something that is not physical, assuming that since balance applies to all things we do understand, it applies to things we don't completely understand.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If there are such things as souls, they must follow Balance. I will assume that if souls exist, they are immortal. From this, there are two possibilities.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]1. There is no such thing as a soul.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]2. There are souls, and each and every soul has always existed in one way or another.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I will assume the Christian ideas are correct, but most religions can be substituted in for the points I will make.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Our souls, being everlasting, must have come from an everlasting spiritual source. This source is God, as he is everlasting.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I've just confused myself terribly and disproven the point I was trying to make. Stupid Balance.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Anyways, if anybody cares to disagree (or agree) with my views on Balance, feel free. I can adequately defend this more than anything I've ever said before.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][font=book antiqua][size=2][color=blue]Alright, you listed one thing that was electricity-related. That's only one means to harness electrical energy. That doesn't make the energy itself bad. Just because we generate it in a way that (supposedly) does damage to the environment doesn't make electricity inherently bad. Electrical energy is nice and awesome, and the closest thing to the most efficient type of energy: light. Personally, I've never even heard of hydroelectric power plants harming ecosystems and rivers. Is the effect noticeably profound?[/color][/size][/font][/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]You're right, electricity isn't inherently bad, but the most common forms of generating it are disastrous to the environment.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I did forget solar power.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]All I have is hearsay, but I've heard that the colorado river ecosystem was changed very much, and for the worse. I could be wrong.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][font=book antiqua][size=2][color=blue]WHAT THE...? :twitch: Could you please elaborate and explain to me how electrical energy is harmful to the environment?! At the same time, please tell me how "wind power" is any different.[/color][/size][/font][/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I'll just use 3 examples of power that I know, in addition to wind power.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]1. Nuclear power=Nuclear waste[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]2. Burning of fossil fuels=Lots of bad things released.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]3. Hydroelectric power=ruins ecosystem around rivers used.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]4. Wind power=Relatively small (if any) environmental effect.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]Firstly, Mother Nature [i]is[/i] a personification of Nature. You may not realize it, you may not admit to it, but you [i]are[/i] treating Nature in that [i]specific[/i] way. The Earth is [i]not[/i] a living organism, too. It's simply matter, a celestial body that has no consciousness, no emotions, no feelings...a body that is simply there, not as anything that is "alive" in any way whatsoever. You're still personifying it, by saying it's alive. Again, stop pretending you're trained in Lit Theory, dude, because I actually [i]am[/i] trained in it.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Mother Nature is [i]a [/i]personification of Nature. I know I'm personifying Nature. If what I've described is the conventional idea of Mother Nature, I apologize for being unaware. I always thought it went along the lines of karma, as in; you'd better recycle or you'll get struck by lightning, watch out for Mother Nature! I'm only describing the results of ruining our environment in what I think is the logical turn of events. It doesn't have a will to do bad unto some and good unto others. It doesn't have to do anything to get rid of us or punish us, the direct result of our actions will cause this.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] With enough of a radiation half-life from a global thermonuclear war that could last for a couple of centuries, if all the nuclear weapons in the world were to be utilized? I think that'd effectively ruin any possibility at all of any life on Earth.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]You're postulating, here. We'd have to nuke the earth so much over such a large area so as to kill everything on land, and everything under the sea. If there [i]were[/i] a war, I would think that the strikes would be very concentrated, and some parts (possibly even large parts) of the earth would still be able to support life.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Now, pay attention to me here, because you need to understand what I'm saying. You do not have to use nuclear weapons to annihilate the enemy. Read this very carefully, Adahn. You do not need to use nuclear weapons to annihilate the enemy. We're annihilating the enemy already, and we're using conventional weaponry. There are no nuclear weapons being used, and we're still beating them. Let this sink in. You do not need to use nuclear weapons to annihilate the enemy, especially in a war that you're winning just by utilizing conventional weaponry. If we're already winning with conventional weaponry, why in the hell would we use nuclear weapons? Because it would mean an environmental cataclysm on a global scale.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I used annihilate because in my opinion, only nuclear weapons have the destructive force to cause an annihilation of anything. We can win, even decisively, but we cannot completely eradicate terrorists, especially now that they've all spread from the concentrated area they onced existed in.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Retaliation is just a small part of it, because without a nuclear strike, there would be no retaliation, and without retaliation, there is no environmental cataclysm. Do you understand this? We do not use nuclear weapons not out of a fear of retaliation; we do not use nuclear weapons out of the knowledge that it will destroy the global ecosystem. This isn't a difficult point to understand.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I disagree. If we had political immunity (from ourselves and other countries), and it were very convenient to use nuclear weapons, I think we would use them. Because of the political ramifications, it's not even an option.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] How did you show you were right? There's still a major, major error in your judgment, as I have shown above.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Retaliation is still a very important deterrent to the use of nuclear weapons. Environmental factors are important, but not as important as politics. I guess, unless either of us can provide definitive proof for our argument, we will merely stand in disagreement against each other.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] I'd think that the people involved in NJPIRG (an environmental clean-up group with a chapter on-campus here) would beg to differ. I routinely see pictures and read articles about them cleaning up rivers...they get up to their waist sometimes in dirty water, wading through it, just to make sure it's clean. They don't seem terribly comfortable to me. Call me crazy, but those cleaning up areas around oil spills do not seem too comfortable. As I recall, planting trees, trying to preserve national forests, etc, isn't all that easy on the back and legs. I do believe people recycle for a reason, too.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I guess I can't beat around the bush, can I? In order to halt the destruction of the environment and let it balance itself once again (if it's even possible at this point), we would need to make ourselves alot more uncomfortable. I'm talking going almost completely native. We'd have to give up electricity, because the only power that doesn't harm the environment is wind power, and we all know how much THAT generates. It would end our civilization as we know it. We'd have to give up cars, t.v., planes, etc. I don't know about you, but I'm certainly not going to give up those things (last of all my computer) to 'save the world'. This is what I meant by comfortability.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] And for those who aren't on the front lines, as it were, do you believe they're spraying aerosol cans outside, as they say, "Global warming? **** that. Screw the grandkids, I'm cold now."?[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]No...[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] There is car emission testing to cut down on the pollutants found in car exhaust. People are being encouraged to conserve our natural resources, and people are making a conscious effort to conserve our natural resources.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Our conservation efforts amount to individuals using less natural resources, and is balanced by an increase of individuals (pop. growth) requiring natural resources of their own, resulting in no actual change.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Adahn, mankind is not obsessed with destroying the environment. We're not locusts, which, incidentally, are one of the greatest threats to the environment, because they destroy so many different types of vegetation.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]We are concerned with keeping ourselves comfortable (re-defined above). We will protect the environment as much as we can so long as we keep all the nice things we've invented to amuse ourselves.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] You're trying to portray mankind as some evil, destructive entity that's going to doom the environment, who cares very little about what goes on in the environment.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]We just care less about the environment than we do of perpetuating our high quality of life.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Your claim is obviously [i]false[/i].[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Is it so obviously false?[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] I've been saying it all along, and only recently have you started to echo those comments, the same comments of mine that have emphasized the reasons why we do not use nuclear weapons, the same comments of mine that are praising mankind for not using nuclear weapons to win conflicts that can be won with conventional weaponry.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Nuclear weapons would have been easier in eliminating our enemies, but we'd be portrayed as very, very evil people. They are essentially not a viable solution to any conflict, for whatever reason. Should we really pat ourselves on the back for not using them, when the consequences do not allow it, anyway?[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Do you expect insta-technology?[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I don't expect a technological advancement that will let us keep our standard of living [i]and[/i] stop destroying the environment. Not now, not ever.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] And the tree-hugging hippies have never done any good whatsoever, because they're always more concerned with their image than actually doing anything about anything. Tree-hugging hippies are the ones who give the environmentalist movement a bad name. Good job.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I thought you were being sarcastic...[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]If the first thing I notice about a girl is that she's fat, I won't consider a romantic relationship with her. I just can't be attracted to someone like that.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]However, I have a thing for nice, innocent girls. If someone doesn't strike me immediately as attractive, but later on I get to know them and see innocence and kindness, that person seems attractive to me.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]But, I've fallen in love, so I don't have to worry about that anymore :love: [/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][color=#0000ff][/color][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren] You're referring to both Earth and Nature as having [i]human[/i] qualities (laughter, having needs, desires, goals, etc). That's personification. You're treating Earth and Nature like they're human, Adahn.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I know I was personifying it, but not as Mother Nature. I specifically said, "I'm not personifying earth [b][i]like that[/i][/b]." I am treating the earth as a living organism, not one with a mind of its own or any emotions or feelings, but as something that can 'live' by supporting life, just as one can say any other ecosystem 'lives'.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] It may not seem it, but nuclear war is going to be far, far, far more hazardous and crippling to Earth's ecosystem than just an asteroid slamming into us. Just think about it.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I know it's bad, but would it be enough to ruin the possibility of any life on earth? So long as life exists on earth, I view it as alive.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] I'm not inventing arguments at all. You were treating nuclear warfare as the only way to annihilate our enemies, when, clearly, based on the War on Terror, your claim is [i]false[/i].[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I made no such claim. I said that we don't use nuclear warfare because of fear of 'retaliation'. Consequences is a [i]better[/i] word, but retaliation still works. If we used nuclear weapons, there would be an uprising and overthrow of the government in our own country, not to mention having war declared on us by all nations who can put up a fight. I'd call that retaliation.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Like Godel has said, "retaliation" and "consequence" are actually very different words, with very different meanings. "Retaliation" is [i]specifically[/i] an [i]attack[/i] done in response. "Consequence" is simply cause and effect. They're not the same word (or the same meaning), but you're still trying to establish some type of correlative link between the two. Pay attention to this: they are nowhere near the same idea. Remember, you're not trained in Lit Theory. Don't pretend to be. With that said, you used "retaliation" first. Either you have a very substandard vocabulary and grasp of the finer points of the English language, or you indeed meant to use "retaliation," got called on it, and now are trying to backtrack. I personally feel it's a combination of the two.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I did attempt to backtrack, only to find out that I wasn't wrong to begin with, as I have shown.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Now, in this entire thread, you've been preaching how horrible man is, how man is destroying nature, how man treats nature as something to be destroyed or subjugated, etc, but now you're saying we're not so bad? You see, it's not a matter of [i]me[/i] now agreeing with [i]you[/i]. It's a matter that [i]you[/i] are now agreeing with [i]me[/i]..[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]We are so bad. We [i]could[/i] preserve nature completely and halt the slow destruction of the earth, but that would make too many people uncomfortable. We are the only creature in existence that puts comfortability above survival.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I agreed with you on the point that nuclear war would be disastrous to the environment. I didn't somehow arrive at that conclusion in this thread. I would say that on that point, we are in agreement.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Look at what I've been saying all along, and even back when you used "retaliation." I was always saying that we don't use nuclear weapons because it would be disastrous to the global environment. I've been saying that all along, Adahn, and now you're saying the same thing, when only a few posts back, you were portraying man as some evil and destructive force that seeks to "rape" nature and that knows absolutely nothing about preserving nature. Your argument is pulling a 180 and you don't even realize it.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Retaliation works. Man knows about preserving nature, and what makes him so terrible is that he doesn't do everything in his power to do so.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] I think the pure and simple fact that we [i]are[/i] concerned, that we [i]are[/i] taking action and undertaking efforts to help in those areas is proof that humans [i]do[/i] care, and is punching a major hole in your argument that humans don't give a sh-t about the environment. Why minimize the actions of various environmentally-concerned groups, Adahn? They're doing good work. They're cleaning up the Earth. What's wrong with that? Isn't that what you wanted the entire time?[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]We are doing everything within the limits of our comfortability.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] And there's research being done for it every single day. Another hole is punched into your argument.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Again, research is a good thing (it's what I plan to go into), but it's not enough.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Even though the future may look grim, I hardly think that constitutes your Nihilistic treatment and assessment of the human race, Adahn. Don't be a tree-hugging hippie.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I started the argument as a tree-hugging hippie, and by I will end it as one.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Like I said above, your argument is pulling a 180 and you don't realize it. You're now agreeing with me. It's not the other way around.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Environmental consequences [i]coupled[/i] with retaliation from inside and outside our country are why we don't use nukes. We are in agreement on the terms of environmental consequences, but I don't know how you feel about retaliation, yet.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] So, because we're unable to make everything hunkydory [i]perfect[/i] (but seriously...has there [i]ever[/i] been a "[i]perfect[/i]" ecosystem?) again...invalidates any and all efforts to help improve the ecosystem?[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]The efforts do not hurt, but are they enough? Again, we only act within the limits of our comfortability.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] I think that we are nature savvy, just because we see the problem and are addressing it in the [color=darkolivegreen]best ways that we can[/color] at this point in time. Being "nature savvy" does not mean being a magician, Adahn, and I'm getting that you've got some Idealistic view of what "nature savvy" really means.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Here, let me turn something else green. Will you stand by that statement? I think that if we really were concerned about our survival, we would do more than what we are doing now. There are better ways to halt our destruction of the earth, but, again, they fall outside the limits of our comfortability.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]Nuclear winters are irreparable damage. It takes hundreds of years for the half-life to dissipate if there were to be a nuclear war on a world-wide scale, and even then, you're not looking at any substantial re-growth, because unlike simple dust and debris being scattered into the atmosphere, you're looking at radiation poisoning, genetic deformities/mutations, contamination on a global scale. An asteroid smacking into Earth is only a fraction of what is possible with nuclear winters.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]So, you're saying that nuclear winter would cause so much damage to the earth that it would never be able to support any type of life ever again? If this is what you're saying, and you're right, then I'll have to drop that argument and yield.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Also, the "Earth" didn't do anything to repair itself after the extinction of the dinosaurs, so I don't know why you're attributing the survival and multiplication of small mammals after their [i]larger predators[/i] died out to some...Earthly Goddess. The Earth as a Mother figure, which is what you're trying to portray it as, had absolutely nothing to do with anything. There is no "Mother Nature" in reality. Remember that. "Mother Nature" is again a human's creative explanation/rationalization of what they cannot understand and/or what is beyond their comprehension. Think Gilgamesh, Iliad, Odyssey, the Bible.?[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I'm not personifying earth like that. I am saying that Earth was meant to support life, and that nothing we can do can upset that balance. However, if we upset it enough, we can do enough damage so that it won't support [i]us.[/i] I still disagree with your thoughts on nuclear winter. The earth has been through worse things, especially in its beginnings, and yet here [i]we[/i] are.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] This doesn't help your original point at all, and here's why. You said, Now, if you were following the news, we're engaged in a very serious effort to seek out, attack, destroy, and [i]annihilate[/i] our enemies so they cannot attack us any further. [b]You're trying to say there that we're using a "Hands-Off" approach to war because we're afraid of [consequences][/b]. That's bullsh-t, and you would see that if you were following the news and the [i]reason[/i] why we're fighting the War on Terror. I'm not that big of a supporter for some aspects of it, but the precise reason we're [i]hunting these people down[/i] (read: annihilate them--a "Hands-ON" approach) is to [i]prevent[/i] any type of [consequence], and we're annihilating them with [i]conventional[/i] weaponry instead of nuclear weapons. Using nuclear weapons would be overkill, because it wouldn't achieve any better result (i.e., annihilating our enemies), and would totally destroy the ecosystem. [color=darkolivegreen]The only reason we don't engage in nuclear warfare is because it would be disastrous to the world[/color].[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I'm only talking about the use of nuclear weapons. I haven't said a word about the war on terror. The only reason we don't use nuclear weapons is because we fear the consequences, just like you said in the part I turned green. What you're doing is you're inventing arguments, putting my name behind them, and shooting them down.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] I'm sorry, but am I just imagining the efforts to help clean up our environment, preserve the rainforest, conserve our fossil fuels, develop new types of energy sources, etc?[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Efforts? What does it amount to? We are polluting the environment less quickly. We are eliminating the rainforests at a slower rate. We are using up the fossil fuels at a slower rate.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Developing new types of energy sources is something I can't argue with. This is a very good thing.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Here's an analogy. The destruction of the global environment is like a ball rolling downhill. We are not exerting enough force to stop its descent, much less move it back up. If we don't exert enough force, the ball will make it to the bottom of the hill. When that happens, the earth will no longer be able to support us, and we will die.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Picking away at your post looking for misuse of words? How about even after replacing "retaliation" with "consequence," your argument that humans don't give a damn about the environment/nature still makes no sense whatsoever, because we're annihilating our enemies already and just using conventional weaponry. [color=darkolivegreen]The environmental "consequences" of using nuclear weapons are why we're not using nukes[/color]. You're trying to say that we're not "Nature-savvy," but we are, even in war. It's just not terribly obvious. What's your point?[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Consequences are consequences, Siren. Again, you're agreeing with me here (I turned it green again).[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]My point is that we are not nature savvy. We do care, but not enough to stop that ball from rolling, and surely not enough to push it back up the hill.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Baron:[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Chaos makes sense. If it were illogical, we wouldn't be able to develop theories on it like the chaos theory.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Numbers are not physical laws.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]We humans are like a single creature that has existed as far back as we have known history. Our survival as a single, long-living organism is threatened by our mistreatment of the environment. We have placed comfortability above survival. You won't see a starving animal with death looming over it's head pass up a sandwich to sit down on a couch and watch t.v. We are just not aware how crucial it is that we preserve our existence by coexisting with nature.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I could think about what an ideal society would be like, but that would be a topic worth its own thread. I can only say that we are not in one.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Alot of mankind is also doing pretty damn badly. In failing to preserve our existence and prepare for the future, we are like animals. However, being conscious of the fact that we are failing to preserve our existence, and doing very little about it, makes us infinitely inferior in terms of survival.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]

[b][font=Trebuchet MS][color=darkolivegreen]I grew up in a place very separated from everything else. The only community I had was school, and school was a bad thing. I was taught hate, isolation, and ridicule. I got all the good stuff because it was in my nature, and because my parents raised me right. It wasn't that my home community was bad, it was just that there wasn't much of a community to begin with.[/color][/font][/b]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Logic and chaos are not opposites. Chaos is very logical, it's just unpredictable.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Chaos and Entropy are laws just like any other physical law. They apply to everything, because they simply cannot be broken.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]The focus of my argument is that nature operates within a set of rules that we may or may not know, and judging by how the environment is reacting to our actions, we're breaking some of them.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Also, I am thinking of the nature of man in general, and what would be the best system for men to coexist. I think that most 'modern' civilizations today are far from what an ideal society would be.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If we can understand the nature of nature itself, it will help us to understand the nature of man. If we can understand the nature of man, we can begin to understand the ideal environment for man. This is the logic behind nomos vs. physis: the search for man's niche.[/color][/size][/font]

[b][font=Trebuchet MS][color=darkolivegreen]I have one thing to say to all of you. Love is not so predictable that you can be sure of finding it while you're looking for it. It is possible that love will find you. If it does, don't push it away because you think you're too young. True love is ageless.[/color][/font][/b]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Religion is so simple it's kind of scary. It was an understandable response to a fear of death. Very smart people did a very good thing when they created it. It really is perfect.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]1. You can't prove it either right or wrong.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]2. It's relatively easy to fit the 'demands' of most people in terms of an afterlife.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]3. It's really the best thing one person could do for alot of people.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Religion is a fluffy blanket we cover ourselves up with at night; a constant reminder that in the end, everything is going to be ok.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Our minds are as fragile as they are powerful. Lacking a religion is truly a virtue, because it takes a very powerful psyche to deal with the fact that one will die a final death. It takes a strong will to embrace oblivion.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][font=Trebuchet MS][color=darkolivegreen][b]It's not for me, I'm weak[/b][/color][/font] :D [/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Lady_Rin]Lore and Azurewolf may go to the haead of the class today. Chaos is more a natural occurrence than something concieved artificially; hence the law of entropy. - Azurewolfe The dinosaurs didn't survive. I think that can be considered permanent irrepairable damage. Something else took it's place. The los of fossil fuels will be considered permanent irrepairable damage. Waht will thake it's place? Adahn, Ranger says next time don't move as much, an apple at 1000 yards is a difficult shot at best.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Nothing can break the law of entropy. Everything always wants to settle into a lower form of energy. It is just that an amazing amount of energy and coincidence has allowed for the creation of life here on earth.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I specifically said we couldn't irreparably harm the [i]earth. [/i]The earth didn't need the dinosaurs. It had everything it needed to perpetuate life. The earth really doesn't need its fossil fuels. They are only a useful energy source for us. I don't think they really serve any other purpose.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]The earth will survive us.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][color=#0000ff][size=2]EDIT: [font=Trebuchet MS][color=darkolivegreen][b]I'll try to stand still next time.[/b][/color][/font][/size][/color][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]I think a nuclear winter is pretty much irreparably harming the Earth, Adahn. You're talking about killing off all the vegetation, all of the animal life, contaminating the atmosphere for centuries, spewing all kinds of radiation into the air, mixing it into the water, destroying entire ecosystems, etc. If you still want to say that isn't irreparably harming the Earth, then you're just ignoring what nuclear winter [i]really[/i] does.[/QUOTE]Irreparable: Impossible to repair, rectify, or amend: irreparable harm; irreparable damages. [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]The earth survived whatever cataclysm killed every single dinosaur. It took a while, but I'd say it did a pretty good job of repairing itself. If a couple nukes can do more than that, then I guess I don't know what nuclear winter really does. Of course, you can't either, seeing as it's never happened before.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] No, the reason we annihilate our enemies is because of fear of continued attacks. Let's take Afghanistan, for example, since we're talking about global conflict, and Afghanistan was pretty much the first step in the War on Terror. The US could have easily nuked the whole of that country, just laid the entire mountain ranges to waste, obliterated the entire thing...the US could have made Afghanistan the Dresden of the War on Terror. Just reduce the entire country to cinders, really, make it so no life at all could ever live there again. Yet, the US didn't, even though we had the capabilities, and even though we were hunting down our enemies. The US didn't bomb Afghanistan back into the Stone Age because using nuclear weapons would have been distastrous both on a global [i]political[/i] scale, and on a global [i]environmental[/i] scale.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Perhaps I should have said consequences instead of retaliation. The two are related, and we both know I'm not an English major.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] I've said time and time again that MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction, which is what you're talking about here), a relic from the Cold War, when there were only [i]two[/i] nuclear superpowers in control, is simply a non-factor these days. You can't claim that MAD is the reason we don't use nuclear weapons, lol. We don't use nuclear weapons because it would mean the end of life as we know it, and plunge the Earth into a major environmental shitstorm that it may very well never recover from. We're already annihilating our enemies and we're not using nuclear weapons. That's a pretty big sign that we're very concerned about the environment, Adahn. Humans are not "evil," and nature is not "good." [i]Come on[/i]. You're spewing nonsense.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]We're only concerned with the environment when its effects are immediate and terrible. Nuclear bombardment would affect us (politcally and environmentally, as you said). It's the slow burning of fossil fuels, burning away of the ozone, pollution of lakes, rivers, and oceans, and other things such as harvesting the rainforest that are going to get us, because they don't immediately hurt us. As for me spewing nonsense, you brought up nuclear war, and it is the focus of your argument. By missing one word (retaliation instead of consequence), my entire argument seems worthless to you. If you want a good debate, do it on a broader scale, and don't pick away at my post looking for misuse of words.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]EDIT:[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][color=black]retaliation:[/color] [color=#000000]action taken in return for an injury or offense.[/color][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2]consequence: Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition.[/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Close enough for me.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][color=blue]Thank you very much for clearing that up. It was difficult, if not impossible, for those who replied to the thread not to mix in their reasoning with invective, and I found it difficult to understand what they were getting at. You explained it very well, and I appreciate it.[/color][/font]

[b][font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][color=darkolivegreen]People want to be more like you because you're happy. They must feel for some reason that they are not.[/color][/size][/font][/b] [b][font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][color=#556b2f][/color][/size][/font][/b] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]You're right, I do hold balance in high regard. It is in everything. If there are souls, they must be in balance. It would not make sense to me for souls to be continually created, and either sent to some heavenly place or some hellish place. It takes a great deal of thought to try and get those numbers to add up. However, I won't get into that here, as it has already been made clear that nobody cares. Maybe I'll start a thread later about balance, but I've got my hands full right now.[/color][/size][/font]

[b][font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][color=darkolivegreen]Don't worry about the apple :D [/color][/size][/font][/b] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]What we are doing is harming the ecosystems that have the smallest effect on us. I agree completely that this is going to come back and bite us in the rear-end, but we are relatively safe right now.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Nature will have the last laugh, as we ruin our water supply, overpopulate the earth, consume all its natural resources, and destroy its atmosphere. All it has to do is get rid of us, and it will restore order once again. There is a reason that all that goes against nature inevitably loses.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]On a different note, It seems odd how adamant we are about protecting endangered species. We were the ones that destroyed their habitats, and now we protect them? For what purpose? We are not about to do nature justice and restore the natural order of things, once again creating a niche for these creatures to live in. That would go against everything that is comfortable. If there's one thing we don't like, it's being uncomfortable.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#808080][QUOTE=Goldensensei][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#808080]I'm sure the oceans and rainforests beg to differ.[/QUOTE][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#808080][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]It is true that we have done much to harm the environment, but we have not yet reached the point of no return.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][color=#808080] [font=Courier New][size=2][QUOTE=Goldensensei][/size][/font] [size=2]Nature is a balance, but it's still chaotic. The ground splitting and volcanoes erupting and grizzly bears tearing helpless weaker creatures to pieces is most certainly chaotic.[/QUOTE][/size] [size=2][font=Courier New][color=#0000ff]These things are not chaotic, they are merely violent and brutal from the human perspective. Earthquakes and volcanoes form mountains and islands, setting up the framework for new, unique ecosystems. Grizzly bears usually only tear creatures bo pieces when hungry or in a bad mood. These things may be unpredictable, but they are far from disorderly.[/color][/font] [/size][/color][/font][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#808080][QUOTE=Goldensensei] And human civilization is most certainly a balance. That's why we have Demographic Branches and Urban Planners.[/QUOTE][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#808080][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]What could be more disorderly and unpredictable as humanity? We attempt to create a balance, but nature does a much better job than we do. We can't fix one problem without creating several new ones; nature can.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][QUOTE=Siren][/color][/size][/font] Oh, we're there right now. The world has more than enough nuclear weapons to destroy the Earth, to blanket the sky with a nuclear winter, to kill off just about every single form of life on the planet.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Yes, we do have the capability to destroy the ourselves quickly and efficiently. However, you would be hard-pressed to kill every single creature (namely cockroaches), and irreparably harm the earth.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][QUOTE=Siren][/color][/size][/font] And yet, that's not happening, now is it? I'd say that's a pretty big sign of humans respecting the natural world, Adahn. After all, we haven't gone and reduced the world to an apple core, even though we're quite able to, if we put our minds to it. [/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]The only reason we don't annihilate our enemies is because of fear of retaliation. There is no respect. We are not reducing the earth to an apple core, no, but we are slowly peeling away the many measures nature has taken to preserve life.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=James] [size=2][color=#707875]Other species have the exact same type of system, in the sense that they have rules that govern their societies, whether simple or complex. But I suppose the key difference is that within one species, the rules might all be the same, as they are derived from instinct. Whereas with humans, we have multiple variations and interpretations on the rules, because of our increased complexity. Perhaps that can sometimes be more of a weakness than a strength. Maybe it's another point for debate. ~_^[/QUOTE][/color][/size] [size=2][color=#707875][/color][/size] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]There are many, many civilizations who have prospered for a very long time with relatively little civil unrest. The reason for this is that they kept their groups rather small, and were able to fit the morals and ethics of one particular group very well. When a civilization becomes too large, the best one can do is try and fit the wants and needs of the greater portion of the population. It has gotten to the point (at least in the U.S.) where not only is there a distinct separation between two groups of people (Democrats and Republicans), but also that the split is nearly even. If we were to split those two groups in half, I'm sure we would find even more distinct separations. There are too many interpretations being shoved close together, and though the United States may be powerful, it is in a downward spiral. It is more like an empire than a single country, and we all know what happens to empires.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]You are right, chaos is not something I should attribute to human society.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Nature, however, is not chaotic. Nature is balance. If you leave something alone long enough, nature will perfect it. Just look at the relationships between organisms and their ecosystems. Everything works in perfect harmony. Even when struck with natural disaster, the environment will gradually reconstruct itself and achieve harmony once again.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Man attempts to control his environment, and nature is always well beyond us. We can do our best to imitate a small ecosystem, but most of what we try to create still requires human intervention to survive.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Whenever man attempts to control nature, the result is simple and decisive. Nature wins. We may do very little damage in terms of the planet as a biosphere, but we're getting there. It takes more than a couple thousand years to undo a few billion years of nature. When nature can no longer support our selfish desires (an unnatural, human thing), we will be destroyed. It may take another 1,000 years of attempting to bend nature to our will, or it may take 100 years. Nature survived whatever killed the dinosaurs, and it will survive us.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I will tolerate any religion that doesn't send good people to a bad place. Those who preach anything that goes against this are bad people who deserve to go to a bad place.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]My religion is set in stone, but I have a hammer and chisel. It is not my will for my religion to suit my desires, but rather for it to encompass all that is right. I hope I am not as wise as I will be when I am older. For this reason, I am prepared to learn and change for the better.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Ben]Just a quick little snippet before I head off to bed. Adahn, I [i]desire[/i] entertainment, so I watch TV. I [b]desire[/b] refreshment, so I grab a soda. I do not [b]need[/b] entertainment. I do not [b]need[/b] concentrated sugar in a can. Now, will you argue this by saying soda is not concentrated sugar in a can, or are you going to say something relevent?[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Not all needs deal with life and death. Desire is a human thing. As we become comfortable, we desire more to perpetuate our comfortability. Desire is merely a shifting need. If you are deprived of t.v., you will desire it for a while. You will feel uncomfortable not being entertained. However, if deprived of entertainment for too long, you will no longer desire it. The need will go away, because you will have accustomed yourself to a lower standard of comfortability. Go ahead, don't drink the soda, don't watch t.v. You'll just make yourself unhappy until you get used to not having soda and t.v. If we hadn't 'evolved' a 'need' to be entertained, we wouldn't be surrounded by so many forms of it.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]EDIT: Maintaining a civilization in which many, many groups and individuals are dissatisfied is a sign that the society has attempted to control a larger group of people than it contain.[/color][/size][/font]

[quote name='Siren]Ben is entirely right. I would hardly classify a bee's societal structure as "individual-oriented" or even as a "family." The bees are called "worker [i]drones[/i]" for a reason. There's a reason bees search for honey, and then report back to the hive, to let all the other bees know where to find the honey, so it can benefit the [i]hive[/i], [i]not[/i'] the individual bee.[/quote][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I will agree that the individual oriented thing was a bad idea. However, the individual and the hive are interdependent. The bee cannot exist without the hive, and the hive (obviously) cannot exist without those drones.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] The "individual" bee has one purpose and one alone: to serve the hive. The bee is an automaton; it exists only to serve the hive. There is no love; there is no family; there is no individual; there is only the hive.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]The hive has one purpose and one alone: to serve the bee. Yes, you can kill one bee, and the hive will survive. However, if there are no individuals, there is no hive. Not everyone in our society has a purpose. In fact, there are separate groups that fight and kill each other, though they belong to the same country. You will never see that in a hive, or in a pack. You can't lump so many conflicting groups together; it's unnatural.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] The pack animal acts because it is forced to; humans act because they care. I don't see how this makes Nature better than Civilization. If anything, this is a major blow to the "Nature is better" argument. You're essentially saying that pack animals help because they need to; otherwise, they would die out. Humans are quite the opposite: humans help because they [i]want[/i] to.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Desire and need are closely related. If one develops a close relationship to another person, and that person is in trouble, there is a [i]need[/i] to help that person. The desire can be confused with doing what is right, but it is really a matter of needing to keep your family together.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] There's a distinction that needs to be made between "pack" and "family unit." What you're describing for Nature is Dog-Eat-Dog. That's a far cry from what human family units--and the family unit in general--are. I'm getting that you're trying to say that human family units don't help each other when each other needs help? I guess my entire extended family on my Mom's side helping my Aunt Sue when my Uncle Wayne had a [i]quadruple bypass[/i] last year isn't an example of human families helping each other in times of need? I suppose my entire Mom's side helping to fix up my Aunt Denise and Uncle Mike's house over an entire weekend isn't an example of family helping each other in times of need? Or what about helping my cousin, Stacey, move into her new house with her husband, Reggie, and their 1-year-old daughter, Chloe?[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]You care for those you love because you need to. It does make you feel better, because you know you are doing your part to help someone who is important to you. Blood separation matters little, because one can develop family-like relationships with friends.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] What is this "meant to exist" crap? Humans have opposable thumbs. They have more highly-developed brains. They have higher levels of cognition. They have a creative consciousness. Why in the hell are humans [i]not[/i] supposed to utilize those skills?[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]We don't utilize those skills. We make use of what our predecessors left us. It is our ability to build on the past that makes us 'better' than animals. In this way, we are a terrible force.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] I've always found elevator rides to be pretty damn smooth, too, so...where's the chaos there? I can always get a Weather report, any time of the day, so...where's the chaos there? Offices and retail outlets get busy as hell, yes, but that's just a business rush; it's not "chaos" in the way you're trying to use the term.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]The 'chaos' is the excessive amount of rivalry in the larger society. How can those who live in the same country be patriotic, when most countries are split right down the middle in terms of what is right and what is wrong? We have grown too large. Not only must we live with our enemies, we aren't even allowed to fight them. When you aren't allowed to fight your enemies, you know something is wrong. This is very much against nature.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]EDIT: Ick, too many posts happened in the middle of mine. I apologize for not getting to all of you.[/color][/size][/font]