Culture in Decline - Video Series from the Creator of Zeitgeist

[KingNothing]

It only proves the system exists! It doesn't prove the system is part of nature. Seriously, this isn't that hard to understand.

So, humanity exists outside of or beyond nature?

 

[erowe1]

Haha, you can't be serious. If you don't know anything about the systems of nature why are you even participating in this conversation? This is BASIC biology, jeesh!

I don't claim to be smart.

But I asked what your basis for saying it was. Do you have a basis for it?

Also, FWIW, biology isn't the only field that studies nature. The Second Law of Thermodynamics seems to say the opposite of what you said.

 

[wrestlingwes_8]

So, humanity exists outside of or beyond nature?

Humanity is currently refusing to live in the bounds of nature. That doesn't mean we are immune to the consequences or effects of nature.

 

[KingNothing]

Regarding A, other species-especially primates-can and do alter their environments for their own self-interest, generally not living "in harmony" with nature. Hell, nature pollutes a lot with volcanoes and all sorts of things and creates "disharmony".

Earth is a closed system. You couldn't destroy it if you wanted to. You can change the nature of things (like oxidizing trees, aka burning them), but that's not changing the system.

It also seems noteworthy that studies have discovered primates waging pre-emptive war on each other. Isn't that crazy?

And Earth is only a closed system when you limit your discussion of "nature" to Earth itself, and certainly, one could destroy Earth if one were so inclined -- just look at what Darth Vader did with the Death Star, or consider what a supernova would do to our pale blue dot.

 

[KingNothing]

EVERYTHING in nature has one thing in common. The systems and inputs are sustainable.

The universe disagrees with this statement.

 

[wrestlingwes_8]

I don't claim to be smart.

But I asked what your basis for saying it was. Do you have a basis for it?

Also, FWIW, biology isn't the only field that studies nature. The Second Law of Thermodynamics seems to say the opposite of what you said.

Yes it has a basis, go ask any high school biology teacher. They will tell you that the systems of nature are sustainable (excluding some outside disturbance).

That is the main problem of modern physics. Open ANY physic textbook and in the diagrams and examples they will tell you that those laws do not apply to nature, only closed systems.

 

[KingNothing]

It's awesome when the most indignant, intellectually arrogant and cocksure, member of a discussion is also the least informed.

 

[erowe1]

Yes it has a basis, go ask any high school biology teacher. They will tell you that the systems of nature are sustainable (excluding some outside disturbance).

That is the main problem of modern physics. Open ANY physic textbook and in the diagrams and examples they will tell you that those laws do not apply to nature, only closed systems.

So, as you understand it, biology contradicts physics?

Also, isn't all of nature taken together a closed system? And when you say "(excluding some outside disturbance)" that very criterion itself limits your statement to closed systems.

By the way, I can't help noticing what looks like hesitance on your part to give a reason for the claims you're making. You just want me to go ask someone else. Do you actually have a reason? Or are you just repeating something somebody told you?

 

[erowe1]

Humanity is currently refusing to live in the bounds of nature.

If nature has bounds, then it's impossible to live outside them. Whatever humanity does must be within the bounds of nature, whatever they are.

 

[KingNothing]

So, as you understand it, biology contradicts physics?

Because, closed system. Duh.

 

[KingNothing]

Humanity is currently refusing to live in the bounds of nature. That doesn't mean we are immune to the consequences or effects of nature.

I think that many humans choose to ignore their nature, but that must, by definition, be something that capital-N Nature allows.

 

[erowe1]

I think that many humans choose to ignore their nature, but that must, by definition, be something that capital-N Nature allows.

Whatever any humans choose, it's in their nature to choose that.

 

[jmdrake]

You just repackaged your argument here. You jump to an improbable situation and then use it to justify and prove your thinking.

AGAIN,

No, not at all. And if anything you are the one "repackaging". Animals on driftwood not part of nature? What the hell kind of nature are you talking about? The obvious truth is that animals aren't these "warm fuzzy creatures who are careful not to make other species extinct." The hand wringing humans go through regarding the extinction of this or that animal is what isn't "natural". That humans care about animals outside their species is not natural. Like the story of the couple that found a baby deer and nursed it to help. With other species that would be met the either a "meh" or "lunch."

 

[jmdrake]

Yes it has a basis, go ask any high school biology teacher. They will tell you that the systems of nature are sustainable (excluding some outside disturbance).

That is the main problem of modern physics. Open ANY physic textbook and in the diagrams and examples they will tell you that those laws do not apply to nature, only closed systems.

Please explain how you can consider a piece of driftwood an "outside disturbance" when it's clearly part of nature?

 

[Danan]

I would say the majority of people want to exist and live a healthy, prosperous life.. its the small percentage that strive for power, wealth and control over others.

How is wanting to live a healthy, prosperous life not entirely driven by self-interest? In a free market individuals are always confronted with choices and they will always choose what they subjectively feel to be superior. That's the entire basis of economic thought and capitalism.

Even giving away all your wealth to poor people would ultimately be what you deem to be the best use for your money, if you chose to do so. Or to put it differently, it would ultimately be driven by self-interest.

 

[Danan]

Yes, there is no profit motive in "economizing" anything, which is the goal of humanity. The whole idea that we produce more and consume less benefits us all, we work less and have more. But consumption is a nasty thing really...There's nothing 'natural' about it. That is the down side to the profit motive.

That's completely nonsensical. First of all, as I've already explained above we are always economizing. That's not a choice we have, but comes from the fact that we are conscious, intelligent beings who are able to choose from a set of options the one that we deem to be the most beneficial, in a world of scarce resources (including our time on earth). Every purposeful human action is intrinsicly rational. It exists in an ends-means framework. So unless you enter the land of milk and honey where no scarcity exists and you are immortal, every human action that is not a mere bodily reflex is "economized", whether you like it or not.

How much time you work and how much time you spend on leisure is ultimatively up to you. Of course you won't necessarily find an employer who wants to hire you for 10 hours a week, but that's your problem. That's nothing that has to be decided uppon by society or even government. There is nothing "uncapitalistic" about enjoying one's leisure. No sane economist would argue that someone who doesn't work 24/7 to increase his earnings is violating economic laws of the free market. You obviously do not know about the concept of opportunity costs or marginal subjective utility. People are not profit maximzing (as in monetary profits). They are utility maximizing. There is no principle of the free market that would suggest that maximum consumption is the overall goal. But if it is what makes you personally happy than go for it. There is nothing "nasty" about it either. What the hell do you mean when you say it's not "natural"? Is typing on a message board or wearing cloths "natural"?

Educate yourself properly before you try to be a smartass.

 

[Danan]

A) The way man lives in modern societies is NOT how nature functions. These are inventions of man. Yes, man is a part of nature but is man living in harmony and balance, like all of nature? No.

Nature is not in balance at all. It's an entirely chaotic system interrupted with occasional short periods of relative stability.

 

[wrestlingwes_8]

So, as you understand it, biology contradicts physics?

YES. ANY PHYSICS TEXTBOOK WILL TELL YOU THIS

By the way, I can't help noticing what looks like hesitance on your part to give a reason for the claims you're making. You just want me to go ask someone else. Do you actually have a reason? Or are you just repeating something somebody told you?

Because if I'm talking to someone about biology I shouldn't have to explain THE VERY BASICS. If nature wasn't inherently sustainable, there wouldn't be any nature! All the seeds of different plants would germinate, grow, then die and nothing would grow back if it wasn't sustainable. Fucking christ I swear you people just argue for the sake of arguing.

I have 3 and half years of formal education in plant sciences PLUS all the things I've learned through reading books and personal experience. I don't give a shit if you don't believe what I have to say. In this specific instance I know for certain science is on my side here

 

[wrestlingwes_8]

Nature is not in balance at all. It's an entirely chaotic system interrupted with occasional short periods of relative stability.

Through this perceived chaos emerges stability. So you are wrong, nature is indeed very in balance. How do you think forests manage to maintain themselves for hundreds of years???

 

[wrestlingwes_8]

Please explain how you can consider a piece of driftwood an "outside disturbance" when it's clearly part of nature?

An animal or plant that is exotic to an area is considered a disturbance to that specific ecosystem. The local flora and fauna are not accustomed to whatever attributes a new species has, and they usually respond in a negative way. Why do you people insist on arguing for the sake of arguing? It's fucking bizarre