Birds are superior to human beings

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Generally other animals are restrained by the environment so they live in balance and harmony. Humans are capable of very advanced technology which makes us less restrained to the environment since we can modify it as we please. But that capacity also gives us the ability to know better and to realize what an unrestrained consumption and exploitation of the environment leads to. Even though we have that ability we mostly ignore it and exploit it like no other species in the name of things we made up like the idea that progress means more production and consumption. Other animals have no capacity to know what we know nor to come up with made up definitions of things like progress but that we do and that we still act in the way we act is proof enough that we are not very smart. That level of stupidity can only be achieved with our cognitive capacities. We could also choose to be more intelligent than any other animal since we have the capacity to be so, but more often than not, we don't act that way.MrGeezer

No, that capacity of stupidity is achieved by sheer efficiency. Which is, again, really not unique. It's sheer short-sightedness. Which is, again, not unique to humans.

Rabbits don't PLAN on only reproducing in a responsible way which keeps the ecosystem in check. They reproduce when it's viable for them to do so, and then they consume available resources. This can very easily result in a population explosion, which then results in them consuming everything in sight. But keep in mind...they aren't planning for 50 years down the road. They aren't concerned with whether or not the environment is going to be hospitable for their grandchildren. They're just concerned with producing children. Those children are then on their own. Most species do NOT plan for the long-term, they just deal with the immediate circumstances. Humans are basically the same way. The way that the worldwide global civilization works now...I absolutely don't believe that it is sustainable in any long-term kind of way. A crash is inevitable.

But here's the thing...our "stupidity" is basically in causing long-term damage for the sake of short-term benefits. That's EXTREMELY common among animals. The point being...we are just animals. The whole thing about humans being stupid and evil and a cancer sort of stems from the notion that humans SHOULD be better than the other animals. It's basically just a case of setting expectations WAY too high, and then getting disappointed when the actual result is basically just par for the course. It's like, I see on this forum OFTEN comments such as "bad parents should know better than to have kids." And...how does that follow? Rabbits, flies, rats, birds...they aren't looking for the long term benefit of their descendants (or even their children). They're just having kids, and that's the extent of their duties. There is a biological need to procreate, and that's about that. At what point exactly did humans stop being subject to such biological needs? At what point does being able to invent or use a computer or a power drill invalidate the biologivcal urge to procreate?

Bottom line is that we're animals. We reproduce when possible, and we generally are very bad at long-term planning. You can call that stupid all that you like, but that doesn't seem much different than what the vast majority of life on Earth tends to do. Keep in mind that the VAST majority of human existence didn't involve anything resembling modern technology. We learned how to build cities, clear forests, and poison the oceans, but that WASN'T happening for most of the time that humans have been around. Our situation is basically like if monkeys somehow discovered how to build shotguns. Would they use those shotguns responsibly? Probably, no. Because they're ****ing MONKEYS. See...you wouldn't expect the monkey's ability to invent a shotgun to some how stop that monkey from acting like a monkey. So why is it that when people create the means to build cities and scorch the land and wipe out inconvenient species, that we expect our technological and scientific progress to somehow make us stop acting like people? You're looking at incredible advances in a few areas, and using that as a means to set an unrealistically high standard for the entire species.

But all things considered, we're basically just the equivalent of monkeys that discovered how to build shotguns. Building shotguns would be an impressive achievement, no doubt, but we're still talking about monkeys.

I agree that we are animals, monkeys to be more precise. But we are not JUST like other monkeys. Monkeys don't have symbolic language in the level that we have. Other monkeys can't plan 50 years ahead or think about the global consequences of their actions.

We, on the other hand, are monkeys that have that capacities. What would you call a dolphin that uses its capacity to swim badly? We could call it mediocre or maybe he's just incompetent because he has all the potential to be a very good swimmer but he isn't. With humans is the same, we have the potential, unlike rabbits and other monkeys, of all this cognitive power to envision, plan, think, imagine, etc. Yet we use it to do mostly the same things we would be doing without it, just like any other monkey. That would be like a dolphin having the swimming ability of a turtle. Sure it is swimming but come on, he could do much better! That's why I see ourselves as stupid. Rabbits can't be stupid if they don't have the biological capacity to be more intelligent than they act but we do and since we don't really use that capacity I can only see my species as the dumbest one out there.

In fact I think we actually use that capacity but we use it to make shiny things that people buy or to make bombs, again we are just dumb to the core.

I do believe we humans have the capacity to act not like other monkeys and actually act like humans. But I think we would probably die before actually doing that. That's just dumb.

kuraimen

I agree that we are animals, monkeys to be more precise. But we are not JUST like other monkeys. Monkeys don't have symbolic language in the level that we have. Other monkeys can't plan 50 years ahead or think about the global consequences of their actions.

We, on the other hand, are monkeys that have that capacities. What would you call a dolphin that uses its capacity to swim badly? We could call it mediocre or maybe he's just incompetent because he has all the potential to be a very good swimmer but he isn't. With humans is the same, we have the potential, unlike rabbits and other monkeys, of all this cognitive power to envision, plan, think, imagine, etc. Yet we use it to do mostly the same things we would be doing without it, just like any other monkey. That would be like a dolphin having the swimming ability of a turtle. Sure it is swimming but come on, he could do much better! That's why I see ourselves as stupid. Rabbits can't be stupid if they don't have the biological capacity to be more intelligent than they act but we do and since we don't really use that capacity I can only see my species as the dumbest one out there.

In fact I think we actually use that capacity but we use it to make shiny things that people buy or to make bombs, again we are just dumb to the core.

I do believe we humans have the capacity to act not like other monkeys and actually act like humans. But I think we would probably die before actually doing that. That's just dumb.

50 years down the road? That's less than a single human lifespan, and people OFTEN manage to even **** that up.

50 years is short-term planning. Planning 50 years ahead is basically like saying, "I'll be dead after that, so it's none of my concern. That'll be my childrens' problem." 50 years is NOT long-term planning for a species which usually lives for quite a bit longer than 50 years.

Do you have a 500 year plan for ensuring the well-being and safety of your descendants? Do you have a 2000 year plan for how the human species should go about ensuring the continued best possible standard of living for the descendants of the billions of people now living on the planet?

birds are legit. they are the master race

Firebird-5

Don't mess with birds. They pretty much evolved from the dinosaurs.

But really. Don't ever screw with a crow. Those things are both ridiculously smart and brutal.

My now smudged living room window would disagree

That makes no sense at all.

oneMoreComment

The bird was laughing and taunting the dying bird.cd_rom

Um.. I'm pretty sure a lot of humans would do the exact same thing.

I don't think they are superior to us.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

MrGeezer

I agree that we are animals, monkeys to be more precise. But we are not JUST like other monkeys. Monkeys don't have symbolic language in the level that we have. Other monkeys can't plan 50 years ahead or think about the global consequences of their actions.

We, on the other hand, are monkeys that have that capacities. What would you call a dolphin that uses its capacity to swim badly? We could call it mediocre or maybe he's just incompetent because he has all the potential to be a very good swimmer but he isn't. With humans is the same, we have the potential, unlike rabbits and other monkeys, of all this cognitive power to envision, plan, think, imagine, etc. Yet we use it to do mostly the same things we would be doing without it, just like any other monkey. That would be like a dolphin having the swimming ability of a turtle. Sure it is swimming but come on, he could do much better! That's why I see ourselves as stupid. Rabbits can't be stupid if they don't have the biological capacity to be more intelligent than they act but we do and since we don't really use that capacity I can only see my species as the dumbest one out there.

In fact I think we actually use that capacity but we use it to make shiny things that people buy or to make bombs, again we are just dumb to the core.

I do believe we humans have the capacity to act not like other monkeys and actually act like humans. But I think we would probably die before actually doing that. That's just dumb.

50 years down the road? That's less than a single human lifespan, and people OFTEN manage to even **** that up.

50 years is short-term planning. Planning 50 years ahead is basically like saying, "I'll be dead after that, so it's none of my concern. That'll be my childrens' problem." 50 years is NOT long-term planning for a species which usually lives for quite a bit longer than 50 years.

Do you have a 500 year plan for ensuring the well-being and safety of your descendants? Do you have a 2000 year plan for how the human species should go about ensuring the continued best possible standard of living for the descendants of the billions of people now living on the planet?

Well I was being generous with the 50 years :P. We can also the capacity to make plans to 2000 years ahead if we want, but again, we choose not to.kuraimen

The Nazis had a 1,000-year plan. Dunno about a 2,000-year one. So what's your 2,000-year plan?

Until they stop flying into windows, birds are not superior to human beings.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Well I was being generous with the 50 years :P. We can also the capacity to make plans to 2000 years ahead if we want, but again, we choose not to.Palantas

The Nazis had a 1,000-year plan. Dunno about a 2,000-year one. So what's your 2,000-year plan?

Until they stop flying into windows, birds are not superior to human beings.

sonicare

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02xt12TKI9U

[QUOTE="I"]

So what's your 2,000-year plan

kuraimen

Oh, so you don't have one? Then why are you complaining about other people not having one?

A decade ago we were still being thought that there were "unlimited" resources. How stupid can you be to think that?kuraimen

Who thought that?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="I"] That's the point, there isn't any.Palantas

Oh, so you don't have one? Then why are you complaining about other people not having one?

A decade ago we were still being thought that there were "unlimited" resources. How stupid can you be to think that?kuraimen

Who thought that?

I was thought that in school and some textbooks treated them as "unlimited" or "renovable" resources.kuraimen

Some are, some are not. If you had a book that described all resources as unlimited, then either you had a f***ed up book, or you weren't paying attention.

We could have one as a species but we don't. One person only can't have a 2000 year plan since it wouldn't make sense but at the species level it makes a lot of sense.kuraimen

I don't feel too bad about my species for not have a 2,000-year plan, when...

1. Such a plan has not been observed anywhere else in the universe.
2. This plan would require the majority of the species to agree on a number of issues, which they don't.
3. The person criticizing us for not having a plan, has none himself.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]I was thought that in school and some textbooks treated them as "unlimited" or "renovable" resources.Palantas

Some are, some are not. If you had a book that described all resources as unlimited, then either you had a f***ed up book, or you weren't paying attention.

We could have one as a species but we don't. One person only can't have a 2000 year plan since it wouldn't make sense but at the species level it makes a lot of sense.kuraimen

I don't feel too bad about my species for not have a 2,000-year plan, when...

1. Such a plan has not been observed anywhere else in the universe.
2. This plan would require the majority of the species to agree on a number of issues, which they don't.
3. The person criticizing us for not having a plan, has none himself.

There are no unlimited resources in this planet for the sole fact thta this is not an unlimited planet.kuraimen

There are resources that are unlimited on any imaginable practical scale. Examples: Sunlight, water. If you want to be a nitpicker and tell me the sun will explode in billions of years, then I will simply point out that your statement is lacking in scope, and should have read, "There are no unlimited resources, as this is not an unlimited universe (probably)."

Cognitive capacities as ours have not been seen anywhere else in the universe either.

kuraimen

Exactly. So you have no scientific basis for stating that humanity should be behaving as a species in any other fashion than it is presently. If we meet aliens with 80-year lifespans who plan public works projects on a millennia-scale, then you'll have a basis to come back here and make the claims you're making.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]There are no unlimited resources in this planet for the sole fact thta this is not an unlimited planet.Palantas

There are resources that are unlimited on any imaginable practical scale. Examples: Sunlight, water. If you want to be a nitpicker and tell me the sun will explode in billions of years, then I will simply point out that your statement is lacking in scope, and should have read, "There are no unlimited resources, as this is not an unlimited universe (probably)."

Cognitive capacities as ours have not been seen anywhere else in the universe either.

kuraimen

Exactly. So you have no scientific basis for stating that humanity should be behaving as a species in any other fashion than it is presently. If we meet aliens with 80-year lifespans who plan public works projects on a millennia-scale, then you'll have a basis to come back here and make the claims you're making.

Water is not unlimited on any imaginable practical scale. Sunlight is not an Earth resource so we are talking something else but water IS, in a practical way, an Earth limited resource. If you don't believe me tell it to all those people that, in a very practical way, have not enough water every year.

kuraimen

That's potable water. I didn't say potable water, did I? We presently possess no mechanisms to significantly affect the planet's water supply. The issue in getting potable water to people is not one of the resource becoming rarer (as it is with oil), but one of money and political will. Further examples: Oxygen, iron.

What are you talking about? that we have the ability to plan into the future should be more than enough to know that we have the potential to do it and we don't use it.

kuraimen

Nonsense. We can plan for events during our lifetimes, and occasionally projects are undertaken that require a few lifetimes. This in no way indicates that it is practical or even possible to creates plans stretching over thousands of years. You are describing something that has not been observed, anywhere, then stating that it is possible, and even going further to raise criticisms for its not being accomplished.

This in no way indicates that it is practical or even possible to creates plans stretching over thousands of years.

I

I'll expound on this. As I've already noted, people don't agree on things. There's no way the species can make thousand-year plans when we have different ideas of how the world should work in the future.

Furthermore, technology and societal changes would render any such long-term planning irrelevant. Let's think about what 2,000 and 1,000-year plans would look like today if coming to fruition.

• 2,000-year: Caesar's plan to expand Rome's forum is finally finished. It's as big as a forum could possibly have needed to be 2,000 years ago: It can now hold a JC Penny, two Starbucks, and a GAP. Damn. Well, let's start another 2,000-year plan to put a mega-mall where the current forum is. Of course, in 2,000 years, malls may be completely irrelevant, but we'll deal with that in 2,000 years.
• 1,000-year: The Holy Roman Emperor's plan to breed as many of the ultimate warhorse as he needs have come to fruition. Germany is now filled with large, strong, fast horses. Horse hobbyists are thrilled, but unfortunately, these horses are completely useless in warfare as the emperor intended, largely owing to the invention of railroads and automobiles. Bummer. I guess we'll start a new 1,000-year plan to ensure an ample infrastructure for modern warfare: Plenty of steel, coal, and oil. Of course, in 1,000 years, our resource requirements will be hyperdrive fuel and laser cannon batteries, but we'll worry about that in 1,000 years.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

Water is not unlimited on any imaginable practical scale. Sunlight is not an Earth resource so we are talking something else but water IS, in a practical way, an Earth limited resource. If you don't believe me tell it to all those people that, in a very practical way, have not enough water every year.

Palantas

That's potable water. I didn't say potable water, did I? We presently possess no mechanisms to significantly affect the planet's water supply. The issue in getting potable water to people is not one of the resource becoming rarer (as it is with oil), but one of money and political will. Further examples: Oxygen, iron.

What are you talking about? that we have the ability to plan into the future should be more than enough to know that we have the potential to do it and we don't use it.

kuraimen

Nonsense. We can plan for events during our lifetimes, and occasionally projects are undertaken that require a few lifetimes. This in no way indicates that it is practical or even possible to creates plans stretching over thousands of years. You are describing something that has not been observed, anywhere, then stating that it is possible, and even going further to raise criticisms for its not being accomplished.

I'm going to put everything on hold for a second, as you've vaulted to a new level of absurdity here...

Oxygen can indeed stop being produced too since it is all part of a cycle. You disturb that cycle and no more water or oxygen or iron.kuraimen

There's a cycle we're going to disturb that is going to make the planet run out of iron? What cycle is that?

I'm going to put everything on hold for a second, as you've vaulted to a new level of absurdity here...

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Oxygen can indeed stop being produced too since it is all part of a cycle. You disturb that cycle and no more water or oxygen or iron.Palantas

There's a cycle we're going to disturb that is going to make the planet run out of iron? What cycle is that?

:roll: I can't believe there are still people out there who think that any resource in this planet is unlimited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_ore#Depletion

If you have anything finite, anything within it is also finite. It is impossible for anything to be infinite within a finite space. Therefore since the Earth is finite anything within it is also finite. First order logic 101.

Today, as I was walking into Home Depot, I saw a dying bird lying on the ground, chest heaving. There was another bird standing next to it, chirping its lungs out. Perhaps it was calling for help. Maybe it was just staying with the dying bird in its last moments.

The birds were of two completely different species.

Human beings kill each other because of our differences, whether it's a difference in race, religion, or anything else.

Therefore, humans are inferior to birds.

Discuss.

feared4power

:roll: I can't believe there are still people out there who think that any resource in this planet is unlimited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_ore#Depletion

kuraimen

No, don't try explaining anything. Just point me to a Wiki article that you don't understand. Oh, but wait, this is irrelevant due to your next "point":

If you have anything finite, anything within it is also finite. It is impossible for anything to be infinite within a finite space. Therefore since the Earth is finite anything within it is also finite. First order logic 101.

kuraimen

Didn't I already address this? I'm pretty sure I did. Let's take a look...

There are resources that are unlimited on any imaginable practical scale. Examples: Sunlight, water. If you want to be a nitpicker and tell me the sun will explode in billions of years, then I will simply point out that your statement is lacking in scope, and should have read, "There are no unlimited resources, as this is not an unlimited universe (probably)."

I

Did you learn in First Order Logic 101 not to bring up a point in a debate that your opponent has already addressed? Did you?

I guess now you only want to consider finite versus infinite, instead of finite versus infinite on a practical scale. I respond thatin all resources are finite, and the universe will likely come to an end on an unimaginably lengthy (but finite) time scale. We're screwed no matter what we do, and your point is irrelevant.

Don't you love statements based on incomplete induction?Nude_Dude

they make for a good laugh in some cases

It is not even a matter of making a well developed plan, we just need to realize that resources are finite, that this world is finite, that reproducing and growing and producing and consuming uncontrollably is not a good idea a thing we can think about but no other species can. We don't have to plan for 50 years or 100 or 2000 for that we just have to realize it and act accordingly. We in fact act completely the opposite to that is what makes us very stupid.kuraimen

You refuse to describe your plan, you refuse to describe the timescale of your plan, and you can't point to any evidence of such a thing ever occuring before. I can sum up your complaint as follows: "Things are going, like, bad, man. And we should, like, do better." Can you be any more vague? I dunno.

Doesn't matter anyway. All resources are finite on a sufficiently lengthy time scale, since you don't want to consider practical limitations.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

No, don't try explaining anything. Just point me to a Wiki article that you don't understand. Oh, but wait, this is irrelevant due to your next "point":

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

If you have anything finite, anything within it is also finite. It is impossible for anything to be infinite within a finite space. Therefore since the Earth is finite anything within it is also finite. First order logic 101.

Palantas

Didn't I already address this? I'm pretty sure I did. Let's take a look...

There are resources that are unlimited on any imaginable practical scale. Examples: Sunlight, water. If you want to be a nitpicker and tell me the sun will explode in billions of years, then I will simply point out that your statement is lacking in scope, and should have read, "There are no unlimited resources, as this is not an unlimited universe (probably)."

I

Did you learn in First Order Logic 101 not to bring up a point in a debate that your opponent has already addressed? Did you?

I guess now you only want to consider finite versus infinite, instead of finite versus infinite on a practical scale. I respond thatin all resources are finite, and the universe will likely come to an end on an unimaginably lengthy (but finite) time scale. We're screwed no matter what we do, and your point is irrelevant.

Since practicality means that we need to be able to use it then yes it is finite in a practical scale. The link I provided actually supports that it's finite in a practical scale silly. Maybe you are the one that has problem understanding what you read.kuraimen

Oh? Point me to where you identify practicality in this little primer you gave me:

If you have anything finite, anything within it is also finite. It is impossible for anything to be infinite within a finite space. Therefore since the Earth is finite anything within it is also finite. First order logic 101.

kuraimen

Where is it? Show me.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]It is not even a matter of making a well developed plan, we just need to realize that resources are finite, that this world is finite, that reproducing and growing and producing and consuming uncontrollably is not a good idea a thing we can think about but no other species can. We don't have to plan for 50 years or 100 or 2000 for that we just have to realize it and act accordingly. We in fact act completely the opposite to that is what makes us very stupid.Palantas

You refuse to describe your plan, you refuse to describe the timescale of your plan, and you can't point to any evidence of such a thing ever occuring before. I can sum up your complaint as follows: "Things are going, like, bad, man. And we should, like, do better." Can you be any more vague? I dunno.

Doesn't matter anyway. All resources are finite on a sufficiently lengthy time scale, since you don't want to consider practical limitations.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Since practicality means that we need to be able to use it then yes it is finite in a practical scale. The link I provided actually supports that it's finite in a practical scale silly. Maybe you are the one that has problem understanding what you read.Palantas

Oh? Point me to where you identify practicality in this little primer you gave me:

If you have anything finite, anything within it is also finite. It is impossible for anything to be infinite within a finite space. Therefore since the Earth is finite anything within it is also finite. First order logic 101.

kuraimen

Where is it? Show me.

But what you didn't see was the other bird ate the dying bird after you left.

For starters we could begin not putting production and comsumption as the flagships of progress since that basically promotes using resources in unsustainable ways. That they are finite doesn't mean we can't use them in sustainable ways, the Earth and nature has ways to regenerate we just have to adapt to those. That we choose to do the complete opposite as a species even knowing that says a lot about our stupidity.kuraimen

Did you learn in First Order Logic 101 that identifying what something is not fails to tell you what it is? Telling me not to use production and consumption as indicators of progress does not indicate what your plan is.

Oh, and...

Doesn't matter anyway. All resources are finite on a sufficiently lengthy time scale, since you don't want to consider practical limitations.

I

...this is all irrelevant anyway.

When I talk to someone I sometimes appeal to common sense. Sorry I was mistaken.kuraimen

You're the one who brought up "First Oder Logic 101," not me. Please identify where "practical" fits into the logical statments you made (you know, since you didn't mention it). Come on, you must have taken First Order Logic 101, so I'm sure you can answer this.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]For starters we could begin not putting production and comsumption as the flagships of progress since that basically promotes using resources in unsustainable ways. That they are finite doesn't mean we can't use them in sustainable ways, the Earth and nature has ways to regenerate we just have to adapt to those. That we choose to do the complete opposite as a species even knowing that says a lot about our stupidity.Palantas

Did you learn in First Order Logic 101 that identifying what something is not fails to tell you what it is? Telling me not to use production and consumption as indicators of progress does not indicate what your plan is.

Oh, and...

Doesn't matter anyway. All resources are finite on a sufficiently lengthy time scale, since you don't want to consider practical limitations.

I

...this is all irrelevant anyway.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]When I talk to someone I sometimes appeal to common sense. Sorry I was mistaken.Palantas

You're the one who brought up "First Oder Logic 101," not me. Please identify where "practical" fits into the logical statments you made (you know, since you didn't mention it). Come on, you must have taken First Order Logic 101, so I'm sure you can answer this.

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]When I talk to someone I sometimes appeal to common sense. Sorry I was mistaken.kuraimen

You're the one who brought up "First Oder Logic 101," not me. Please identify where "practical" fits into the logical statments you made (you know, since you didn't mention it). Come on, you must have taken First Order Logic 101, so I'm sure you can answer this.

No offence Kiraimen but I think your losing this one, theplanet cannot run out of light or water (well not in the timeframe for our species at least).

Obviously other resources can be depleted, oil for example.

However they will be advances in science that will make things easier, our scientific advancement is to fast to make any long term plans practical.

lol so you want me to give you a plan for humanity?kuraimen

This is funny? Or unreasonable? You've been complaining for a page that we don't have a plan for the next (indeterminate timeframe here).

lI'm just saying our societies focus on comsumption and production is stupid which it is. It would be better if we focused on humans rather than putting monetary gain in the core of what drives society. It would help focus our priorities better.kuraimen

What does "focused on humans" mean?

My statements + the link + common sense...kuraimen

Your statements make the link a red herring, and "common sense" doesn't mean anything (or more properly, it means whatever any given person wants it to mean). It is not my responsibility to try and interpret your comments in a fashion other than literally, justin order to ensure that what you're saying passes logical scrutiny.

But I'm sure you knew that, right? You're smart enough to determine that the entire human race is stupid, so certaintly you're qualified to talk about logic. Do you know what a red herring is?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Palantas"]

You're the one who brought up "First Oder Logic 101," not me. Please identify where "practical" fits into the logical statments you made (you know, since you didn't mention it). Come on, you must have taken First Order Logic 101, so I'm sure you can answer this.

tenaka2

No offence Kiraimen but I think your losing this one, theplanet cannot run out of light or water (well not in the timeframe for our species at least).

Obviously other resources can be depleted, oil for example.

However they will be advances in science that will make things easier, our scientific advancement is to fast to make any long term plans practical.

For any practical purposes we can run out of water. What do you think people talk about when they talk about the Water Crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_crisis

I find it ridiculous to rely on a scientific advancement that doesn't even exist now instead of changing how we relate to the environment now.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

This is funny? Or unreasonable? You've been complaining for a page that we don't have a plan for the next (indeterminate timeframe here).

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]lI'm just saying our societies focus on comsumption and production is stupid which it is. It would be better if we focused on humans rather than putting monetary gain in the core of what drives society. It would help focus our priorities better.Palantas

What does "focused on humans" mean?

My statements + the link + common sense...kuraimen

Your statements make the link a red herring, and "common sense" doesn't mean anything (or more properly, it means whatever any given person wants it to mean). It is not my responsibility to try and interpret your comments in a fashion other than literally, justin order to ensure that what you're saying passes logical scrutiny.

But I'm sure you knew that, right? You're smart enough to determine that the entire human race is stupid, so certaintly you're qualified to talk about logic. Do you know what a red herring is?

One person alone can't make such a plan or such policies, that's why there are institutions that study and set policies around the world.

...

That we, as a species, are not willing to do it because we consider money to be the mean and end of all things is what makes us, as a species, utterly stupid.

kuraimen

You're unable to generate your own plan for how things should run, but you do know that the current one the species has collectively put in place is stupid. How did you accomplish this?

Many people doesn't have a problem deriving logical conclusions from statements such as mine. It is actually quite simple like adding 1+1 you don't even have to think a lot.

kuraimen

If by "many people" you mean yourself. The only way to make sense of your statements is to read them non-literally. That is, to guess at what your intent might be and attempt to revise them in such a way as to make them cogent, ironically, in a fashion where the reader assumes you did not consider the ramifications of your own statements. As I said, I have no intent of performing these mental gymnastics for you, and neither should anyone else. The very fact that you bring up "common sense" into a discussion of logic indicates you don't know what you're talking about; that you compare it to mathmatics is patently laughable.

For any practical purposes we can run out of water. What do you think people talk about when they talk about the Water Crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_crisis

kuraimen

This was already rebutted. I'll basically repeat that rebuttal; I get used to repeating myself when exchanging with kuraimen:

The planet is not running out of water, in the same way that other resources like oil are becoming rarer. It is becoming more costly go get potable water to certain areas. We could get water everywhere it needs to be. That's an issue of cost and politics, and not one of "Oh crap! We're out of water!" Of course, the above statement is dependent on whether we're invoking kuraimen's First Order Logic 101 course or not. If we are, then because the galaxy is finite, all resources are finite; considering the Earth's resources is irrelevant.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

One person alone can't make such a plan or such policies, that's why there are institutions that study and set policies around the world.

...

That we, as a species, are not willing to do it because we consider money to be the mean and end of all things is what makes us, as a species, utterly stupid.

Palantas

You're unable to generate your own plan for how things should run, but you do know that the current one the species has collectively put in place is stupid. How did you accomplish this?

Many people doesn't have a problem deriving logical conclusions from statements such as mine. It is actually quite simple like adding 1+1 you don't even have to think a lot.

kuraimen

If by "many people" you mean yourself. The only way to make sense of your statements is to read them non-literally. That is, to guess at what your intent might be and attempt to revise them in such a way as to make them cogent, ironically, in a fashion where the read assumes you did not consider the ramifications of your own statements. As I said, I have no intent of performing these mental gymnastics for you, and neither should anyone else. The very fact that you bring up "common sense" into a discussion of logic indicates you don't know what you're talking about; that you compare it to mathmatics is patently laughable.