What do we control?

[Iandefor]

I saw this over in the Global Warming (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=260325) thread:
Even if this was natural think about what an achievment controlling the weather to suit our needs would be. Thats far more amazing that getting to the moon or mars... Which got me thinking: certainly, if we could control the weather, it would be a major human achievement, but what would that say about what we believe in regards to our relationship to the rest of the biome? Does that give us the right to sublimate the needs of other organisms in our own search for ever more resources, or does it give us an even greater responsibility to assume the role of steward to the environment in a way friendly to current life? Or should we even bother and simply let the environment change with as little human interference as possible?

What do you think is the role of humanity in the larger ecology of Earth?

[raublekick]

see the last post i made in there, i address this issue

<edit> copied from the thread

We have to be careful about controlling the weather, though. We can admit that we know very little about how we affect the weather. But, we can easily see and admit that the weather is changing in a way that is not favorable to us. However, as we cannot predict the results of the last 100 years of growing global industrialism, we cannot predict the major affects of our controlling the weather. Who know what could happen? Perhaps we could control the weather to make Earth more comfortable for us, but maybe that sends the Earth's rotation a bit out of whack and our orbit sends us straight into the sun!

Check out this quick model I pulled out of my you-know-where, each '->?' represents both effects known and unknown, and the '-/>?' between transportation and weather represents the global warming issue:
need for survival ->? hunting and farming techniques ->? need for farming ->? advances in farming ->? need for more general technology ->? advances in genreal technology ->? need for transportation ->? advances in transportation -/>? climate seems to change, need suppression ->? weather control techniques -> cannot predict because technology has not reaced this point.

in this model at any step the pioneers could not have predicted the rammifications of their progress. but as you go up the model it becomes more and more difficult to predict the consequences and they become more severe.

it is unfortunate that we are in the position that we are in. we must make technological decisions that we cannot reasonably predict the side effects of because we cannot reasonably predect the causes of the problems that are causing us to make these decisions.

so, like i and a few others have said, the best bet is the one where we do the least damage. even if we don't know the mass affects of oil use and pollution, we can surely be more certain that nature would balance out better if we cut down on what we do.

[maniacmusician]

i've always thought that we as humans were too invasive. Unlike other organisms, we don't give back to the land...we feed off of it till it runs dry, then we find other resources. we also recklessly destroy carefully balanced ecosystems. I guess I'm a bit of a nature guy. I like going out and hiking in the forest or just relaxing by a stream. that's getting harder and harder to do these days with roads getting closer to the woods, and forest-space getting more crowded.

[raublekick]

i hear that, maniacmusician!

[Iandefor]

i've always thought that we as humans were too invasive. Unlike other organisms, we don't give back to the land...we feed off of it till it runs dry, then we find other resources. we also recklessly destroy carefully balanced ecosystems. I guess I'm a bit of a nature guy. I like going out and hiking in the forest or just relaxing by a stream. that's getting harder and harder to do these days with roads getting closer to the woods, and forest-space getting more crowded. What about English Ivy? That's some pretty invasive stuff and very handily establishes a monoculture.

[maniacmusician]

What about English Ivy? That's some pretty invasive stuff and very handily establishes a monoculture.
Yes, but it's part of the original design of nature, wasn't created in a lab. Also, it does have some benefits to an extent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Ivy ). Even if it is invasive, (dont know too much about it) I doubt it takes out as much of the ecosystem as we do. If left alone long enough, other species of organisms will learn to adapt to the Ivy. they can't exactly adapt to their homes being totally wiped out while our highways, homes, malls, and businesses take up more and more space.

[Iandefor]

Yes, but it's part of the original design of nature, wasn't created in a lab. Does nature design things?

[maniacmusician]

Does nature design things?
lol i wouldn't know, i'm not in direct communication with it. but seeing as how there are striking similarities in chemical composition and atomic structure between things, i would suppose that yes, nature does design things.

[henriquemaia]

If we can't even control our own minds, how can we pretend to control something else?

[Skia_42]

This thread is intense, this is an intersting group that believes in the volentary human extinction to better the earth and it's enviroment as a whole: http://vhemt.org/

[nalmeth]

You need only look into publicly known experiments like Haarp, who is behind them, you'll see we are already treading into unknown technologies with the attitude of "act first, think later".

In regard to the rest of the ecology, I agree with many others here that we are still struggling to identify and classify long-term ecological trends, so unrationalized action could undoubtedly single us out as aggressors against the rest of the earth.

If you can look at the earth as a greater organism (including us), irregular behavior that interupts even the most subtle daily movements and habitats could have an aggregating effect. This can be used as an argument in favor of human climate change, but it's not intended to be one.

The point is when we use our technology directly to try to subcede or alter natural trends and long-term events (like ice-ages, or short-term like the ionosphere), we make a direct submission that we are a (detatched) seperate entity from earth, and entitled to make decisions about it's future based on our own (lack of) foresight and intentions.


What do you think is the role of humanity in the larger ecology of Earth?
Well, I don't think we're obligated to sacrifice our own advancement for it's benefit, we are the rightful successors of its wealth. But when our advancement is reaped from human conflicts (like ELF technologies, and the space-race), we have a corrupted and flawed science. One that isn't used for furthering the knowledge and ability of all, but one that reaches plateaus and advancements solely to respond to human conflict and deter threat.. The earth is left behind, and we see it only as the battlefield.

Our role is something we still don't understand, and one which conservation and REAL science will lead us to discover. hopefully #-o


in this model at any step the pioneers could not have predicted the rammifications of their progress. but as you go up the model it becomes more and more difficult to predict the consequences and they become more severe.

it is unfortunate that we are in the position that we are in. we must make technological decisions that we cannot reasonably predict the side effects of because we cannot reasonably predect the causes of the problems that are causing us to make these decisions.
Really good points
but we're now developing technologies that are beyond public survival and feeding the hungry. When science is fueled by human-conflict, then our tendency to try predicting consequences is outweighed by the threat level, and simply making the technology work.
Your point still stands though. I just think a lot of technological consequences are considered an afterthought, even though they are more complex. Afterall, investigating side-effects would be a component of a conservational science.

[Iandefor]

If we can't even control our own minds, how can we pretend to control something else? What do you mean?


Well, I don't think we're obligated to sacrifice our own advancement for it's benefit, we are the rightful successors of its wealth. But when our advancement is reaped from human conflicts (like ELF technologies, and the space-race), we have a corrupted and flawed science. One that isn't used for furthering the knowledge and ability of all, but one that reaches plateaus and advancements solely to respond to human conflict and deter threat.. The earth is left behind, and we see it only as the battlefield. What about us gives us a greater claim to the wealth of Earth than other organisms (I mean to say this in a spirit of inquiry and not of confrontation)?

[nalmeth]

What about us gives us a greater claim to the wealth of Earth than other organisms (I mean to say this in a spirit of inquiry and not of confrontation)? The way I worded that was a little weird, but it stands to reason.

Most other organisms are small parts of a greater environment which has facilitated our evolution and advancement. So it appears as though all other species are merely elements to our progogation and succesful advancement. Religions take extreme views on this, and we fall into wacky superiority complexes, but it's not an egotistical point I mean to make. I also don't mean to suggest we are more important in a literal sense.

Simply that we are the most advanced single species that we are aware of on this planet or abroad, and simply the fact that we are discussing how our actions could singularily affect the entire planet and ALL of its derivative organism speaks to our standing among other species.

I would go further to suggest our power to inflict serious problems on the rest of the earth and it's lifeforms commands a responsibility to respect our past and what allowed us to come to being in the first place.

So I think I used the word wealth in the wrong way. In better terms, the fact that we are soon becoming responsible for the well-being of the rest of the planet and it's inhabitants allows us to claim "superiority", whatever that means to us (or you or me).

That's NOT to suggest the earth may not finally have enough of us, and shed itself of humanity. :-\"
EDIT: We are not greater than earth. Merely it's most advanced single product.

[Iandefor]

Simply that we are the most advanced single species that we are aware of on this planet or abroad, and simply the fact that we are discussing how our actions could singularily affect the entire planet and ALL of its derivative organism speaks to our standing among other species.

I would go further to suggest our power to inflict serious problems on the rest of the earth and it's lifeforms commands a responsibility to respect our past and what allowed us to come to being in the first place.

So I think I used the word wealth in the wrong way. In better terms, the fact that we are soon becoming responsible for the well-being of the rest of the planet and it's inhabitants allows us to claim "superiority", whatever that means to us (or you or me).

That's NOT to suggest the earth may not finally have enough of us, and shed itself of humanity. :-\"
EDIT: We are not greater than earth. Merely it's most advanced single product.
I see. I think you used the word "wealth" appropriately, but perhaps "inherit" or "successor" was what tripped me up.

Did you mean more along the lines of stewardship?

[nalmeth]

Not really in the sense that it would become a totally conservational science that focuses on earth, but it's will always be a part of science, and a part of humanity already commits itself this way.

[fuscia]

think of the parades we would ruin if we could control the weather.

[DoctorMO]

At least we could blame someone when it rains.

[jan]

OMG that's discusions... ;)

[henriquemaia]

What do you mean?

My point is more philosophical. I look at my own mind and and understand that I have almost no control over my emotions, desires, etc. If I cannot control this, what would happen if I controled things that affect other people (and beings) in such a vast way? People in power positions have this kind of problem. If we think on the number of people inhabiting this planet and the different ways people think things such as weather, having control over it would most probably lead to a chaos. Once you changed a bit here, something would be completely out of hand on other place. And lets not forget that we are not the only creatures living on earth. Ecosystems balance is a very complex thing. Playing with its thin balance would most certainly lead to its destruction.

[bluenova]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Chaos Theory

Change something small here, change something big there.

[Iandefor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Chaos Theory

Change something small here, change something big there. Can you elaborate a little more on what you mean?

[SoundMachine]

I saw this over in the Global Warming (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=260325) thread: Which got me thinking: certainly, if we could control the weather, it would be a major human achievement, but what would that say about what we believe in regards to our relationship to the rest of the biome? Does that give us the right to sublimate the needs of other organisms in our own search for ever more resources, or does it give us an even greater responsibility to assume the role of steward to the environment in a way friendly to current life? Or should we even bother and simply let the environment change with as little human interference as possible?

What do you think is the role of humanity in the larger ecology of Earth?

Whether we like it or not we have adopted a living style that "normal" organisms that have been on this earth for eternities have not, whether we like it or not, we are responsible for our actions, karma if you like or whatever you want to call it, the truth always catches up with you in the end, and the truth of this matter is, we are responsible for our environment and have begun taking responsibility short term (reduce pollution) but not long term (reduce or eliminate greenhouse gas emmisions).

It's like how tobacco smoke wasn't bad for anyone and even though pretty much every scientist could have told you it was it was supressed by the economical short term interests.

It's what we are, short term idiots.

[SoundMachine]

Can you elaborate a little more on what you mean?

I'm not one to put words in others mouths but what i think he is implying is that even a small change in temperature (greenhouse gas emissons) can change a great deal of the world.

Look at water, there is a great deal of change from 0 to +1 degree celsius, or from 99 to 100 degrees celsius.

All it takes for ice to ment is one degree.

[bluenova]

Sorry I didn't have much time when I posted before but SoundMachine hit the nail on the head. Just by making very small changes to the weather could have massive effect on the world. Not only with regards to storms and other weather related things, but some species we know today would die out, and new spieces would be born. It's really the first big step into the relm of playing god.

[Iandefor]

I feel a little silly, reviving a thread like this, but I want to discuss this some more.
lol i wouldn't know, i'm not in direct communication with it. but seeing as how there are striking similarities in chemical composition and atomic structure between things, i would suppose that yes, nature does design things.Do you, then, believe in Intelligent Design?

Whether we like it or not we have adopted a living style that "normal" organisms that have been on this earth for eternities have not, whether we like it or not, we are responsible for our actions, karma if you like or whatever you want to call it, the truth always catches up with you in the end, and the truth of this matter is, we are responsible for our environment and have begun taking responsibility short term (reduce pollution) but not long term (reduce or eliminate greenhouse gas emmisions). So, then, you're of the opinion that, because we have the greatest ability to influence the environment, we then have the greatest responsibility to ensure that we don't cause much damage?

Whether we like it or not we have adopted a living style that "normal" organisms that have been on this earth for eternities have not I wonder how much of it is a cultural thing and not a species thing? After all, anatomically modern humans have been around for the last 100,000 years. It's only in the last 10,000 have some parts of humanity developed and sustained an agricultural lifestyle (which is a cornerstone of Western culture, which it seems you're mostly talking about), and only in the last 5,000 that there's been a particularly "expansionist" attitude.

[maniacmusician]

No i do not believe in intelligent design with any stretch of the imagination. Nature "designs" things based on universal structures (it's really hard to explain; i can't assume everyone reading is profficient in chemistry and other sciences), and if you look at the structure of anything in nature, you'll notice a lot of things are really similar. There are patterns in the chemical structure that show up again and again. So in a way, yes it is a design, because things seem to be intricately tied together, but certainly not intelligent design. in my opinion anyways, don't want to start a stupid flamewar about that topic.

for people just joining the discussion, i'll reiterate (copy and paste, really) my previous responses to your question:



i've always thought that we as humans were too invasive. Unlike other organisms, we don't give back to the land...we feed off of it till it runs dry, then we find other resources. we also recklessly destroy carefully balanced ecosystems. I guess I'm a bit of a nature guy. I like going out and hiking in the forest or just relaxing by a stream. that's getting harder and harder to do these days with roads getting closer to the woods, and forest-space getting more crowded.
then:


What about English Ivy? That's some pretty invasive stuff and very handily establishes a monoculture.
Yes, but it's part of the original design of nature, wasn't created in a lab. Also, it does have some benefits to an extent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Ivy ). Even if it is invasive, (dont know too much about it) I doubt it takes out as much of the ecosystem as we do. If left alone long enough, other species of organisms will learn to adapt to the Ivy. they can't exactly adapt to their homes being totally wiped out while our highways, homes, malls, and businesses take up more and more space.
then


Does nature design things?
lol i wouldn't know, i'm not in direct communication with it. but seeing as how there are striking similarities in chemical composition and atomic structure between things, i would suppose that yes, nature does design things.

and other people made excellent posts as well. I must say, this is a pretty cool thread...

edit:

So, then, you're of the opinion that, because we have the greatest ability to influence the environment, we then have the greatest responsibility to ensure that we don't cause much damage?
Even though this was aimed at soundmachine, i'm compelled to answer "yes". that statement is really true on so many levels.

Also, it really is a species thing...it was with the development of intelligence (which we have pretty exclusively, as far as we know) that we started thinking of ways to take stuff from the land. make paper from trees, mine minerals out of the ground, oil refineries, the list goes on and on. And its with the advance of our intelligence and knowledge that we're depleting more and more of the planet's resources. So i think that its a species thing.

[prizrak]

I subscribe to the same theory that Agent Smith from The Matrix did. Humans are the only animals on this planet that do not work out an equilibrium with the environment.
I think that our civilazation is going in the wrong way. In my opinion a biological civilazation has to emerge first, one that would work concurrently with the environment rather than against it. After enough progress is achieved a technological civilazation may start as by that time we would have enough knowledge to make impact almost unnoticeable.

[maniacmusician]

I subscribe to the same theory that Agent Smith from The Matrix did. Humans are the only animals on this planet that do not work out an equilibrium with the environment.
I think that our civilazation is going in the wrong way. In my opinion a biological civilazation has to emerge first, one that would work concurrently with the environment rather than against it. After enough progress is achieved a technological civilazation may start as by that time we would have enough knowledge to make impact almost unnoticeable.
yup...i actually love the way smith described it. something about the fact we just "spread and devour."

[Iandefor]

I subscribe to the same theory that Agent Smith from The Matrix did. Humans are the only animals on this planet that do not work out an equilibrium with the environment.
I think that our civilazation is going in the wrong way. In my opinion a biological civilazation has to emerge first, one that would work concurrently with the environment rather than against it. After enough progress is achieved a technological civilazation may start as by that time we would have enough knowledge to make impact almost unnoticeable. How do you mean "biological civilization"? It seems a fascinating concept.