Link

Members
  • Content count

    83
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Link


  1. All the problems you have all listed above are caused by man, so don't you agree with me that we are our own disaster.

    No, I don't quite agree with that. I would say that some of us - or even most of us - are the cause of the problems, but not all of us. I can't really put 'humans' as a problem, since I'm hoping for solutions that do not require the extinction of the human race. I could put something like human nature or habit. If I didn't believe that we could change, then I wouldn't be here.

    Simon Leufstedt likes this

  2. If responsibility does not entail that we have to or ought to do something, then we don't disagree Simon.

    But I do think that we disagree on a very fundamental level. You - and 90% of all people on earth - probably believe that we have responsibilities outside our own interests; that there at things we should do even if it doesn't further our interests in any way. I on the other hand don't think that there is anything that anyone should do, if it is not in some way in their interests. I did not arrive at this conclusion happily, but it is what I have come to believe. At this moment though I have gotten quite used to the idea and don't think so badly of it anymore.


  3. No problem. What I mean is that when it comes to a lot of the problems we face today, it is useful to say that it was caused by humans and not nature. It's a question of semantics. You might prefer to say that the problems were caused by humans and not animals and plants. Another might prefer to say that the problems were caused by humans and not other animals and the plants. Since humans are also animals some might not like to seperate humans from animals. That's all there is to it.

    In a sense, all the environmental problems we face today are caused by nature, they are 'natural'. That just doesn't narrow it down very much.

    On another point, I don't think that we have a responsibility to take care of the earth, I just think it's the smartest thing to do; it is absolutely in our best interest to do it.


  4. At the same time though I'm torn, my physical reality dictates my actions more than anything. For instance, today for breakfast I will not have steak. I don't have a lot of money and there is none in the kitchen. I will not go buy a new house today, nor will i go swimming. Again I'm broke, and it's also the last day of October and kind of chilly outside.

    I wouldn't call that physical reality dictating your actions, I would call that physical reality limiting options that you are free to choose. For this topic we should narrow it down to very simple and basic actions like raising a hand, or deliberately blinking or holding you breath. Buying a house, choosing a major or things like that have many factors that need to be considered. It complicates matters unnecessarily.

    If you choose to raise you left arm instead of your right arm, all things being equal, is it an act of free will or is not? Or, if I ask that you close your eyes and count slowly to 3 - and assuming that you have done that - would you say that you acted out of free will or would you not? If not, then why?

    @Karim

    If you deny the existence of free will, then I can understand why you would classify your position as being on the unpopular side. However you say this:

    So, free will, yes; yet, it's all predetermined. And this is not a self-contradictory statement, though it does seem paradoxical.

    That depends on what is included in 'all'. If 'all' includes my choice of doing something, then I can't see how it isn't self-contradictory, and more than just seemingly paradoxical.

    I can accept that I can't choose my desires. I can even accept that I can't change my desires (through no ordinary means or perhaps not at all).

    I can't accept that I can't choose whether or not to satisfy my desires, all things being equal. Right now I desire to see a movie. I choose not to. I still desire it though.


  5. Love :wub: all life......... all animals play an important part in our ecosystem.

    I'm not so sure about that. I think parasitic life forms leech on an ecosystem more than they're part of it. I really think that there are some life forms that do nothing but harm other life forms. However having said that I also think we should be extremely careful about trying to eradicate certain life forms that are - in our limited view - bad for the environment. Just look at what happened to China under Mao.

    Leila likes this

  6. I think - generally - that having both sides of debate is a good thing. Who knows, maybe he's even right about some of the things he says. At the beginning of his book 'Cool it' he states that global warming is a fact, and that humanity's increase of greenhouse gasses over the last hundred years has contributed to this fact. I wonder how many sceptics mention this when they refer to him in their anti-climate-change-arguments. So far it doesn't sound too bad.

    We'll never know if we don't check it out with an open mind. If he's wrong about his claims then we'll have a clearer idea of why and how we can debunk them. It's a win-win. Know your friends, but make equal effort to understand your opponents.


  7. I haven't seen much of it yet, but it looks good so far. I'm not all too happy about killing rabbits for the sake of an endagered species of cats though. I wonder how many hundreds of rabbits that were killed to save the Iberian Lynx, and how many thousands more that will be. For me it's about not killing as many lives as possible; keeping as many species as possible comes after that.