NASA moon mess

[Doc Dillamond]

mankind has always metaled with nature and it has backfired before. mankind will never learn  

[Aino Ailill]

gemherbal

mankind has always metaled with nature and it has backfired before. mankind will never learn

It has also proven extremely useful, before.  

[whiporwill-o]

Aino Ailill

gemherbal

mankind has always metaled with nature and it has backfired before. mankind will never learn

It has also proven extremely useful, before.

indeed, as in the case of electricity, for one. 3nodding  

[TeaDidikai]

whiporwill-o

Aino Ailill

gemherbal

mankind has always metaled with nature and it has backfired before. mankind will never learn

It has also proven extremely useful, before.

indeed, as in the case of electricity, for one. 3nodding

I'm a big fan of computers myself.  

[Fiddlers Green]

Useful to us as a species... mayhaps.
When the book is closed, then I shall decide whether I felt it a good read or not.
My feelings on technology are that we have never gone far enough, and have always chosen the route that does little good in the long term. Especially that financial interests now dictate popular application of science. We have the technology to do away with fossil fuels, yet we do not-
There is not space for that rant here.

As matters stand, we shall leave a ruin of our home, shrug as we consciously and aware of our actions, render other species non-existant, and then hand wave it off by saying that animals go extinct all the time and we shouldn't feel bad that we are doing it.
To this I say, animals kill all the time, and I should not feel bad for doing it.
To this I say, species have gone extinct before, why should we be any different?
To this I say, we have no love for parasites, why are we immune to our own judgements?
At once these pundits exalt humanity and our ability to innovate and reason, and simultaneously say we should not apply that ability to reason to the ramifications of our own actions. We must know we are not animals, and are above the world and all the beasts in it, but in the after affects of our actions, we might still justify them as things that happen, authored by lesser creatures or by mindless natural phenomenon.
Choose.
Are you a beast or are you not?
you don't get to have it both ways, you cannot be the one when it looks convenient, and the other when you need to excuse your convenient actions.  

[TeaDidikai]

Fiddlers Green

Useful to us as a species... mayhaps.
When the book is closed, then I shall decide whether I felt it a good read or not.
My feelings on technology are that we have never gone far enough, and have always chosen the route that does little good in the long term. Especially that financial interests now dictate popular application of science. We have the technology to do away with fossil fuels, yet we do not-
There is not space for that rant here.

As matters stand, we shall leave a ruin of our home, shrug as we consciously and aware of our actions, render other species non-existant, and then hand wave it off by saying that animals go extinct all the time and we shouldn't feel bad that we are doing it.
To this I say, animals kill all the time, and I should not feel bad for doing it.
To this I say, species have gone extinct before, why should we be any different?
To this I say, we have no love for parasites, why are we immune to our own judgements?
At once these pundits exalt humanity and our ability to innovate and reason, and simultaneously say we should not apply that ability to reason to the ramifications of our own actions. We must know we are not animals, and are above the world and all the beasts in it, but in the after affects of our actions, we might still justify them as things that happen, authored by lesser creatures or by mindless natural phenomenon.
Choose.
Are you a beast or are you not?
you don't get to have it both ways, you cannot be the one when it looks convenient, and the other when you need to excuse your convenient actions.

What if we are both? Neither? Or one striving for the other?  

[Fiddlers Green]

TeaDidikai

What if we are both? Neither? Or one striving for the other?

What we are is largely irrelevant.
The arguments are what rile me. If a person would honestly admit to confusion or ignorance, they are less at fault than pretending to enlightenment, then excusing unenlightened behaviour by citing the base instinct they claim to be separate from.
All I ask for is some coherency, some internal consistency.
But the Rhetors have won, and they need never even pretend to speak the Truth.  

[TeaDidikai]

Fiddlers Green

TeaDidikai

What if we are both? Neither? Or one striving for the other?

What we are is largely irrelevant.
The arguments are what rile me. If a person would honestly admit to confusion or ignorance, they are less at fault than pretending to enlightenment, then excusing unenlightened behaviour by citing the base instinct they claim to be separate from.
All I ask for is some coherency, some internal consistency.
But the Rhetors have won, and they need never even pretend to speak the Truth.

Fair enough.