Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
energyresources · EnergyResources Group
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Hear how Yahoo! Groups has changed the lives of others. Take me there.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
Ma nature wreaks havoc   Message List  
Reply | Forward Message #112491 of 122413 |
RE: [energyresources] Ma nature wreaks havoc

David Mathews writes:
>
> Humans are about a billion times more violent than
> the animals
>
David,

I actually agree with pretty much all you've said in your recent posts, and
while this may seem pedantic I'd just like to pick up on this one line.

Humans *are* animals. I understand that you're merely using a shorthand, and
when you say 'humans are more violent than the animals', you almost
certainly mean 'humans are more violent that the *other* animals'. All the
same, I think it's important that we never lose sight of the fact we are
just one part of a larger ecology and while there are details that
distinguish humans from other animals, they are just that; details.

I'm currently researching and writing a thesis on the nature of free markets
(from a psychoanalytic perspective) and am drawing heavily on the work of
anthropologist and psychologist Gregory Bateson. One of his central ideas is
that modern man has adopted a worldview which places us outside the natural
systems upon which we depend for our very survival (as opposed to being an
integrated part of them), and that this inevitably leads to disastrous
consequences, both for us and for those natural systems.

"[A sustainable civilisation] shall consume unreplaceable natural resources
*only* as a means to facilitate necessary change (as a chrysalis in
metamorphosis must live on its fat). For the rest, the metabolism of the
civilisation must depend upon the energy income which Spaceship Earth
derives from the sun"
- Bateson, Ecology and Flexibility in Urban Civilization, 1970.

All the best,

=====================================
jim fitzsimons (Dublin, Ireland)
www.numero57.net
________________________________________
From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:energyresources@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dmathew1
Sent: 14 May 2008 23:06
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Subject: {Disarmed} [energyresources] Re: Ma nature wreaks havoc

Hello Brent,

The criticism directed at Al Gore is unfounded. When the climate
change catastrophe occurs a whole lot more than 128,000 people are
going to die. Not that this matters to the polluters and the
corporations who profit handsomely from trashing the planet.

As to the statement:

"Some examples of the ecocentric (deifying nature)
mindset follow:
"Hopefully we don't see Parson Dave Matthews in one
of this sort of news item in the future, however he
strikes me as having a very similar mindset."

Animals don't go out of their way to harm humans. In the vast majority
of cases in which attacks do occur the humans are responsible. Even
seemingly violent animals such as the alligator and the rattlesnake
will only attack a human when provoked or startled.

On the other hand, humans commit billions of violent acts against the
animals and Nature each and every day. In the vast majority of cases,
the humans have a profit motive or are violent merely for the sake of
violence.

Humans are also exceptionally violent to each other. You can verify
this easily enough by reading your local newspaper or watching
television. Humans are about a billion times more violent than the
animals and this is the reason why civilization has constructed so many
tools in order to restrain humans from harming each other. These tools
are extremely powerful but not effective enough to prevent thousands of
humans from dying violently every year.

If the humans were only as violent as the animals the vast majority of
humankind's violent acts would never occur, nor would humans possess
all of the tools of violence, nor would humankind possess the tools of
warfare.

***

Where are the peace-loving humans?

Sincerely,

David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1433 - Release Date: 14/05/2008
16:44





Thu May 15, 2008 4:19 pm

jimbliss23
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email

Forward
Message #112491 of 122413 |
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

Hello Steven, ... were true for modern states? In this purely hypothetical situation, we would be seeing 165 thousand Canadian deaths every year from warfare ...
dmathew1
Offline Send Email
May 16, 2008
2:12 am

... David, I actually agree with pretty much all you've said in your recent posts, and while this may seem pedantic I'd just like to pick up on this one line. ...
jim f
jimbliss23
Offline Send Email
May 15, 2008
11:12 pm

jim f You say below <I think it's important that we never lose sight of the fact we are just one part of a larger ecology and while there are details that...
Denis Frith
denisaf2000
Offline Send Email
May 16, 2008
2:11 am

Hi Denis, Thanks for your response, though I'm a little confused by the point you're trying to make. When you say "that is not so", are you suggesting that you...
jim f
jimbliss23
Offline Send Email
May 16, 2008
10:16 am

Hi jim f To clarify the point I was making, we differ from other animals in that we have used our exosomatic tools to build the mechanisms of civilization....
Denis Frith
denisaf2000
Offline Send Email
May 16, 2008
11:40 am

Tom What a foolish comment of yours. You pick a small scale isolated case in an attempt to refute a sound generalization. I thought better of you than that. I...
Denis Frith
denisaf2000
Offline Send Email
May 16, 2008
10:17 am

Denis, There is a great deal to said for being aware of the limitations of an over reductionist approach. That is the basis for redressing an imbalance and...
brent_ns
Offline Send Email
May 17, 2008
12:21 am

Brent I am curious. You say <It's also possible in trying to emphasize an holistic approach, to end up simply missing the point and end up spouting...
Denis Frith
denisaf2000
Offline Send Email
May 17, 2008
12:53 am

~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~~~ Hey Folks: For several months now, I have been mainly involved in moving into a new home and selling the...
Tom Robertson
t1robertson
Offline Send Email
May 17, 2008
1:47 am

Tom You call for more understanding of what civilization is doing. I provide understanding of what the day-by-day operations of civilization do to the...
Denis Frith
denisaf2000
Offline Send Email
May 17, 2008
11:57 am

Tom it seems to me that often the *things* we can do to slow down our drive as a specie to over shoot don't really work. Example. I ride a bike now. A truck...
Bob Hazard
starly88
Offline Send Email
May 17, 2008
8:45 pm

... I didn't say you specifically were Denis Denis I've no doubt that you were a fine scientist in your aeronautic career, however it's seemed to me for a long...
brent ns
brent_ns
Offline Send Email
May 17, 2008
11:04 am

Brent You criticize my view for being too holistic. You suggest I that I may have had a religious conversion. I am not going to quibble about your...
Denis Frith
denisaf2000
Offline Send Email
May 17, 2008
8:39 pm

... Hi Denis Your sentence immediately above is the basic point of contention and I have exactly the same reservations that Roger Arnold articulated here ...
brent ns
brent_ns
Offline Send Email
May 18, 2008
11:56 am

Brent You say <If one maintains that "Civilization Always Entails" "irreversible use of natural capital"... one is effectively saying that "sustainablity" of...
Denis Frith
denisaf2000
Offline Send Email
May 18, 2008
1:24 pm

... It's this statement that is a problem Denis, and you keep repeating it ad nauseam You in effect define a necessary condition of civilization as an...
brent ns
brent_ns
Offline Send Email
May 18, 2008
4:29 pm

Brent I am mystified by your comment that I define a necessary condition of civilization as an irrerversible drawdown of natural capital. I examine in 'What...
Denis Frith
denisaf2000
Offline Send Email
May 19, 2008
2:23 am

Dennis Not all 'civilisations' draw-down limited natural resources - the Australian aborigines (once they achieved stability - and ate all the megafauna)...
hugh spencer
battyhugh
Offline Send Email
May 17, 2008
11:10 am

Hugh My comments relate primarily to industrial civilization and I make that point in my writings even though it is not always so qualified. The conceptual...
Denis Frith
denisaf2000
Offline Send Email
May 17, 2008
8:40 pm

Denis perhaps the comment was too simplistic but the overview is true. Animals including humans if given the right environment, that is a lack of predation...
Bob Hazard
starly88
Offline Send Email
May 17, 2008
11:02 am

Bob I have simply commented on what human society has done to the ecosystem using the tools they have devised. No other animal has devised something like a...
Denis Frith
denisaf2000
Offline Send Email
May 17, 2008
11:54 am

I think we agree for the most part Denis. I see humans as all components of nature, evolving. We may be evolving to higher order thinking, or we may be...
Bob Hazard
starly88
Offline Send Email
May 17, 2008
8:47 pm

It's a nasty subject but don't forget infanticide. The rate was very high in Great Britain through the nineteenth century, and even some years into the...
Abernethy, Virginia D...
virginia.abernethy@...
Send Email
May 16, 2008
10:27 pm

McKitrick is missing some significant factors here. He looks at various pollutants in wealthy countries and sees they have actually gone down, but neglects to...
Arthur Noll
arthurcnoll
Offline Send Email
May 17, 2008
8:47 pm
 First  |  |  Next > Last 
Advanced

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help