McCain Picks VP

[Captain Beard]

 

[derek]

 

[Captain Beard]

 

[Chromatose]

 

[Captain Beard]

 

[Undefined]

uke:

 

[Nightshade]

"should we preserve species that are unable to adapt to our influence?"

So many thoughts spring to mind that it's not even funny. Here's just a few key bits. First off, any monkey with a machine gun can destroy. Why shouldn't we aspire to something greater? Second of all, who died and made us God? And finally, what if, by some ridiculous remote coincidence, it turns out that we're spreading across the continent like a cancer of locusts, destroying the planet on which our lives and future depends, writing off lesser species as irrelevent until we discover, too late to reverse the problem, that these lesser species were nothing more than canaries in our global coal mine, and we're next?

WASHINGTON-- Senator John McCain just announced his choice for running mate: Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. To follow is a statement by Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund.

“Senator McCain’s choice for a running mate is beyond belief. By choosing Sarah Palin, McCain has clearly made a decision to continue the Bush legacy of destructive environmental policies.

“Sarah Palin, whose husband works for BP (formerly British Petroleum), has repeatedly put special interests first when it comes to the environment. In her scant two years as governor, she has lobbied aggressively to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, pushed for more drilling off of Alaska’s coasts, and put special interests above science. Ms. Palin has made it clear through her actions that she is unwilling to do even as much as the Bush administration to address the impacts of global warming. Her most recent effort has been to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the polar bear from the endangered species list, putting Big Oil before sound science. As unbelievable as this may sound, this actually puts her to the right of the Bush administration.

“This is Senator McCain’s first significant choice in building his executive team and it’s a bad one. It has to raise serious doubts in the minds of voters about John McCain’s commitment to conservation, to addressing the impacts of global warming and to ensuring our country ends its dependency on oil.”

###

The Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund (www.defendersactionfund.org) provides a powerful voice in Washington to Americans who value our conservation heritage. Through grassroots lobbying, issue advocacy and political campaigns, the Action Fund champions those laws and lawmakers that protect wildlife and wild places while working against those that do them harm.

Karen's a member, too! *happy dance*

 

[Lord Foul]

First off, any monkey with a machine gun can destroy.

Some evidence was presented earlier in this thread to support the statement that Mankind is special among the primates in his ability to destroy entire species. So it would appear that not just any monkey can do what we can do.

Why shouldn't we aspire to something greater?

Why is preservation inherently superior to destruction in your view?

Second of all, who died and made us God?

I fail to see how God is relevant to this discussion.

And finally, what if, by some ridiculous remote coincidence, it turns out that we're spreading across the continent like a cancer of locusts, destroying the planet on which our lives and future depends, writing off lesser species as irrelevent until we discover, too late to reverse the problem, that these lesser species were nothing more than canaries in our global coal mine, and we're next?

By the same token, what if by our influence we are a force driving natural selection of hardier, more adaptable species, and weeding out the weak? Certainly in our lifetime we have seen the human-induced rise of super resistant strains of viruses and bacteria (to our own detriment, in this case).

 

[Lunar Still]

Who do you think you are, Socrates?

 

[Lord Foul]

Socrates apparently had some strong ideas about what was righteous and just, and I certainly don't share such sentiment. I am much more interested in finding out what is than wishing for what should be. Even if the truth turns out to be ugly and contrary to what I believed, at least it is truth.

 

[neal]

 

[Morganna]

After seeing Obama's speech in person, Al's Mom is now voting for him. I knew she would come around. Saves me a shit load of work!

 

[Nightshade]

Some evidence was presented earlier in this thread to support the statement that Mankind is special among the primates in his ability to destroy entire species. So it would appear that not just any monkey can do what we can do.

The greater our society's capacity to learn, understand, and create technology, the greater our ability to destroy enormous chunks of our world with little effort. Yet the analogy is the same -- we're still acting with all the intent and focus of a chimpanzee with a fully-automatic machine gun.

Why is preservation inherently superior to destruction in your view?

In my experience, creation requires greater skill, effort and insight than destruction. There are always blurred grey areas such as bombs, but it still stands that it takes more to create one than to set one off. What you learn, how you grow, what you try to achieve and become is relatively negotiable, but without the learning and growth, we become a giant parody of the movie "Idiocracy". It's less about preservation and more about the lack of wanton, thoughtless, carefree destruction. I shoudl note at this point that few people are willing to acknowledge the medical advancements caused by the Nazi regime and it's willingness to destroy, but theirs was not the destruction of a monkey with a machine gun -- though the Nazi values make me angry and sick, they did destroy with purpose and plan, and they got more out of it than our chimp friend with the noisy toy.

I fail to see how God is relevant to this discussion.

God, as an entity in which many people believe and over whom many people are willing to justify behaving badly does not enter into it at all. God the concept of supreme blah blah blah is what we've made ourselves out to be. But not a thoughtful God intent on any purpose, rather we've made ourselves to be as all-powerful as possible with as few constraints, disciplines, boundaries and really even ultimate goals as possible -- pretty much nothing inconvenient or hard. Now, I have to speak for my experience, which doesn't include a bunch of foreign countries that might be doing things differently or with different focus. That said, though, the things that kill me are related to the US addition to and incredible consumption of oil, and all the wacky things we're willing to do for even more of it.

By the same token, what if by our influence we are a force driving natural selection of hardier, more adaptable species, and weeding out the weak? Certainly in our lifetime we have seen the human-induced rise of super resistant strains of viruses and bacteria (to our own detriment, in this case).

Well, your argument about the super bugs is really my argument -- canary in the coal mine, as it were. If I were less long-winded, I might have simply said that we're killing ourselves off and destroying our way of life and the polar bears are likely only an easily-ignored symptom of the larger problem. I think it's pretty clear that I'm exceptionally long-winded.

Let's get off polar bears and go back to superbugs. How were they formed? Thoughtless wanton destruction of something we thought had no value. People fail to learn the difference between an infection and a virus, they fail to follow the directions on the medication labels, and they get all jiggy about anti-bacterial everything (Brawndo - it's got electrolytes!) whether they understand it or not and whether they need it or not. Failure to educate our more moronic citizens, an overblown sense of entitlement coupled with a healthy dash of laziness washing over at least this nation (what do you mean I can't have antibiotics? I've had the flu for 3 days! I'm gonna sue! This is malpractice! You suck!) have really crippled our ability to enforce rules and limits. Start throwing around someone's God, whether he/she/it/they want to be involved or nit, and it gets really messy. Oh, but they're just bacteria, right? I mean you can't even see them. Beneficial bacteria? Pffft! Whatever. I'll just have some yoghurt. See? Fine. Yeast infection all gone. Poof!

Sorry, I think it's all the same thing. I think we act without thinking. It sounds like you're trying to provoke thought and get some folks to question why they value what they value, which is super cool. I just happen to wildly disagree with a few of the things you're questioning.

 

[derek]

Fouly still has it down. He's adopted a non-preferential position and I happen to agree with it. Your chimpanzee analogy still fails to overcome his statement. There still seems to be no meat as to why preservation is better than destruction (and even if these two can be identified as monolithic entities).

Also, I'm sure you're already aware Socrates's fate, Fouly, right?

 

[Captain Beard]

I think you should be the ones providing evidence as to why we should allow them to die off.

 

[derek]

Burden of proof not on our side I'm afraid.

 

[Captain Beard]

Doesn't need to be. A good idea for religious and legal debate, but it doesn't apply when the idea is to preserve what we have rather than to let it all go to shit even if the only reason for keeping it is "Because it's a nice thing."

I see no reason why both of you continue to keep that stance, and I find it rather trollish to be honest. Devil's advocate is ok to get both sides of a story, but not when the only thing you're going to get from the other side is hostility because they see your argument as nothing but being mean spirited.

 

[derek]

People dislike having their position undermined by questioning, especially when it comes from those offering no alternative. That's been constant since a certain Athenian was forced to drink hemlock for corrupting the youth of the city. Regardless of what value set you apply to the questioning interloctor, the inherent worth of able questioning remains intact.

Moreover, I can assure you there is no mean spirit in my intentions.

 

[Lord Foul]

Doesn't need to be. A good idea for religious and legal debate, but it doesn't apply when the idea is to preserve what we have rather than to let it all go to shit even if the only reason for keeping it is "Because it's a nice thing."

I see no reason why both of you continue to keep that stance, and I find it rather trollish to be honest. Devil's advocate is ok to get both sides of a story, but not when the only thing you're going to get from the other side is hostility because they see your argument as nothing but being mean spirited.

I feel that anyone who has a hostile response to having their belief system questioned or challenged has become so attached to that belief system that they are desperately in need of having it questioned or challenged. Constructing value systems is a vital part of the existential experience, but so must be deconstructing value systems.

For the record, I think polar bears are kick ass

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

Go Rudy!!!