For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
It would cheer me up if people started to behave that way.uwot wrote: ↑Sun Aug 06, 2017 10:27 am Thought this might cheer some of you up. (Less so some others) http://video.genfb.com/1692884857673653
Perhaps the conductor wouldn't be so stuffed up if he did.Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:47 pmare you suggesting the conductor should break wind?
-Imp
Actually, it seems that some of the audience is angry that laypersons are never being allowed to conduct. After all, what would elites know? [sic]
Someone on this forum once informed me that I was "educated to imbecility", from which I infer they would rather listen to people who know nothing. There's a lot of people whose definition of a genius, is someone who agrees with them.
I dunno, you might have the same rose-tinted view of nature that I do, had you been brought up in Surrey, where the greatest danger posed by nature, is the occasional stray root that might trip you up. Admittedly we eliminated all the bears and wolves several hundred years ago, but there is more danger in one bucketful of Australia, than the entire south east of England.
Well, the tragedy is that nature generally survives by eating itself, which does make for a harsh environment. The alternative is photosynthesis, which given the evidence that we are turning into vegetables, could be the future.
Yeah. I made the point elsewhere, that human beings are unique, in that they practise every form of courtship that is found in nature. The same is true of business/politics. There are predators and parasites, that exploit the resources and effort of others.
Who knows? In the short term, we could do worse than rejecting a model that serves the aims of the predators and parasites, by creating so much debt, that the future goodwill of several generations is owned by people who have more money than the current value of the entire planet.Greta wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:06 amCancer is basically failed/misdirected metamorphosis. A metamorphosing insect is reduced to mush before re-forming. If a metamorphosis fails then the dynamics of that process would be similar to cancer - the breakdown of ordered tissue into less ordered tissue. So the biosphere may well be metamorphosing via humans, although in nature success/survival is never certain.
The dangers of Australia's wildlife caused me far less grief than the kids at my high school and some dodgy types I ran into in bars and workplaces. More seriously, I was thinking about the suffering of wild animals and humans - short, dangerous lives, high infant mortality, ridden with parasites, exposed to the elements ... not my cuppa.uwot wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 1:28 pmI dunno, you might have the same rose-tinted view of nature that I do, had you been brought up in Surrey, where the greatest danger posed by nature, is the occasional stray root that might trip you up. Admittedly we eliminated all the bears and wolves several hundred years ago, but there is more danger in one bucketful of Australia, than the entire south east of England.
Yes, hopefully technology will help future humans become more autotrophic, and I suspect that people's lives will be increasingly lived in the digital world (as we are doing as we write), which is much less energy intensive than physical travel and consumption. If born later I'd personally be keen for a nice, pain-free synthetic body, downloadable mind and unlimited digital resources in an immersive digitised world. That might be the only way to render intelligent life safe to others.uwot wrote:Well, the tragedy is that nature generally survives by eating itself, which does make for a harsh environment. The alternative is photosynthesis, which given the evidence that we are turning into vegetables, could be the future.Greta wrote:So the idea is to transcend the harshness of nature, to find a way of being for at least humans not to hurt so much.
Interesting connections. Animals strike me as single-purpose appliances - very good at one thing - while humans are versatile like computers (and capable of being just as useless as computers - GIGO).uwot wrote:Yeah. I made the point elsewhere, that human beings are unique, in that they practise every form of courtship that is found in nature. The same is true of business/politics. There are predators and parasites, that exploit the resources and effort of others.
I'm not sure anyone is directing change or has any control at all. Things will certainly change, but not usually because anyone is directing the change. We seem to work more like large flocks of birds and fish schools, where a slight majority of preferences to go in a certain direction results in the immediate change in that direction, as if controlled by a leader. The concept also reminds me the metronomes on a roller board experiment where they all gradually move to consensus - group dynamics created by pure physics.uwot wrote:Who knows? In the short term, we could do worse than rejecting a model that serves the aims of the predators and parasites, by creating so much debt, that the future goodwill of several generations is owned by people who have more money than the current value of the entire planet.Greta wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:06 amCancer is basically failed/misdirected metamorphosis. A metamorphosing insect is reduced to mush before re-forming. If a metamorphosis fails then the dynamics of that process would be similar to cancer - the breakdown of ordered tissue into less ordered tissue. So the biosphere may well be metamorphosing via humans, although in nature success/survival is never certain.