Text 1120, 89 rader
Skriven 2006-06-01 12:03:00 av Robert E Starr JR (1566.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Graeme Kingston to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <QvmdnRWqqf1ViuPZnZ2dnUVZ8qadnZ2d@bt.com>
@REPLY: <4doo3mF1aipnpU1@individual.net>

"Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:29udnefd4Yh6eeHZRVn-vA@comcast.com...
>
> "Paul Harper" <paul@harper.net> wrote in message 
> news:ipmn72lpsihhej25lks0u61mf02umkop6f@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 29 May 2006 21:30:35 +0000 (UTC), "Vorlonagent"
>> <jt@otfresno.com> wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>
>
>>>
>>>"Paul Harper" <paul@harper.net> wrote in message
>>>news:lj1m72ddd0ptmg160fpodnunkrh3emt9sj@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 29 May 2006 14:32:47 +0000 (UTC), "Carl"
>>>> <cengman7@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I don't think that you have to "evolve" beyond religion, politics, etc.
>>>>
>>>> We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I see exactly that as
>>>> fundamental and crucial to the survival of us as a species and all
>>>> those other species on the planet we will take with us during our exit
>>>> fall.
>>>
>>>I'm with Carl.  There will always be differences between people.
>>
>> I have no problem with that, but the key is the elimination of
>> entrenched self-interest. It's quite possible to be different,
>> individual, "special", however you want to phrase it, and still have
>> the interest of the whole as more important that self-interest.
>>
>
> Where do you draw the line?  Does everyone have to give all of their
> possessions, comfort and security into a huge communal pot?
>
> It's a wonderful pipe dream, but it will never happen.
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>>>Nature needs intelligent tweaking from time to time.  Unfortunately we 
>>>give
>>>into the temptation of micromanaging.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. It needs understanding, yes, but nature is going to be
>> there, slowly recovering, long after we've wiped ourselves off the
>> planet. Nature always wins in the end. The only variable is how long
>> we fight against it before we lose.
>>
>> Not long to go now.
>
> Nature doesn't always "win."  In the long run, Sol goes poof and that's 
> the end. :)
>
> First, let me make clear that I'm not for destroying the environment, 
> wiping out the Spotted Owl, dumping toxic waste in drinking water, etc.  I 
> just want to take a bit of issue with the terminology here.
>
> Beavers build dams. People build bigger ones.  Nature causes forest fires. 
> People cause forest fires. Populations of animals thrive on 
> prey...overpopulate...exhaust the food supply and then starve.  These are 
> considered natural.  A number of species fight for space. So do people.
> Why are the actions of people not considered "Natural?"
>
> Stupid? Certainly...we should know better... on an unprecedented scale? 
> Yup. But why is it natural for an animal to affect it's environment but 
> not for humans?
>
> Ask the dinosaurs (or any species that died off before humans existed) how 
> forgiving nature is.
>
>
>

I wonder if the Easter Islanders thought there was someone out there from 
another village with a hidden agenda...
....as  they dug up the last tree.
                                                                               
                         
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)