Meh.
I guess people kinda suck.

PhilWrede
While I don't necessarily think that a sentient species descended from gerbils or iguanas or gerbil/iguanas would do any better than us regarding messing up the planet

That's exactly what humans are.
It's a misunderstanding of the idea of evolution that monkeys == humans. There's a much more complicated evolutionary path than that. ALL life on the planet is related of course, but then you have the smaller groupings... The "ape-like" stage was merely the last hypothesised stepping stone in our line, not what we came from. That's like someone asking where you came from to get to work and you saying "um... my car?". :)
So you'd be perfectly ok to say we came from rat-like gerbil type creatures, seeing that's the supposed early form mammals took, and before that I dunno. Did mammals come from a type of reptile or direct from fish the way reptiles did?

Sorry to go Off topic there, it's just the monkey assumption distorts the idea of evolution in a silly way.

therealtj
Now what happens? Apes follow the evolutionary path to become homosapiens, just like they did before. These new humans will follow a similar path as we did, perhaps killing off themselves only to, once again, be replaced by more apes. Repeat ad nauseum.

Very, very unlikely to ever happen. That's the plot of Planet of the Apes, not a realistic scenario.
There are no set evolutionary paths, there are just different creatures that evolve best to suit their situation.
The idea that humans are at the top of the evolutionary ladder is an old illogical and silly idea. There is no ladder. Also the idea that we're outside of "nature"- there is no "nature". Things are as they are. If you really and truly want to believe in the concept of "nature", then humans are inseparable from it. All things on this planet are related and interact in one way or another. There IS nothing that is "unnatural". Everything we do is part of evolution really, we cannot "destroy" or "harm" nature, all we do is function as greater or lessor agents for change, which drives evolution.

In that sense Custard Trout is 100% correct- WE are the only ones who the so called "destruction" matters too, we are the ones who characterise our role that way, not the earth and not anything else.
That said, I'm happy with that situation, in that I'd quite like there to be biological diversity on this planet, I'd rather that the climate stayed stable, I'd also rather maintain my high standard of living, so if characterising things as "destruction" helps that and encourages people to change their wasteful ways I'm all for it! ^_^

OT: mammals came from "Mammal-like reptiles" I saw a great exhibit on the latest find last year. It's a recent find.

All current mammals more recent ancestor was more like a shrew than a gerbil. ;) Gerbils are a from a different branch of the dense evolutionary bush and their ancestors split off before gerbils appeared and they developed seperately from Homo Sapiens

If the evolutionary tape was rewound Homo Sapiens would not result. There are just too many alternate ways for the bush of evolution to have gone. We're not even sure why Sapiens survived and Neanderthal didn't.

And if it wasn't for a catastrophic mass extinction 65 million years ago we'd be bipedal "raptor" like feathered dinosaurs?

A friend wrote a book about that.

Yeah, I really find it odd that we can do so much. We can (and have) destroy ecosystems, and we no longer belong to one. We've done so so much more than any other animal on Earth, but why? I think there had to be some mutation or something that made us be able to do this, because all the other organisms fit in perfectly (until we disrupt them). I think one of the main reasons for this is that we can ask "why?", but, funnily enough, why can we ask this? I can understand what the anti-humanity people are about. They just wanna fix what we've done... but by mass mass mass genocide is not cool.

ParkerFarker
Yeah, I really find it odd that we can do so much. We can (and have) destroy ecosystems, and we no longer belong to one. We've done so so much more than any other animal on Earth, but why? I think there had to be some mutation or something that made us be able to do this, because all the other organisms fit in perfectly (until we disrupt them)

None of that is actually true though Parker. That is just a particular way of looking at things; an interpretation. Not literal reality.

The idea that ecosystems should be in perfect balance is a fantasy. Everything in the universe is in a constant state of change, Earth is a teeny microcosm of that. Things that seem to be in perfect balance here are only ever like that for limited periods before they alter, and even then change is always happening even when you can't see it. Situations will ALWAYS alter. Humanity is part of that. Humanity is completely a part of the earth and all "nature", and in that way we behave we're acting exactly as "nature" intends- a force for change and therefore evolution.

That's another perspective :)
But it's also a truer one because it doesn't imagine that humanity is not a part of everything that happens here.


We haven't "harmed" this planet or the environment. That would be impossible actually- simply because whatever the environment is, is the environment. The same goes for the planet. Life and everything else will always adapt and find the new level; the new balance according to the current conditions.

But ironically we humans don't like change, even though we are such a major agent for it. We would prefer that everything should stay as it is- our climate, diet, food supply, the forests, animals etc.
THAT is why we've invented the idea of environmental destruction to describe aspects of the way we behave. That is why some of us (including me), would like to change our ways. We like to think of it as altruistic, but it's not, it's just as selfish an impulse as any other (which I don't mind).

This is also why the people who want to "end humanity" are being complete and utter cretins: they don't realise that the notion that humans are external to things and harming things is totally human invented and actually a selfish justification for keeping things in their current state anyway. And then they want to remove themselves from the selfish "ideal" situation that is only "ideal" in the eyes of humanity anyway. These people are morons.

Heh he. I've never thought of environmentalists as selfish people but now, thanks to Ozon, I can. :)

Product Placement
Heh he. I've never thought of environmentalists as selfish people but now, thanks to Ozon, I can. :)

lol!

They're not really, but the ideal they follow is selfish in terms of how it pertains to humanity.

Which is fair enough. It's a more logical way of looking at things- instead of imagining "nature" as having some sort of separate conciousness, there being a universal standard or moral in terms of give and take, or something equally preposterous.
Who do these things really matter to? Human beings, that's who.

This is starting to remind me of a stand up comedy by George Carlin.



A wonderful man.

Once again George Carlin cuts through all the shit, gets right to the point and makes it without all the window dressing.

Ozone's prose is nice and his points well taken, but he's no where near as funny as George Carlin who is easily understood by Dumb-ass tankers like myself.

Oh, the sheep are mindless!


People are starving because food supplies are controlled by governments and corporations who cut back on production to keep prices high. In America, millions of acres of prime farmland go unused for decades because the government is PAYING people NOT to grow food.

Then there's the bio-fuel industry, which has taken a large chunk out of the food supply, even though making diesel from corn is highly inefficient and the production process possibly pollutes the air more than conventional diesel.

As for global warming, get a clue. Hurricanes are at a 30 YEAR LOW because the planet is cooling again after reaching a relative high in its climate cycle. Last winter, the THICKEST ICE EVER was recorded at the poles... and when the global warming propaganda machine shows you melting ice in the polar regions, they don't tell you they filmed during the SUMMER when a lot of the ice naturally melts.

Al Gore, who is the major proponent of this, is making a fortune with his carbon-spweing coal companies, and he and his friends are looking to make even more money from cap-and-trade schemes after taxing the hell out of the rest of us.

Wake up and smell the tear gas, people.

.........nothing you said is even REMOTELY based in reality.

well, except the farmland subsidies, but those are mostly going to "farmland" that's actually housing complexes or factories that haven't been audited as viable farmland since the 50s.