| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Zephr
Advanced Member
Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 1051
Location: Tacoma
|
 Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 6:36 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Pfft.
_________________
r|C|UaI |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lightsun
Advanced Member
Joined: 20 Apr 2009
Posts: 841
Location: USA, Planet Gaia
|
| Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 9:51 pm Post subject: gaia principle |
|
|
Zephr, I quote, " I do believe everything is interconnected". As do I. That
is why I wrote "ENVIRONMENT".
I have used a different word, Zephr, and that is interrelated.
I have also used (or wished to use) in "SOCIAL SCIENCES" &
"EMOTIONAL INTELLEGENCE", intrapersonal & interpersonal.
I believe we are like energy & chemical beings, and we AFFECT one
another with "POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ENERGY",
I don't think it fair either to the environment or us to have 6,700,000,000
people, meanwhile we are wiping out species! It's not right, or fair.
_________________
Apollo LightSun Peaceweaver
I want PEACE!
I want to UNDERSTAND the nature
of distortions, distractions, &
illusions that keep us from the
TRUTH!
I WANT TO BE HAPPY!
INFP, cognitive style MERCY!
eneeagram #9!!
Zodiac "cancer" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lightsun
Advanced Member
Joined: 20 Apr 2009
Posts: 841
Location: USA, Planet Gaia
|
| Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 10:57 pm Post subject: gaia principle |
|
|
We must save all life. The mega-fauna are very much noticeable however.
I am quoting Zephr so much because he echoes, and yes, voices my
concerns powerfully.
Zephr, I quote "there's nothing wrong with wanting to lessen our impact".
That is part of protecting the extremely bio-diverse hot spots on the planet.
Zephr " that we should (not) let major species die out".
Elephants, rhinos, lions, american bison. The list goes on and will
continue to go on. This is because of population. I am not being facetious
here (maybe petulant), how many people do we honestly, realistically
need.
We are at 6,700,000,000 and counting.
I am a "feeler"not a "thinker". What does the thinking community think
is enough. 7,000,000,000-10,000,000, more.
_________________
Apollo LightSun Peaceweaver
I want PEACE!
I want to UNDERSTAND the nature
of distortions, distractions, &
illusions that keep us from the
TRUTH!
I WANT TO BE HAPPY!
INFP, cognitive style MERCY!
eneeagram #9!!
Zodiac "cancer" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Romana
Advanced Member
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 2939
|
| Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lightsun wrote: | | Does anyone buy into the Gaia principle. This principle is that the entire planet earth is like one living organism, and that everything is interrelated. |
Consider, by comparison the words of Robert Burns: "My love is like a red, red rose"
Obviously, a person, however beloved, is not a flower. But describing one's beloved in this manner is indicative of one's attitude toward him/her, and ultimately how one will treat him/her. As such, the Gaia Principle has much symbolic value. Someone who views the earth as a living organism will likely give more consideration to the impact of his/her actions upon the earth and the organisms, human and other, which the earth supports. In my experience, this principle is most often promoted by groups which have a distinctly spiritual or religious flavor, in which context a metaphor like this is not misplaced.
In more scientific terms, I see the earth less as a single organism than as a set of interrelated systems. My preferred term is "ecosystem". One might be certain that dropping an atomic bomb will have effects felt over much of the planet, and equally certain that dropping a candy wrapper in Peoria will influence nothing in Sierra Leone. This still leaves a vast middle ground where the results of our actions are often difficult to determine, especially big actions (e.g. a terrorist chemical attack) or small but persistent and widespread actions (e.g. use and disposal of plastic grocery bags). People are often surprised just how far-reaching the consequences of their actions are. Understanding that each thing is related to many other things, if not to absolutely everything else, should prompt restraint and thoughtful consideration in what we do, though not panic or unreasoned and ineffective emotional responses. Some of the Native American groups advocate considering the potential effects of one's actions over seven generations of one's descendents. If the symbolism of thinking of the earth as Gaia, itself an organism, motivates such care, then it serves a worthwhile purpose.
_________________
Romana
INTJ
“The awareness of our own weaknesses allows us to view the weaknesses of others with immense compassion and to appreciate the value of their offerings.” ~ Logospilgrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lightsun
Advanced Member
Joined: 20 Apr 2009
Posts: 841
Location: USA, Planet Gaia
|
| Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 12:27 pm Post subject: gaia principle |
|
|
An irony or not, in my description, my location is listed usa, planet gaia.
I have already described how i'll lean intellectually toward stating that
planet gaia isn't scientifically substantiated.
But my heart and spirit identify with planet gaia.
Quoting Romana, "someone who views the earth as a living organism
will likely give more consideration to the impact of his/her actions upon
the earth and the organisms, human and other, which the earth supports".
_________________
Apollo LightSun Peaceweaver
I want PEACE!
I want to UNDERSTAND the nature
of distortions, distractions, &
illusions that keep us from the
TRUTH!
I WANT TO BE HAPPY!
INFP, cognitive style MERCY!
eneeagram #9!!
Zodiac "cancer" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Romana
Advanced Member
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 2939
|
| Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As a research scientist who has on occasion worked on projects for the military, I have a few more comments on the subjects of universities, scientists, and military research:
| TED wrote: | | all universities are libneral by default, if they weren't, no one would attend, I use liberal in the sense as willingness to accept values not accepted by the status quo. |
And all generalizations are false. There are many universities that are far from liberal, and do their best to promote very conservative, usually religious values. Brigham Young Univ and Bob Jones Univ leap to mind, but there are many others.
That being said, many (but by no means all) universities are liberal, in the sense expressed by TED above, as well as by Stuckasfook. This is as it should be, assuming that the job of a university is to broaden the mind, to encourage exploration of new ways of thinking, to be on the cutting edge of human knowledge. This implies an inherent attitude of at least questioning and critically examining the status quo, though not necessarily of always overturning it. Universities that do not promote this spirit of inquiry are hardly deserving of the name.
| TED wrote: | | It takes a really fucked up mind to think up a atomic bomb, or daisy cutters as a acceptable alternative. The militarizes of the world might use them, but they are not sitting there, privates and colonels rechecking each other's math and looking over the engineering and logistical projections on building a time table FOR A NUKE. No, you gotta go to a liberal university to find a mind that demented and torn away from the world they grew up in. |
No, the generals are there, laying out demands for scientists and engineers. If one group of scientists and engineers can't or won't provide it, the generals go to another group with their requirements and the accompanying funding. The vast majority of this work is done not in universities, but in industry (the infamous military-industrial complex), with a bit in government labs as well. Most of these workers are educated in universities, but the security issues alone preclude all but the most basic research from being done in academia. This may make it sound as if the scientists that ultimately work on these projects do it for the money. It may be true that the companies they work for get involved for the money, but most scientists I know are motivated much less by money than by professional challenge.
| stuckasfook wrote: | The ability of scientists to follow orders and damn humanity with destruction will always surpass the soldier, who is bounded in his ability to destroy by his limited scientific awareness . . .
I wouldn't count either one as exactly more guilty or less guilty, since it is probably only in terms of their being used and lied too. This guilt is the same, the soldier and the scientist are mutually assured that they are doing what is right for 'god country and democracy bla bla do your duty citizen soldier'. The guilt differs at potential though. The scientist is far more guilty of having greater potential as a state owned conscience. The scientist is usually more guilty of greater potential even when not state owned, though not always. |
I am not sure it is possible to truly "own" a scientist. Yes, a scientist can be lied to by management or sponsors like anyone else, but our personal makeup, our education, indeed the very nature of our profession place a greater burden on us to see through the lies, to question what we are told. Those who do not are simply deluding themselves. Why? Because of the allure of the work. We do what we do not because we are ordered to, or paid to, but because we want to. We enjoy learning new things about the world and what is in it; seeing if something that seemed impossible can, in fact, be done. If you want to attract scientists to work on a project the best way is to convince us how much we will learn from it. If a project is scientifically exciting, it can be easy not to think about the uses to which it might eventually be put, or to rationalize any concerns away.
On the other hand, I am sure some scientists walk away from projects they consider morally questionable. It is more common simply for us to choose projects, or entire fields, that make contributions in areas we personally value (e.g. cancer research, telecommunications, alternative energy). We must therefore balance whatever harm scientists have caused through their research with all the good they have done. How many lives have been saved by advances in medical technology, sensor systems, communication and transportation? Scientists, like everyone else, can do good or ill. Perhaps the nature of our profession causes either of these effects to be magnified, but there is still a balance.
| Zephr wrote: | | As for blaming scientist for the negative applications of knowledge, that seems silly to me. Would you rather we stuck our heads in the sand and never figured out how these kinds of things would work? Hopefully nobody's stupid enough to use them, but somebody will find a way to make them someday. I'm just glad it's people who are honest about what they're doing and not particularly interested in using them. This way we have a chance to figure out what to do about them before we experience them first hand. |
The highlighted describes scientists fairly well. Yes, military technology is a constant game of one-upsmanship. We may decide not to use something on moral or even practical grounds, but we cannot depend upon a potential adversary to employ similar reasoning. There is a distinction between understanding something and making it, and between making it and using it. Systems intended for defense can often be turned to offense, just as a humble kitchen knife can become the weapon of choice for a serial killer. Blaming the developer of technology for the negative effects of its use makes as much sense as blaming Smith & Wesson for gun violence, or bar owners for the actions of drunk drivers. Each of us is responsible for our own actions; but not for the actions of others.
_________________
Romana
INTJ
“The awareness of our own weaknesses allows us to view the weaknesses of others with immense compassion and to appreciate the value of their offerings.” ~ Logospilgrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lightsun
Advanced Member
Joined: 20 Apr 2009
Posts: 841
Location: USA, Planet Gaia
|
| Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 12:08 am Post subject: gaia principle |
|
|
I've once stated that heaven and hell lay before our eyes. It is to which we
choose to focus on.
If one is angry and bitter inside, their very language will reflect it outside.
I say, as a metaphor, the "REAL totality "GOD" universe is like a blank
projection screen. We project our inner realities unto the blank screen. The
more aware we are both of ourselves and the universe, the more glorious
the "movie", which we "project" unto the screen. The more hurt and angry we
are inside the more dismal the movie is on screen.
The more balanced we are inside the more the "blank" screen will portray
reason, and compassion, and the more reasonable our "MESSAGE".
What is funny, and perhaps not so, is how the SEEKER of light, mystery,
Intellectual and otherwise curiosity, will seek others of similar vein.
I have (wanted to) express visions of light & beauty. I "know", that when I
am angry, my message WILL BE DISTORTED! I have even taken preambles
of apology when "I" am angry, in presenting a piece that I am passionate
about, but am "blind" about. I've always requested that I be "monitored", if
I am too angry.
_________________
Apollo LightSun Peaceweaver
I want PEACE!
I want to UNDERSTAND the nature
of distortions, distractions, &
illusions that keep us from the
TRUTH!
I WANT TO BE HAPPY!
INFP, cognitive style MERCY!
eneeagram #9!!
Zodiac "cancer" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stuckasfook
Advanced Member
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Posts: 544
|
| Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I am not sure it is possible to truly "own" a scientist. Yes, a scientist can be lied to by management or sponsors like anyone else, but our personal makeup, our education, indeed the very nature of our profession place a greater burden on us to see through the lies, to question what we are told. Those who do not are simply deluding themselves. Why? Because of the allure of the work. We do what we do not because we are ordered to, or paid to, but because we want to. We enjoy learning new things about the world and what is in it; seeing if something that seemed impossible can, in fact, be done. |
Ha. Yeah yer all smart, generalities inside. But I'm pretty sure there is at least one scientist that would rather live on their knees than die standing. Just because you are awesomely smart doesn't mean that you are automatically equipped with super human will power or an unbreakable system of ethics. A scientist could easily be owned. Would you create a poison to kill a world leader if the people holding you captive said they were going to torture and rape your family and then kill you? There are sick people that like to do evil things.
A scientist joining the A-bomb squad for the challenge is the same as the soldier joining the military for the chance to kill and be in combat - the challenge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zephr
Advanced Member
Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 1051
Location: Tacoma
|
| Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stuckasfook wrote: | | Quote: | | I am not sure it is possible to truly "own" a scientist. Yes, a scientist can be lied to by management or sponsors like anyone else, but our personal makeup, our education, indeed the very nature of our profession place a greater burden on us to see through the lies, to question what we are told. Those who do not are simply deluding themselves. Why? Because of the allure of the work. We do what we do not because we are ordered to, or paid to, but because we want to. We enjoy learning new things about the world and what is in it; seeing if something that seemed impossible can, in fact, be done. |
Ha. Yeah yer all smart, generalities inside. But I'm pretty sure there is at least one scientist that would rather live on their knees than die standing. Just because you are awesomely smart doesn't mean that you are automatically equipped with super human will power or an unbreakable system of ethics. A scientist could easily be owned. Would you create a poison to kill a world leader if the people holding you captive said they were going to torture and rape your family and then kill you? There are sick people that like to do evil things.
A scientist joining the A-bomb squad for the challenge is the same as the soldier joining the military for the chance to kill and be in combat - the challenge. |
Umm... nobody's currently doing any of that, so I fail to see how it applies to anything that's been said in this conversation. I certain that Romana wasn't trying to say that scientist are immune to coercion, she was trying to say that there are no mad scientists plotting the demise of the human race, just people testing the bounds of human knowledge.
Certainly expanding human knowledge leads us to knowledge that can have horrible results, but it just as surely leads us to knowledge that can have incredibly useful results. Sometimes it's even the same knowledge. For instance nuclear fission.
Even when there are no positive uses for knowledge, it's still best to have it. For instance the Manhattan Project. Sure, it's easy to say now that nuclear weapons are bad and no one should ever have made them, but it's not like a bunch of scientists woke up one day and decided to make the most horrible weapon ever. Einstein's theory of relativity implied that matter is made of a colossal amount of energy, and it didn't take long for every major country in the world to decide that they should try to make that into a bomb. Somebody was definitely going to find it, and soon. Sure, the USA hasn't been perfect, but do you really believe that the world would be a better place if the Soviet Union had gotten nuclear weapons first?
Einstein was disgusted by the atomic bomb and refused to have anything to do with it, and his research was completely unrelated to weapons in any way, but it made the most horrible weapon humanity has come up with thus far possible. Unless you want to try and stop humanity from ever learning again we are going to find more horrible things to do to each other. I'd rather have an international, open, honest community of people figure it out than some lunatic hiding in a cave.
_________________
r|C|UaI |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Romana
Advanced Member
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 2939
|
| Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zephr wrote: | | Stuckasfook wrote: | A scientist could easily be owned. Would you create a poison to kill a world leader if the people holding you captive said they were going to torture and rape your family and then kill you? There are sick people that like to do evil things.
A scientist joining the A-bomb squad for the challenge is the same as the soldier joining the military for the chance to kill and be in combat - the challenge. |
Umm... nobody's currently doing any of that, so I fail to see how it applies to anything that's been said in this conversation. I certain that Romana wasn't trying to say that scientist are immune to coercion, she was trying to say that there are no mad scientists plotting the demise of the human race, just people testing the bounds of human knowledge. |
Zephr is correct. I am not suggesting that scientists are any more immune than others to blatant threats and duress, though I think we may be more resistant to manipulation, deception, and more subtle forms of coercion (e.g. political propaganda, appeals to financial greed, etc). I cannot think of a single scientist I know who is in it "for the money", and those who are motivated by patriotism exhibit few delusions about the ills of our government. We tend to know the score, and to act based upon conscious, rational decisions, even if that decision would be to do something distasteful to avoid being killed.
Scientists in the former Soviet Union sometimes worked under such conditions. Sergei Korolev was jailed in Siberia for a number of years before being called back to lead the Soviet space program. I am not sure how much of a choice he was given, but from what I have read, he seemed glad to be allowed to return to the work he loved. He was pressured to come up with spectacular space "firsts", especially to coincide with politically important dates, and did not always agree with the leadership. But although conditions were not ideal, I think ultimately he was driven by the challenge of the work, and gratified by the successes he achieved.
And Zephr: there probably are some mad scientists out there, but they are doing it under their own steam, for whatever their own personal if misguided motivations are. They may happily accept pay from some despot or thug leader, but scientists need to eat, too, and equipment is expensive.
Stuckasfook, you are right about the comment below. Such a person is not coerced or owned, though, since both scientist and soldier are doing what they do out of their own free choice, in accordance with their own values.
| stuckasfook wrote: | | A scientist joining the A-bomb squad for the challenge is the same as the soldier joining the military for the chance to kill and be in combat - the challenge. |
_________________
Romana
INTJ
“The awareness of our own weaknesses allows us to view the weaknesses of others with immense compassion and to appreciate the value of their offerings.” ~ Logospilgrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lightsun
Advanced Member
Joined: 20 Apr 2009
Posts: 841
Location: USA, Planet Gaia
|
| Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 4:18 am Post subject: gaia principle |
|
|
I was reading Romana's responses to certain NEGATIVE ENERGY rebuttals, and
had a thought. It is true that scientists, tacticians, architects, may have
devised certain methods that were not used for peaceful endeavors.
Endeavors which unfortunately cost lives. But would any of us give up our
transportation, communication, entertainment, living conditions, medical
research and help.
Do you know how many lives the medical field has saved, since the dawn of
time?
I would think billions. This is incredible.
Wars have cost millions and perhaps, quite frankly, 100's of millions. Look
at the population.
When I was born I remember reading our population was 3.5 billion.
We are now 6,700,000,000 and counting. Do you know how many lives
both conservative and liberal scientists have saved? God!!
_________________
Apollo LightSun Peaceweaver
I want PEACE!
I want to UNDERSTAND the nature
of distortions, distractions, &
illusions that keep us from the
TRUTH!
I WANT TO BE HAPPY!
INFP, cognitive style MERCY!
eneeagram #9!!
Zodiac "cancer" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stuckasfook
Advanced Member
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Posts: 544
|
| Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Umm... nobody's currently doing any of that, so I fail to see how it applies to anything that's been said in this conversation. I certain that Romana wasn't trying to say that scientist are immune to coercion |
I was talking about this:
| Quote: | | I am not sure it is possible to truly "own" a scientist. |
And I still think a scientist can be 'truly' 'owned'.
| Quote: | | leads us to knowledge that can have incredibly useful results. |
Like the pure mathematicians?
| Quote: | | you really believe that the world would be a better place if the Soviet Union had gotten nuclear weapons first? |
No thanks amigo. You?
| Quote: | | Unless you want to try and stop humanity from ever learning again we are going to find more horrible things to do to each other. I'd rather have an international, open, honest community of people figure it out than some lunatic hiding in a cave |
Then we can hold hands again. Would it be alright if I stayed in the cave? I won't be doing any horrible things... just I want to be there.
But seriously, I'm really there with you. Would you be able to live like that though, with the idea of people like me pestering you all the time? And pestering all the scientists with questions?
miss Romana's
| Quote: | | though I think we may be more resistant to manipulation, deception, and more subtle forms of coercion |
Yeup. People that are educated, or wealthy, or have more status and influence, or have more connections are always going to be able to have a better static store of information and logic and heuristic devices to avoid acting ignorantly, or just acting in terms of the present, without heed of long term goals. Your respective schoolings, all of you here, equip you with stuff that the majority of folks will never understand. Of course, the needed willpower and wisdom for application must follow. But this last part aside, ya'all will always be more potentially capable to be cognizant.
| Quote: | | I think ultimately he was driven by the challenge of the work, and gratified by the successes he achieved. |
I bet small things like that, especially after harsh incarcertion and isolation, worked wonders for his being happy, even in light of his obviously pig-sty of a country.
| Quote: | | NEGATIVE ENERGY rebuttals |
I thought Buddhists believed that negative things were required, and were the only way to be happy, because it was only a lack of negativity. Or something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mayflow
Advanced Member
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Posts: 3877
|
| Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stuckasfook wrote: |
I thought Buddhists believed that negative things were required, and were the only way to be happy, because it was only a lack of negativity. Or something. |
OMG, Lightsun! Are you Buddhist?
ps: I am pretty sure Buddhists can be happy with or without the negativities and or labels laid upon them by others (Seeming "good" or seemingly "badf"- It's about an inner freedom, don't you get it?
_________________
If a human dreams it is an Angel; How sure is it, that it isn't an Angel dreaming that it's human? - Blue Angel http://exploringyourmind.forumotion.com/index.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stuckasfook
Advanced Member
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Posts: 544
|
| Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It's about an inner freedom, don't you get it? |
Ha... Don't you get that you don't need a dogma for that?
But I thought in the dogma that it was taught that happiness could only be achieved because one had known suffering. If that is the case, then all you buddhists should be worshipping and rubbing my belly as I spew forth negativity. I am the source of happiness then.
Ah, dogma. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mayflow
Advanced Member
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Posts: 3877
|
| Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stuckasfook wrote: | | Quote: | | It's about an inner freedom, don't you get it? |
Ha... Don't you get that you don't need a dogma for that
|
Well, duh! Yes of course! In fact, I think you are better off without one.
_________________
If a human dreams it is an Angel; How sure is it, that it isn't an Angel dreaming that it's human? - Blue Angel http://exploringyourmind.forumotion.com/index.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
test
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
similarminds.com
Log in
Register
