That is a good question. The core of my viewpoint is grounded in science. But I am unsure of the extent to which science can truly be divorced form non-science (all science seems to be grounded in particular assumptions - whether one refers to these assumptions as "religious", "spiritual", "metaphysical", or some other word - and often these assumptions are "unquestioned"). Also, scientific findings can often be interpreted very differently.
So, whilst grounded in the scientific, I take my view to inevitably entail both the 'scientific' and the 'non-scientific'. Neil http://neilpaulcummins.blogspot.co.uk/ On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Martin Meiss <mme...@gmail.com> wrote: > Neil, > Do you viewpoints arise from a religious perspective, a scientific > one, or some combination? > > Martin M. Meiss > > > 2012/3/26 Neil Cummins <neilpaulcumm...@gmail.com> > >> Thanks for this. >> >> We seem to agree on quite a lot. >> >> However, I seek to persuade people in my books that the extinction of the >> human species would ultimately lead to the extinction of all life on >> Earth, >> rather than a new era of evolution (although my view is compatible with a >> very short new era followed by total extinction). >> >> I should point out that my claim that the human species is the pinacle of >> the evolutionary progression of life on Earth has to do with its position >> in the evolutionary process rather than to do with "unique >> characteristics". All species have unique characteristics and there might >> be species of non-human Earthly life which are more intelligent than >> humans. >> >> Best >> >> Neil >> >> http://neilpaulcummins.blogspot.co.uk/ >> >> >> http://www.cranmorepublications.co.uk/73 >> >> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Brian West <adventurew...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > I will respond to both posts, but given that I have not read Mr. >> Cummings' >> > book. We, as a species, >> > are intricately involved in a series of selective evolutionary events >> that >> > have culminated to result in >> > the biodiversity that we see today. We, as well as all extant life on >> > planet, stand on the shoulders >> > of millions of species that have come and gone that paved the way for >> our >> > current biosphere. The >> > planet did do just fine without the presence of Homo sapiens sapiens for >> > the last 3.8 billion years, >> > but now that we are here, we do play an important part in it--for better >> > or worse. Would life go on >> > without us? Of course. But if we went, in theory, so would many >> species >> > that have coevolved with >> > us. Dave, we are intricately involved in our biosphere and it is >> > intricately involved with us. We are >> > a cog in the machinery of our current biosphere. We are important in the >> > current picture of our >> > biodiversity and biosphere. We are but a still-shot in the whole reel >> of >> > the film we call life, but our >> > still-shot is still important. We are a keystone species. The loss of >> > Homo sapiens as a species >> > could cause a cascading extinction event. But, Dr. Cummings, we must >> not >> > make the mistake of >> > near-sightedness in this situation. >> > >> > Life on the planet would be affected by our disappearance, but it would >> > not end by no means, but >> > pave way for a new era in evolution (i.e. The Age of Reptiles paved the >> > way for The Age of >> > Mammals). I reject the notion that we are superior to all other >> species. >> > We do have unique >> > characteristics that allows for us to stand apart, but so do many other >> > species. For one example in >> > a sea of others, the polyextremophile Deinococcus radiodurans is a >> > biological "superman" that has >> > many characteristics that make it "superior" to Homo sapiens. I mention >> > this not to perpetuate the >> > idea of superior or inferior, but to caution in using the words and >> ideas >> > behind superior or inferior. >> > We are the ones who rank and order and categorize and value, which is to >> > some extent why we >> > treat the planet the way we do. Dr. Cummings, we must move away from >> the >> > anthrocentric >> > worldview that our forefathers perpetuated, which led to the abuse and >> > destruction of so many >> > aspects of our biosphere. >> > >> > >
