Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[Keith Addison]

wagingpeace.org), an organization that has worked since 1982 to 
educate and advocate for a world free of nuclear weapons.  

>Hi again Dawie
>
>This is a reply to your previous post, but I didn't get to send it 
>at the time.
>
>I have to say again that it's not humans or human intelligence that
>are driving the species and the biosphere to the brink of
>destruction, it's predatory corporations that are doing that.
>
>- K
>
>>   >It is interesting that it was
>>>the only bit that drew comment.
>
>I've put your whole post back, below.
>
>Quickly:
>
>>We don't really care if a squid respects our inner subtlety when we meet one.
>
>Why not? Squid are smart. No need for appreciation of inner
>subtleties, but a friendly nod doesn't hurt.
>
>I have the idea (I've had it all my life, I think) that it helps to
>pass along a little peace and goodwill, if you have it to spare.
>
>Jeremiah was a bullfrog
>he was a good friiend of mine
>I never understood a single word he said
>but I helped him to drink his wine
>he always had some mighty fine wine
>
>Joy to the world
>to all the boys and girls
>joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea
>joy to you and me
>
>(Three Dog Night)
>
>(Sorry.)
>
>Anyway, one comment that came to mind was that such a view of species
>and individuals would probably be anathema to the Japanese. It would
>smack too much of individualism, which is out of line in Japan, very
>rude, and indeed arrogant. Species, humanity, society, are concepts
>that overlap somewhat, especially in translation, and in Japan the
>society comes first - us, not me.
>
>Other post-Confucian societies might also have a problem with it,
>though maybe not the same problem.
>
>>   It may even be that it is impossible to understand our individual
>>selves without reference to the common concept of humanness
>
>If you reworked that a little it might be something like what the
>Japanese think.
>
>>... there is no such thing as Life, but only lives.
>
>There's both, I think, chicken and egg. It depends how you see it.
>Biologically, we're more like massive cities than individual
>citizens, composed of billions upon billions of individual cells,
>many of them free-living. It's just another society. (Have you read
>Eugene Marias' "Soul of the White Ant"? Which is the critter, the ant
>or the anthill?
><http://journeytoforever.org/Marais1/whiteantToC.html>)
>
>I think we don't really disagree very much, maybe it's just that
>where you say either-or I tend to see it as both-and. But you said
>you weren't coming at it from a biological perspective, and I'm
>seeing it ecologically, which is inclusive, everything's connected to
>everything else. Well, by that measure, our two views should be
>compatible. And I've enjoyed reading your posts!
>
>>Without creative liberty we might as well not exist at all: and if
>>survival means the abolition of creative liberty I should gladly go
>>down in flames. But I do not believe that that is the case.
>
>Neither do I.
>
>>A solution is possible, which not only allows creative liberty but
>>is built on creative liberty. In fact it isn't all that fantastic at
>>all. But it involves different acts to much of what is happening now.
>
>Can you be more explicit? And do you have any suggestions for more
>effective acts?
>
>All best
>
>Keith
>
>
>>Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment Dawie Coetzee
>  >Wed, 18 May 2011 21:13:57 -0700
>>
>>I'm coming into this debate late because I'm not sure if I have more
>>than disconnected philosophical snippets to contribute; that is,
>>questions rather than answers.
>>
>>It seems to me that this is really the old universals question of
>>the Middle Ages, to which a satisfactory resolution has never quite
>>been developed. My own stance here is the sort of conceptualism or
>>"soft" nominalism one would associate with Abelard or, indeed,
>>Ockham himself. The great irony is that the typical modern observer
>>with some engagement with the issue of the environment is likely to
>>applaud Ockham's supposed progressiveness while unconsciously
>>harbouring distinctly hyperrealist views of such things as the human
>>species, i.e. the exact opposite of Ockham's position.
>>
>>Let me begin therefore by casting a nominalist stone in the bush,
>>and denying that the human species is substantively real in itself.
>>I think the pervasive and unconscious idea that the species is
>>philosophically 

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[Keith Addison]

Hi again Dawie

This is a reply to your previous post, but I didn't get to send it at the time.

I have to say again that it's not humans or human intelligence that 
are driving the species and the biosphere to the brink of 
destruction, it's predatory corporations that are doing that.

- K

>  >It is interesting that it was
>>the only bit that drew comment.

I've put your whole post back, below.

Quickly:

>We don't really care if a squid respects our inner subtlety when we meet one.

Why not? Squid are smart. No need for appreciation of inner 
subtleties, but a friendly nod doesn't hurt.

I have the idea (I've had it all my life, I think) that it helps to 
pass along a little peace and goodwill, if you have it to spare.

Jeremiah was a bullfrog
he was a good friiend of mine
I never understood a single word he said
but I helped him to drink his wine
he always had some mighty fine wine

Joy to the world
to all the boys and girls
joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea
joy to you and me

(Three Dog Night)

(Sorry.)

Anyway, one comment that came to mind was that such a view of species 
and individuals would probably be anathema to the Japanese. It would 
smack too much of individualism, which is out of line in Japan, very 
rude, and indeed arrogant. Species, humanity, society, are concepts 
that overlap somewhat, especially in translation, and in Japan the 
society comes first - us, not me.

Other post-Confucian societies might also have a problem with it, 
though maybe not the same problem.

>  It may even be that it is impossible to understand our individual 
>selves without reference to the common concept of humanness

If you reworked that a little it might be something like what the 
Japanese think.

>... there is no such thing as Life, but only lives.

There's both, I think, chicken and egg. It depends how you see it. 
Biologically, we're more like massive cities than individual 
citizens, composed of billions upon billions of individual cells, 
many of them free-living. It's just another society. (Have you read 
Eugene Marias' "Soul of the White Ant"? Which is the critter, the ant 
or the anthill? 
<http://journeytoforever.org/Marais1/whiteantToC.html>)

I think we don't really disagree very much, maybe it's just that 
where you say either-or I tend to see it as both-and. But you said 
you weren't coming at it from a biological perspective, and I'm 
seeing it ecologically, which is inclusive, everything's connected to 
everything else. Well, by that measure, our two views should be 
compatible. And I've enjoyed reading your posts!

>Without creative liberty we might as well not exist at all: and if 
>survival means the abolition of creative liberty I should gladly go 
>down in flames. But I do not believe that that is the case.

Neither do I.

>A solution is possible, which not only allows creative liberty but 
>is built on creative liberty. In fact it isn't all that fantastic at 
>all. But it involves different acts to much of what is happening now.

Can you be more explicit? And do you have any suggestions for more 
effective acts?

All best

Keith


>Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment Dawie Coetzee
>Wed, 18 May 2011 21:13:57 -0700
>
>I'm coming into this debate late because I'm not sure if I have more 
>than disconnected philosophical snippets to contribute; that is, 
>questions rather than answers.
>
>It seems to me that this is really the old universals question of 
>the Middle Ages, to which a satisfactory resolution has never quite 
>been developed. My own stance here is the sort of conceptualism or 
>"soft" nominalism one would associate with Abelard or, indeed, 
>Ockham himself. The great irony is that the typical modern observer 
>with some engagement with the issue of the environment is likely to 
>applaud Ockham's supposed progressiveness while unconsciously 
>harbouring distinctly hyperrealist views of such things as the human 
>species, i.e. the exact opposite of Ockham's position.
>
>Let me begin therefore by casting a nominalist stone in the bush, 
>and denying that the human species is substantively real in itself. 
>I think the pervasive and unconscious idea that the species is 
>philosophically prior to the specimen is causing untold damage to 
>our understanding of our place in the scheme of things. I am not 
>denying the existence of the human species: it exists; but the mode 
>in which it exists is that of a concept. It arises from myriad 
>strands of similarity between discrete human beings and likewise 
>shared points of difference to other sorts of beings, and as such it 
>is an extremely useful concept. It may even be that it is impossible 
>to understand our individual selves without reference to the

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[Dawie Coetzee]

Keith

I did clarify, a few paragraphs later: "Again, the idea of a creature doing 
something that works because it was  created with Divine wisdom is different to 
the idea of an intelligent  being. I am not preferring one to the other; I am 
insisting on the  distinction in the interest of retaining useful concepts to 
think with.  As it happens I think the former is probably far more important in 
the  scheme of things ..."

Likewise if I question your subsequent statement, "We are all one," it would 
not 
be the underlying attitude but the purely rational implication to which I might 
object. That is to say, I would not be sneering but nit-picking, if I were to 
suggest that the idea that we each have a proper place in the scheme of things 
does not necessarily imply unity. While the concept of unity does underline the 
fact that we have one earth with no replacement off-the-shelf, it reinforces 
the 
current tendency to obscure boundaries, which is not helpful to our cause. In 
fact, the consequent idea of interchangeability is very much part of the 
problem!

Similarly the way an imposed collectivism always results in tyranny is often 
countered by proposing individualism, which fails for many reasons - not least 
because individuality in a void is palpably meaningless. The alternative is 
personalism: the difference is that the concept of personhood implies a 
condition of relatedness that sharpens and does not obscure that personhood. 
Desmond Tutu - and others before him "A person is a person through other 
people." We tend to emphasize the "through other people" and forget that the 
upshot of the idea is that the person is thereby emphatically a person, and not 
that the person is thereby somehow no longer a person.

I do not think the idea of a unity of nature, nor the idea that we are 
ourselves 
included in it, is strange or missing or new or unusual, in the so-called West 
or anywhere else. It is an established part of our broad received culture. 
Again, popular opinion being contrary to popular opinion? I do not even know if 
the knack that the modern world has to project its most conventional tenets in 
contrast to a largely fictitious construct of conservatism is unique and 
unprecedented, or whether it has occurred in other ages and places. Then the 
modern world uniquely contains sugar granules in little disposable paper 
sachets 
with amazing philosophical insights printed on them. Are those insights the 
philosophical content of our cultural sphere, or contrary to the philosophical 
content of our cultural sphere? or strangely both? or neither? Is Marx at fault 
(as he so often is) with, "The ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling 
classes", when the ruling ideas seem to be those ideas that seem to refute the 
ideas of an implied ruling class which may or may not actually exist, and 
certainly does not rule. For "contrary to popular belief" is understood on all 
of those sugar sachets.

We have not forgotten this basic law of life (again the terminology may be 
analyzed, even if I fully support the sentiment). We have most of us been at 
least vaguely aware of it even while finding ourselves very nearly - but not 
quite - powerlessly watching a few powerful agents flagrantly disregarding it. 
Surely our current cause is not a new one? It goes back at least to Blake's 
"satanic mills". We've known all along. But the 18th-century English were swept 
along just as we are being swept along now. That is not the end of it; there 
are 
solutions, but that is another discussion.

Best regards

Dawie







From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Mon, 23 May, 2011 1:11:17
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

Hello Dawie

>Indeed, I haven't kept chickens! I bow to your better experience.
>
>My comment was, however, by way of illustration rather than 
>evidence. As such it
>was really the least important part of my post.

But the illustration was not correct. We are all one. No creature is 
better or worse than another. That's not unimportant, it's crucial. 
The biosphere itself is now under threat. To what extent is that due 
to our failure to heed this basic law of life on earth?

>It is interesting that it was
>the only bit that drew comment.

I'm sorry if it seems I sidetracked the discussion, but even though 
there's not yet been any further comment, I'm sure it's inspired 
thought and reflection.

Here's your original message, in full:
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg75964.html

All best

Keith


>Regards
>
>Dawie Coetzee
>
>
>____________
>From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>Sent: Sat, 21 May, 2011 22:52:06
>Subject: Re: [

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[Keith Addison]

Hello Dawie

>Indeed, I haven't kept chickens! I bow to your better experience.
>
>My comment was, however, by way of illustration rather than 
>evidence. As such it
>was really the least important part of my post.

But the illustration was not correct. We are all one. No creature is 
better or worse than another. That's not unimportant, it's crucial. 
The biosphere itself is now under threat. To what extent is that due 
to our failure to heed this basic law of life on earth?

>It is interesting that it was
>the only bit that drew comment.

I'm sorry if it seems I sidetracked the discussion, but even though 
there's not yet been any further comment, I'm sure it's inspired 
thought and reflection.

Here's your original message, in full:
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg75964.html

All best

Keith


>Regards
>
>Dawie Coetzee
>
>
>
>From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>Sent: Sat, 21 May, 2011 22:52:06
>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment
>
>Hi Dawie
>
>Very interesting, food for thought, thankyou.
>
>I don't agree with this though:
>
>>Our relationship to those non-human
>>beings with which we have a long-standing symbiosis rests on may factors, not
>>least of which is that our canine and feline companions have the knack of
>>looking at the bit where our eyes are when trying to communicate 
>>with us. They
>>literally face us, as we face one another when speaking to one
>>another; and that
>>makes them intelligible to us. Birds, even very bright ones, don't do that,
>>because their use of vision is different. Hence our relationship to them is
>>slightly different - however that does not preclude meaningful 
>>engagement with
>>various sorts of birds.
>
>Clearly you haven't kept chickens, A newly hatched chick will look
>you in the eye when it emerges from the egg. It's unmistakeable. So
>too will its mum, and the same applies to ducks and geese, and indeed
>to all birds. Not only birds - a lizard will look you in the eye too.
>
>Ethological studies have advanced quite a lot in the last decade or
>so. It emerges for instance that birds are smarter than dogs, they're
>about as smart as monkeys.
>
>That's what the science says, though maybe my attitude to it helps
>(or doesn't help, whichever). I had to come off the idea quite a long
>time ago that I'm any smarter than they are, if as smart. I don't
>think I've ever seen a dumb animal, apart from some people's pets
>(rendered dumb). They all seem to go about their daily business on
>the face of this fair planet with at least as much good sense as I
>can muster going about mine.


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[Dawie Coetzee]

Indeed, I haven't kept chickens! I bow to your better experience.

My comment was, however, by way of illustration rather than evidence. As such 
it 
was really the least important part of my post. It is interesting that it was 
the only bit that drew comment.

Regards

Dawie Coetzee





From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Sat, 21 May, 2011 22:52:06
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

Hi Dawie

Very interesting, food for thought, thankyou.

I don't agree with this though:

>Our relationship to those non-human
>beings with which we have a long-standing symbiosis rests on may factors, not
>least of which is that our canine and feline companions have the knack of
>looking at the bit where our eyes are when trying to communicate with us. They
>literally face us, as we face one another when speaking to one 
>another; and that
>makes them intelligible to us. Birds, even very bright ones, don't do that,
>because their use of vision is different. Hence our relationship to them is
>slightly different - however that does not preclude meaningful engagement with
>various sorts of birds.

Clearly you haven't kept chickens, A newly hatched chick will look 
you in the eye when it emerges from the egg. It's unmistakeable. So 
too will its mum, and the same applies to ducks and geese, and indeed 
to all birds. Not only birds - a lizard will look you in the eye too.

Ethological studies have advanced quite a lot in the last decade or 
so. It emerges for instance that birds are smarter than dogs, they're 
about as smart as monkeys.

That's what the science says, though maybe my attitude to it helps 
(or doesn't help, whichever). I had to come off the idea quite a long 
time ago that I'm any smarter than they are, if as smart. I don't 
think I've ever seen a dumb animal, apart from some people's pets 
(rendered dumb). They all seem to go about their daily business on 
the face of this fair planet with at least as much good sense as I 
can muster going about mine.



-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110522/6b29cf2b/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[Keith Addison]

Hi Chris

>i think dawie was referring more to the placement of the eyes.  at least
>that was how i understood his meaning.  mammals = both eyes in front VS.
>birds (or fish, reptiles, whatever) = one eye either side of head.  so with
>a dog we're more sort of automatically aware they're looking at us.
>
>oh, and one noteworthy exception to the rule:  whales (heh-heh).

Many exceptions, I think, so many that it's hardly a rule. Maybe it 
only applies to chameleons.

You're sure whales don't see straight ahead with both eyes? That's 
the point, isn't it? If they do, then, according to this concept of 
it, if I'm understanding it correctly, we can have what the 
Malaysians call a "four-eyes meeting" with just about anyone, not 
just dogs and cats (and each other).





Not to mention...





You can certainly have a four-eyes meeting with birds. They don't 
only see to the sides, they also look straight ahead with both eyes 
(and up, I think). They look you in the eye, and they'll look a 
camera in the eye too.

Such as...

http://journeytoforever.org/bflpics/duckeye.jpg
The beautiful Maggie, smart as paint and lustrous-eyed - like our 
other birds, she'd look at me if I called her name or spo0ke to her

http://journeytoforever.org/bflpics/ducklingeye.jpg
2nd duckling from the right - both eyes, note. It's easy to catch a 
duckling's eye, difficult to avoid it, same with chicks and goslings.

http://journeytoforever.org/bflpics/gooseeye1.jpg
Mr Orange, named for the rather elegant rings round his eyes and 
beak. Geese certainly look you in the eye (see next), their aim is to 
be completely engaging, they have all this fascinating gossip to 
discuss and they wouldn't want your attention to waver. (Geese can 
live over 80 years, by the way.)

http://journeytoforever.org/bflpics/Midori-goose.jpg
No, you CAN'T have my breakfast!

http://journeytoforever.org/bflpics/gooseeye2.jpg
A four-eyes meeting with a goose, message clear: "Hands off" Yes ma'am.

I have hundreds of photographs of birds looking me in the eye, 
including many wild birds. Or looking me in the lens, you might say, 
but I don't close the other eye when I take photographs, so the lens 
doesn't count (anyway they're smarter than that).

I think what's happening in this discussion is simply that we humans 
tend to relate more easily to other mammals.

All best

Keith


>On May 21, 2011 4:52 PM, "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>  Hi Dawie
>>
>>  Very interesting, food for thought, thankyou.
>>
>>  I don't agree with this though:
>>
>>  >Our relationship to those non-human
>>  >beings with which we have a long-standing symbiosis rests on may factors,
>not
>>  >least of which is that our canine and feline companions have the knack of
>>  >looking at the bit where our eyes are when trying to communicate with us.
>They
>>  >literally face us, as we face one another when speaking to one
>>  >another; and that
>>  >makes them intelligible to us. Birds, even very bright ones, don't do
>that,
>>  >because their use of vision is different. Hence our relationship to them
>is
>>  >slightly different - however that does not preclude meaningful engagement
>with
>>  >various sorts of birds.
>>
>>  Clearly you haven't kept chickens, A newly hatched chick will look
>>  you in the eye when it emerges from the egg. It's unmistakeable. So
>>  too will its mum, and the same applies to ducks and geese, and indeed
>>  > to all birds. Not only birds - a lizard will look you in the eye too.
>>
>>Ethological studies have advanced quite a lot in the last decade or
>>so. It emerges for instance that birds are smarter than dogs, they're
>>about as smart as monkeys.
>>
>>That's what the science says, though maybe my attitude to it helps
>>(or doesn't help, whichever). I had to come off the idea quite a long
>>time ago that I'm any smarter than they are, if as smart. I don't
>>think I've ever seen a dumb animal, apart from some people's pets
>>(rendered dumb). They all seem to go about their daily business on
>>the face of this fair planet with at least as much good sense as I
>>can muster going about mine.
>>
>


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[Chris Burck]

i think dawie was referring more to the placement of the eyes.  at least
that was how i understood his meaning.  mammals = both eyes in front VS.
birds (or fish, reptiles, whatever) = one eye either side of head.  so with
a dog we're more sort of automatically aware they're looking at us.

oh, and one noteworthy exception to the rule:  whales (heh-heh).

On May 21, 2011 4:52 PM, "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Dawie
>
> Very interesting, food for thought, thankyou.
>
> I don't agree with this though:
>
> >Our relationship to those non-human
> >beings with which we have a long-standing symbiosis rests on may factors,
not
> >least of which is that our canine and feline companions have the knack of
> >looking at the bit where our eyes are when trying to communicate with us.
They
> >literally face us, as we face one another when speaking to one
> >another; and that
> >makes them intelligible to us. Birds, even very bright ones, don't do
that,
> >because their use of vision is different. Hence our relationship to them
is
> >slightly different - however that does not preclude meaningful engagement
with
> >various sorts of birds.
>
> Clearly you haven't kept chickens, A newly hatched chick will look
> you in the eye when it emerges from the egg. It's unmistakeable. So
> too will its mum, and the same applies to ducks and geese, and indeed
> to all birds. Not only birds - a lizard will look you in the eye too.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110521/eed2ab9e/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[Chris Burck]

beautifully said, dawie.
On May 19, 2011 12:13 AM, "Dawie Coetzee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110521/85636839/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[Keith Addison]

 when speaking to one 
>another; and that
>makes them intelligible to us. Birds, even very bright ones, don't do that,
>because their use of vision is different. Hence our relationship to them is
>slightly different - however that does not preclude meaningful engagement with
>various sorts of birds. The point is, intelligence has as much to do with my
>understanding of an intelligent being as with the inner condition of 
>that being;
>and that makes it more and not less important to keep in mind the limits of my
>understanding of that being. It is just as respect between human persons rests
>to a very great extent on always remembering that the other has an inner being
>of almost infinite complexity, the precise nuance of which can never really be
>grasped.
>
>Conversely disrespect between humans is most often a case of summing the other
>up too simply: you are this or that and that is all there is to you. 
>And so too
>between humans and others. But importantly we do not invert this. We don't
>really care if a squid respects our inner subtlety when we meet one.
>
>I for one accept that it is not able to do so and that it is 
>perfectly good that
>this should be so. But then like Robert I take the view that we humans are not
>only specifically charged with stewardship but also uniquely damaged. We are
>none of us as we should be: the other creatures are, all of them, no 
>matter what
>any human has done to them, in their basic being exactly as they should be.
>
>But that we all share the task of stewardship and all share the Fall 
>of Man does
>not mean that the species is philosophically - or spiritually - prior to the
>specimen. (Ockham has indeed something to say about this, perhaps best
>accessible in Fr. Frederick Coppleston's commentaries. CS Lewis comes to much
>the same idea from the other end: that we are in our spiritual 
>essence not bound
>by type but individually unique.)
>
>Again, the idea of a creature doing something that works because it 
>was created
>with Divine wisdom is different to the idea of an intelligent being. I am not
>preferring one to the other; I am insisting on the distinction in the interest
>of retaining useful concepts to think with. As it happens I think 
>the former is
>probably far more important in the scheme of things: but my job involves being
>intelligent. And I don't think it has much to do with the survival of the
>species, at least not directly.
>
>I came to the environmental movement not from cosmic-biological but from
>socio-political considerations. That is to say, not from shock and horror at
>what has been done to the planet, but from noticing that what is supposedly
>being done about it is often used as leverage to consolidate the 
>very power that
>caused the damage in the first place, and that a tyranny is being built as a
>result. And the problem of tyranny is a deeper problem than the problem of
>extinction.
>
>Liberty is a spiritual category and therefore prior to the physical, 
>never mind
>the social. Liberty is not something we grow to prefer as soon as we have a
>society: it is at least cognate with interpersonality and, I should say, even
>more basic. Liberty is not a response to authority (except to that 
>Authority who
>demands of us that we exercise liberty); and it is always creative liberty.
>(Dorothy Sayers wrote a wonderful essay in which she points out that, when the
>book of Genesis confronts us with the idea that we are created in the image of
>God, we have at that point been told nothing about God except that He has
>created.)
>
>It is not enough that the "species survive". Indeed that seems to me 
>a ludicrous
>project. It is more important that subsequent human lives happen: there is no
>such thing as Life, but only lives. And that is to say nothing of non-human
>lives; not that that is the point right now. But note how "Life" and 
>"lives" are
>different sorts of ideas. It is of only secondary importance that a 
>life involve
>"Life", a sort of prolegomena to the main thing even if it is the 
>source of all
>morality around killing. It is more important that lives are able to unfold in
>terms of their purpose, which is to exercise creative liberty, 
>therein to endow
>importance which manifests in acts of love, which are always and necessarily
>acts of liberty.
>
>Anything else, no matter how necessary we are told it is for the 
>survival of the
>species, is tantamount to inducing coma at birth. We all sense that that is no
>solution, just like killing the poor is not what we mean when we talk of a
>solution to the problem of poverty. Without creative liberty we might as well
>not exist at all: and if survival 

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[Chris Burck]

On May 18, 2011 8:46 PM, "bmolloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Greetings all,
> Re whales "choosing" to return to the sea.

wow, i'm surprised a little by the reaction that proposition is getting.

The statement seems
> to turn natural selection on its head.

i don't think so.

>My understanding of evolution is that
> it's a question of adapt or die out.

this is an over-simplification.

>As the environment changes the more
> adaptable in a species live and thus reproduce ever more adaptable
> offspring, while those that fail simply die off.

this may well be one way that evolution occurs.  almost certainly.  but why
couldn't a mutation occur which enables a creature to occupy a *new* niche,
absent environmental pressure.

> The changes are totally random, due to the chromosome scatter which occurs
> with each birth  i.e no offspring is an exact copy of its parent, hence
each
> is a mutation of some degree. Some of this mutation is adaptable, some
> irrelevant, some not and some harmful.
> If the mutation  increases survivability in a changing environment the
> possessor will survive to produce more offspring with similar mutational
> trends. In this way we have species change. . .

hmm.  again, this  over-simplifies things.  in fact, i would suggest that it
inverts evolution as much as anything i've said.

many, if not most species occupy specific niches, living off a narrow
spectrum of foods.  sometimes a single, specific thing.  how does that
square with "survival of the 'fittest'"?  does it represent an evolutionary
cul de sac?  or a choice?

> The changes are incremental and often miniscule, occurring on time scales
of
> hundreds of thousands and even millions of years, hence the outcome surely
> cannot be attributed to choice.

not necessarily.  in fact, the indications seem to be that very significant
mutations can occur over much shorter timescales than what has been the
conventional wisdom.  which makes total sense IMO, because otherwise certain
evolutionary changes become very hard to explain.

for example, take the original proto-air breathers.  those fish that had
both gills and primitive lungs.  where did those lungs come from?  was there
a tortuous process akin to ptolemy's planetary orbits, whereby these
different tissues developed independently, to finally, in one last
incremental mutation, become linked as a whole respiratory system?  or
instead, maybe there once was a little fish fetus with a mutation in its
"switching" genes such that it remained in one growth phase longer than
usual.

regardless, we now have this fish that can obtain oxygen from the atmosphere
as well as from water.  plus these funky, overgrown fins.  why does it
ultimately leave the water?  does it *have to* be that it did so out of
necessity?  or perhaps simply because it could?  because it chose to?
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110520/67195ff8/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[bmolloy]

Vestigial, or emerging?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Douglas Woodard
Sent: Thursday, 19 May 2011 11:57 p.m.
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

The scientists have reasons for their conclusions. For example, whales 
have vestigial legs.

Doug Woodard
St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada



On 18/05/2011 8:46 PM, bmolloy wrote:
> Greetings all,
>   Re whales "choosing" to return to the sea.

[snip]

> As for warm blooded sea creatures such as whales, is there not a
possibility
> they are simply a link on the chain going the other way i.e. out of the
sea
> and onto land?
>
> Regards,
> Bob.

[snip]

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[Douglas Woodard]

The scientists have reasons for their conclusions. For example, whales 
have vestigial legs.

Doug Woodard
St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada



On 18/05/2011 8:46 PM, bmolloy wrote:
> Greetings all,
>   Re whales "choosing" to return to the sea.

[snip]

> As for warm blooded sea creatures such as whales, is there not a possibility
> they are simply a link on the chain going the other way i.e. out of the sea
> and onto land?
>
> Regards,
> Bob.

[snip]

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[Dawie Coetzee]

ce not 
bound 
by type but individually unique.)

Again, the idea of a creature doing something that works because it was created 
with Divine wisdom is different to the idea of an intelligent being. I am not 
preferring one to the other; I am insisting on the distinction in the interest 
of retaining useful concepts to think with. As it happens I think the former is 
probably far more important in the scheme of things: but my job involves being 
intelligent. And I don't think it has much to do with the survival of the 
species, at least not directly.

I came to the environmental movement not from cosmic-biological but from 
socio-political considerations. That is to say, not from shock and horror at 
what has been done to the planet, but from noticing that what is supposedly 
being done about it is often used as leverage to consolidate the very power 
that 
caused the damage in the first place, and that a tyranny is being built as a 
result. And the problem of tyranny is a deeper problem than the problem of 
extinction.

Liberty is a spiritual category and therefore prior to the physical, never mind 
the social. Liberty is not something we grow to prefer as soon as we have a 
society: it is at least cognate with interpersonality and, I should say, even 
more basic. Liberty is not a response to authority (except to that Authority 
who 
demands of us that we exercise liberty); and it is always creative liberty. 
(Dorothy Sayers wrote a wonderful essay in which she points out that, when the 
book of Genesis confronts us with the idea that we are created in the image of 
God, we have at that point been told nothing about God except that He has 
created.)

It is not enough that the "species survive". Indeed that seems to me a 
ludicrous 
project. It is more important that subsequent human lives happen: there is no 
such thing as Life, but only lives. And that is to say nothing of non-human 
lives; not that that is the point right now. But note how "Life" and "lives" 
are 
different sorts of ideas. It is of only secondary importance that a life 
involve 
"Life", a sort of prolegomena to the main thing even if it is the source of all 
morality around killing. It is more important that lives are able to unfold in 
terms of their purpose, which is to exercise creative liberty, therein to endow 
importance which manifests in acts of love, which are always and necessarily 
acts of liberty.

Anything else, no matter how necessary we are told it is for the survival of 
the 
species, is tantamount to inducing coma at birth. We all sense that that is no 
solution, just like killing the poor is not what we mean when we talk of a 
solution to the problem of poverty. Without creative liberty we might as well 
not exist at all: and if survival means the abolition of creative liberty I 
should gladly go down in flames. But I do not believe that that is the case.

A solution is possible, which not only allows creative liberty but is built on 
creative liberty. In fact it isn't all that fantastic at all. But it involves 
different acts to much of what is happening now.

Regards

Dawie Coetzee







From: bmolloy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Thu, 19 May, 2011 2:46:01
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

Greetings all,
 Re whales "choosing" to return to the sea. The statement seems
to turn natural selection on its head. My understanding of evolution is that
it's a question of adapt or die out. As the environment changes the more
adaptable in a species live and thus reproduce ever more adaptable
offspring, while those that fail simply die off. 
The changes are totally random, due to the chromosome scatter which occurs
with each birth  i.e no offspring is an exact copy of its parent, hence each
is a mutation of some degree. Some of this mutation is adaptable, some
irrelevant, some not and some harmful. 
If the mutation  increases survivability in a changing environment the
possessor will survive to produce more offspring with similar mutational
trends. In this way we have species change, some so vast that it seems
counter intuitive to link modern species such as the hyrax (rock rabbit) to
the elephant. Yet the link is there.
The changes are incremental and often miniscule, occurring on time scales of
hundreds of thousands and even millions of years, hence the outcome surely
cannot be attributed to choice.
As for warm blooded sea creatures such as whales, is there not a possibility
they are simply a link on the chain going the other way i.e. out of the sea
and onto land?

Regards,
Bob.
  

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110519/7a113a55/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustain

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[bmolloy]

Greetings all,
 Re whales "choosing" to return to the sea. The statement seems
to turn natural selection on its head. My understanding of evolution is that
it's a question of adapt or die out. As the environment changes the more
adaptable in a species live and thus reproduce ever more adaptable
offspring, while those that fail simply die off. 
The changes are totally random, due to the chromosome scatter which occurs
with each birth  i.e no offspring is an exact copy of its parent, hence each
is a mutation of some degree. Some of this mutation is adaptable, some
irrelevant, some not and some harmful. 
If the mutation  increases survivability in a changing environment the
possessor will survive to produce more offspring with similar mutational
trends. In this way we have species change, some so vast that it seems
counter intuitive to link modern species such as the hyrax (rock rabbit) to
the elephant. Yet the link is there.
The changes are incremental and often miniscule, occurring on time scales of
hundreds of thousands and even millions of years, hence the outcome surely
cannot be attributed to choice.
As for warm blooded sea creatures such as whales, is there not a possibility
they are simply a link on the chain going the other way i.e. out of the sea
and onto land?

Regards,
Bob.
  

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Keith Addison
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2011 9:56 p.m.
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

Hi Chris

>quite true keith.  you've touched on some points i've been meaning to bring
>to bring to bear on this discussion.  hopefully i'll find some time to
>contribute more.
>
>robert, i was trying to draw you into the discussion as a thought exercise
>(the thing about the whales).  this very question was put to me many years
>back,

And to me - or rather it was me that put the question.

>and it proved to be very transformational.  no, i'm not trying to
>"guru" you.  but i do like to share it when the opportunity presents
itself.

Here's what you said:

>>then there's the whales.  we know their ancestors were land dwellers.   in
>>other words, sea creatures gave rise to land creatures, and some of them
>>chose to return to the sea.
>>why would they do that?  this is a serious question.  after all, you're
>>giving up an awful lot.

Are they? I reckon they've got it pretty good. I'm a bit envious. The 
way they live in the sea reminds me of the way later Paleolithic Man 
lived on the land. Those were the good old days, I think.

You said they "chose" to return to the sea, and I guess they did, 
though it's hard to say just why - because they like it that way, or 
maybe the land-dolphins, whatever they were - or perhaps their 
not-dolphin corporate dolphinhoods - screwed the land up somehow 
(nuked it?) and the sea was their only refuge. Who knows, if they're 
that bright maybe they geo-engineered themselves into sea creatures 
rather than evolving or devolving or whatever.

I once wrote a three-page article about dolphins for New Scientist. 
It's not that relevant to this discussion, but it's here, if you're 
interested:

"Lessons from a deadly disease of dolphins - Attempts to save 
captive dolphins dying from a bizarre disease known as malleiodosis 
have paved the way for an effective vaccine for humans", Keith 
Addison, New Scientist, Nov 17, 1983 http://snipurl.com/27wmeh

Those particular captive dolphins, by the way, had been rescued from 
the annual dolphin slaughter at Taiji in Japan, the subject of "The 
Cove". In 1983.

Anyway, the article was mainly based on interviews with two major 
scientists. Among other things, I asked them whether dolphins 
developed their big brains before or after returning to the sea. 
"Before."

So then it could well have been a conscious decision.

Best

Keith


>>think about it.














___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[Keith Addison]

Hi Chris

>quite true keith.  you've touched on some points i've been meaning to bring
>to bring to bear on this discussion.  hopefully i'll find some time to
>contribute more.
>
>robert, i was trying to draw you into the discussion as a thought exercise
>(the thing about the whales).  this very question was put to me many years
>back,

And to me - or rather it was me that put the question.

>and it proved to be very transformational.  no, i'm not trying to
>"guru" you.  but i do like to share it when the opportunity presents itself.

Here's what you said:

>>then there's the whales.  we know their ancestors were land dwellers.   in
>>other words, sea creatures gave rise to land creatures, and some of them
>>chose to return to the sea.
>>why would they do that?  this is a serious question.  after all, you're
>>giving up an awful lot.

Are they? I reckon they've got it pretty good. I'm a bit envious. The 
way they live in the sea reminds me of the way later Paleolithic Man 
lived on the land. Those were the good old days, I think.

You said they "chose" to return to the sea, and I guess they did, 
though it's hard to say just why - because they like it that way, or 
maybe the land-dolphins, whatever they were - or perhaps their 
not-dolphin corporate dolphinhoods - screwed the land up somehow 
(nuked it?) and the sea was their only refuge. Who knows, if they're 
that bright maybe they geo-engineered themselves into sea creatures 
rather than evolving or devolving or whatever.

I once wrote a three-page article about dolphins for New Scientist. 
It's not that relevant to this discussion, but it's here, if you're 
interested:

"Lessons from a deadly disease of dolphins - Attempts to save 
captive dolphins dying from a bizarre disease known as malleiodosis 
have paved the way for an effective vaccine for humans", Keith 
Addison, New Scientist, Nov 17, 1983 http://snipurl.com/27wmeh

Those particular captive dolphins, by the way, had been rescued from 
the annual dolphin slaughter at Taiji in Japan, the subject of "The 
Cove". In 1983.

Anyway, the article was mainly based on interviews with two major 
scientists. Among other things, I asked them whether dolphins 
developed their big brains before or after returning to the sea. 
"Before."

So then it could well have been a conscious decision.

Best

Keith


>>think about it.














___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[Keith Addison]

Hi Robert

>On 5/15/2011 1:41 PM, Keith Addison wrote:
>
>(My remark concerning your optimism)
>
>>  That's not quite the full picture Robert. This is a cyclical
>>  discussion here, and am I right in thinking that the cycle is
>>  speeding up?
>
>  I'm not sure.  The Biofuels list doesn't seem as active as it has
>been in the past.  Is that true, or just my perception?

No, it's true. It's not self-sustaining, it seems to depend on my 
input. I'm rather sad about that.

>  > Anyway, you usually say I'm more optimistic than you are, as if that
>>  explains it. Actually, it's been accepted here before that there's no
>>  contradiction between optimism and realism. So what do you really
>>  mean when you say I'm "optimistic"? Maybe I'd call it "realistic". If
>>  you take a good look at previous discussions I think you can see why.
>>  In fact it's not a matter of opinion, there's an ever-growing
>>  preponderence of scientific evidence to support it. (Though Joe went
>>  into denial over that a few months back.) Now, wouldn't it then be
>>  more rational to attribute your view of things to simple pessimism?
>>  Eg. "Robert is far more pessimistic about human nature than I am." Hm?
>
>  Ok.  I'll concede that I'm more pessimistic about humanity.  We
>could argue that you'd remain more "optimistic" in contrast, but that's
>really not the point of this discussion.  Is our intelligence
>responsible for the environmental mess we're in?

No. You might see such things as scientific / chemical / engineering 
progress as a product of intelligence, but before you ascribe their 
share of the environmental mess to human intelligence, you should 
check to see who was paying the piper.

>If the scale of human
>activity has pushed us to a breaking point,

It hasn't. It's not human activity that's pushing the whole biosphere 
to breaking point. See what I was saying about eco-footprints, below.

>I don't see that brainpower
>necessarily equates to a "lethal mutation."  Those who survive whatever
>fate awaits us will be those who can adapt most readily, and without
>intelligence, it's hard to imagine how that can happen.

Indeed so.

>  > Also, I often have to insist on a clear distinction between human
>>  behaviour and the behaviour of not-human "persons", but then the
>>  waters get muddied again and soon enough the dire consequences of one
>>  type of behaviour are being attributed to the basic innate rottenness
>>  of the other type of person, or "person", I'll leave you to decide
>>  which is which.
>
>  The trouble is, that definition can become rather arbitrary.

I don't think so.

>When
>I discuss the support for the current social and economic system, I
>refer to flesh and blood human beings within my family, my circle of
>school mates and fellow countrymen.   I hear their points of view on a
>daily basis.  It's hard for me to categorize those people as "non-human"
>just because their perspective differs from mine.

There's no call to do that Robert, heaven forfend. But it is your 
prerogative to question whether their points of vierw and their 
opinions really are their own and not just opinion implants, 
manufactured elsewhere by the opinion industry, made in Madison Ave, 
paid for by Wall Street, with a reach and sheer drench factor that's 
never been seen before. See next.

>
>> From a recent post:
>>
>>>  It seems to me that the higher a country's per-capita advertising
>>>  and PR budget gets, the more likely people are to think humanity is
>>>  a disease, and the bigger their eco-footprints get too. They're only
>>>  a minority, but they've already far outgrown Earth's carrying
>>>  capacity.
>
>  Please don't paint me with that brush.

I woudn't paint you with any brush.

>While I think that people
>most often behave in a self-interested manner, I view people as a
>resource and agree with you that cooperation is a necessary norm among
>us.  Our problems do not derive from the fact that there are too many
>people, or that we're too smart.  Our problems, by and large, exist
>because of inequities within our social and economic structures.

Good start.

>These
>have existed as long as civilization has existed.

Longer than that, I think. But that fails to explain away what's 
happening now, and to assign the blame for today's woes on human 
society itself. True, you can find examples of failed civilizations 
that have ruined their land, but there are as many or more examples 
of traditional societies that have farmed sustainably for a very long 
time without causing any devastation, China isn't the only one.

>You might argue that
>our social systems are not human,

That's not what I argued, our societies are distinctly human. The 
same can't be said for some of society's institutions though.

>but they certainly are human
>creations, and there are living, breathing human beings who actively
>perpetuate those systems by whatever means they can.  Historical
>examples of this sort of thing a

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[Keith Addison]

Hello Joe

>On 15/05/2011 4:41 PM, Keith Addison wrote:
>
>snip
>>  Anyway, you usually say I'm more optimistic than you are, as if that
>>  explains it. Actually, it's been accepted here before that there's no
>>  contradiction between optimism and realism. So what do you really
>>  mean when you say I'm "optimistic"? Maybe I'd call it "realistic". If
>>  you take a good look at previous discussions I think you can see why.
>>  In fact it's not a matter of opinion, there's an ever-growing
>>  preponderence of scientific evidence to support it. (Though Joe went
>>  into denial over that a few months back.) Now, wouldn't it then be
>>  more rational to attribute your view of things to simple pessimism?
>>  Eg. "Robert is far more pessimistic about human nature than I am." Hm?
>Actually Keith I did not go into denial, I went into forced silence on
>the matter if you remember.  I had prepared a rebuttal complete with
>references  to support my argument from material which you seem to hold
>in high regard, but I was forbidden to post it when you put my posts
>under moderation and declared the subject closed which translates into:
>I was gagged under threat of banishment from this forum.

Oh, is that what happened, sorry.

But actually that was only after you went into denial.

Are you thinking of arguing about it again? Seems you might be. 
Please think twice - like last time, you'd only be arguing with the 
list archives, not with me, it's not a game you can win.

Keith



>Joe


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[Joe Street]

On 15/05/2011 4:41 PM, Keith Addison wrote:

snip
> Anyway, you usually say I'm more optimistic than you are, as if that
> explains it. Actually, it's been accepted here before that there's no
> contradiction between optimism and realism. So what do you really
> mean when you say I'm "optimistic"? Maybe I'd call it "realistic". If
> you take a good look at previous discussions I think you can see why.
> In fact it's not a matter of opinion, there's an ever-growing
> preponderence of scientific evidence to support it. (Though Joe went
> into denial over that a few months back.) Now, wouldn't it then be
> more rational to attribute your view of things to simple pessimism?
> Eg. "Robert is far more pessimistic about human nature than I am." Hm?
Actually Keith I did not go into denial, I went into forced silence on 
the matter if you remember.  I had prepared a rebuttal complete with 
references  to support my argument from material which you seem to hold 
in high regard, but I was forbidden to post it when you put my posts 
under moderation and declared the subject closed which translates into: 
I was gagged under threat of banishment from this forum.

Joe

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[Joe Street]

On 15/05/2011 8:27 PM, robert and benita rabello wrote:
>   Ok.  I'll concede that I'm more pessimistic about humanity.  We
> could argue that you'd remain more "optimistic" in contrast, but that's
> really not the point of this discussion.  Is our intelligence
> responsible for the environmental mess we're in?  If the scale of human
> activity has pushed us to a breaking point, I don't see that brainpower
> necessarily equates to a "lethal mutation."  Those who survive whatever
> fate awaits us will be those who can adapt most readily, and without
> intelligence, it's hard to imagine how that can happen.

Hi Robert;

I really agree with you about adaptability being key to survival but 
totally disagree that intelligence correlates with enhanced 
adaptability.  The most adaptable life forms on the planet are bacteria. 
They can mutate in hours and learn to live in an environment that was 
very toxic to their ancestors. The medical mafia are delighted of course 
that they can barely keep ahead of the survival drive of deadly 
pathogens.  They mutate into antibiotic resistant strains very quickly 
which allows the pharmaceutical giants the license to unleash more 
dangerous (and expensive) drugs on us every time you turn around. This 
of course just undescores the point made by Chip about yeast in a petri 
dish a few posts back.

Joe



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[robert and benita rabello]

On 5/15/2011 2:53 PM, Chris Burck wrote:


> robert, i was trying to draw you into the discussion as a thought exercise
> (the thing about the whales).  this very question was put to me many years
> back, and it proved to be very transformational.  no, i'm not trying to
> "guru" you.

 :)

> but i do like to share it when the opportunity presents itself.

 The biologist in me is probably missing the point you're trying to 
make.  Can you please explain further?

robert luis rabello
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca

Crisis video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZedNEXhTn4

The Long Journey video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy4muxaksgk


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[robert and benita rabello]

On 5/15/2011 1:41 PM, Keith Addison wrote:

(My remark concerning your optimism)

> That's not quite the full picture Robert. This is a cyclical
> discussion here, and am I right in thinking that the cycle is
> speeding up?

 I'm not sure.  The Biofuels list doesn't seem as active as it has 
been in the past.  Is that true, or just my perception?

> Anyway, you usually say I'm more optimistic than you are, as if that
> explains it. Actually, it's been accepted here before that there's no
> contradiction between optimism and realism. So what do you really
> mean when you say I'm "optimistic"? Maybe I'd call it "realistic". If
> you take a good look at previous discussions I think you can see why.
> In fact it's not a matter of opinion, there's an ever-growing
> preponderence of scientific evidence to support it. (Though Joe went
> into denial over that a few months back.) Now, wouldn't it then be
> more rational to attribute your view of things to simple pessimism?
> Eg. "Robert is far more pessimistic about human nature than I am." Hm?

 Ok.  I'll concede that I'm more pessimistic about humanity.  We 
could argue that you'd remain more "optimistic" in contrast, but that's 
really not the point of this discussion.  Is our intelligence 
responsible for the environmental mess we're in?  If the scale of human 
activity has pushed us to a breaking point, I don't see that brainpower 
necessarily equates to a "lethal mutation."  Those who survive whatever 
fate awaits us will be those who can adapt most readily, and without 
intelligence, it's hard to imagine how that can happen.
> Also, I often have to insist on a clear distinction between human
> behaviour and the behaviour of not-human "persons", but then the
> waters get muddied again and soon enough the dire consequences of one
> type of behaviour are being attributed to the basic innate rottenness
> of the other type of person, or "person", I'll leave you to decide
> which is which.

 The trouble is, that definition can become rather arbitrary.  When 
I discuss the support for the current social and economic system, I 
refer to flesh and blood human beings within my family, my circle of 
school mates and fellow countrymen.   I hear their points of view on a 
daily basis.  It's hard for me to categorize those people as "non-human" 
just because their perspective differs from mine.


>From a recent post:
>
>> It seems to me that the higher a country's per-capita advertising
>> and PR budget gets, the more likely people are to think humanity is
>> a disease, and the bigger their eco-footprints get too. They're only
>> a minority, but they've already far outgrown Earth's carrying
>> capacity.

 Please don't paint me with that brush.  While I think that people 
most often behave in a self-interested manner, I view people as a 
resource and agree with you that cooperation is a necessary norm among 
us.  Our problems do not derive from the fact that there are too many 
people, or that we're too smart.  Our problems, by and large, exist 
because of inequities within our social and economic structures.  These 
have existed as long as civilization has existed.  You might argue that 
our social systems are not human, but they certainly are human 
creations, and there are living, breathing human beings who actively 
perpetuate those systems by whatever means they can.  Historical 
examples of this sort of thing abound.

  Mr. Chomsky brought this point up in writing about "institutional 
irrationality."  Most of the people who I know support these 
institutions with religious fervor.  No amount of rational discussion, 
no compelling evidence and no venturing into hard moral questioning will 
dissuade them.  These folk may not rank high among that tiny minority to 
which you refer, but they defend those wealthy and powerful people with 
great zeal.

>> If you start at the other end of the scale, with countries that
>> don't even have an advertising budget, people, even poor people,
>> tend to have much happier views, and their feet fit the planet with
>> lots of room to spare. That's most people, they're the majority.
>>
>> Back at the rich end there's a tiny minority with truly monstrous
>> eco-footprints, but, persons or not, they're not human at all.

  Is that because they are intelligent, or because they have power?


robert luis rabello
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca

Crisis video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZedNEXhTn4

The Long Journey video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy4muxaksgk


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[Chris Burck]

quite true keith.  you've touched on some points i've been meaning to bring
to bring to bear on this discussion.  hopefully i'll find some time to
contribute more.

robert, i was trying to draw you into the discussion as a thought exercise
(the thing about the whales).  this very question was put to me many years
back, and it proved to be very transformational.  no, i'm not trying to
"guru" you.  but i do like to share it when the opportunity presents itself.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110515/41b1acc4/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[Keith Addison]

>  I keep waiting for Keith to jump in, as he is far more optimistic
>about human nature than I.

That's not quite the full picture Robert. This is a cyclical 
discussion here, and am I right in thinking that the cycle is 
speeding up?

Anyway, you usually say I'm more optimistic than you are, as if that 
explains it. Actually, it's been accepted here before that there's no 
contradiction between optimism and realism. So what do you really 
mean when you say I'm "optimistic"? Maybe I'd call it "realistic". If 
you take a good look at previous discussions I think you can see why. 
In fact it's not a matter of opinion, there's an ever-growing 
preponderence of scientific evidence to support it. (Though Joe went 
into denial over that a few months back.) Now, wouldn't it then be 
more rational to attribute your view of things to simple pessimism? 
Eg. "Robert is far more pessimistic about human nature than I am." Hm?

Also, I often have to insist on a clear distinction between human 
behaviour and the behaviour of not-human "persons", but then the 
waters get muddied again and soon enough the dire consequences of one 
type of behaviour are being attributed to the basic innate rottenness 
of the other type of person, or "person", I'll leave you to decide 
which is which.

"Wisdom is the domain of the wis, which is now extinct." - Frank Zappa.

Bullshit, Frank.

 From a recent post:

>It seems to me that the higher a country's per-capita advertising 
>and PR budget gets, the more likely people are to think humanity is 
>a disease, and the bigger their eco-footprints get too. They're only 
>a minority, but they've already far outgrown Earth's carrying 
>capacity.
>
>If you start at the other end of the scale, with countries that 
>don't even have an advertising budget, people, even poor people, 
>tend to have much happier views, and their feet fit the planet with 
>lots of room to spare. That's most people, they're the majority.
>
>Back at the rich end there's a tiny minority with truly monstrous 
>eco-footprints, but, persons or not, they're not human at all.

Best

Keith


>On 5/15/2011 6:56 AM, Chip Mefford wrote:
>>  Interesting discussion;
>>  I've heard it postulated that having a significant prefrontal 
>>cortex allows us
>>  humans to -if we work really really hard at it- achieve something that isn't
>>  pure evil. That said, we -as a species- don't really like to use 
>>our prefrontal
>>  cortex all that much. We prefer to act based on emotion, action<->re-action.
>>  That's much easier. We have a pretty strong evolutionary precedent 
>>for acting
>>  on what serves us in the short term, the long term nearly always can only be
>>  considered to beneficial to others, not us, not directly.
>
>  You're underscoring my point.  Just because we HAVE intelligence
>and the ability to judge the long-term consequences of what we do
>doesn't mean we will chose to act in the long-term best interest of our
>species.  I think, however, that even the most secular evolutionist
>would argue that altruism and cooperation have individual survival
>benefits.  I've read essays and books from die-hard materialist
>scientists, who (unlike me) do not believe in God, and yet conclude that
>evolutionary pressures have resulted in the development of traits, like
>sharing and labor division, that benefit the whole species precisely
>because the odds of individual survival are greater in a cooperative,
>social order.
>
>  Perhaps this is wishful thinking.  Or, maybe they're on to
>something.  We are not terribly strong, nor fast, and without a big
>brain it's hard to imagine how we could have survived for long in a
>world filled with fierce predators and effective competition.
>>  But what about yeast? How intelligent is yeast? Are there yeast 
>>cells that become
>>  aware of the walls of the petri dish? Do they tell their neighbors? Do the
>>  neighbors shout them down, calling them unpatriotic, traitors, 
>>communists, etc?
>>
>>  No, yeast cells probably don't ever become aware of the walls of 
>>the petri dish,
>  > probably never become aware of the depletion of the agar. But 
>then again, neither
>>  do we.
>
>  Oh, but there is historical precedent for societies surviving in
>environments where others failed to thrive.  China has experienced
>better than 40 centuries of continuous habitation.  The Inuit survived
>in Greenland where the Greenland Norse did not.  How did the aboriginal
>peoples of the North American desert southwest manage to eek out a
>living when the Anasazi could not?  (Jared Diamond wrote a compelling
>book on this topic entitled "Collapse.") In essence, the survivors made
>choices that harmonized with the environment, and this permitted their
>social order to continue.  We can go WAY back into the earliest reaches
>of human history on earth, where we find people who lived in what is now
>South Africa changing their diet and lifestyle to accommodate climate
>changes that wiped out other ea

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[Joe Street]

We are trying to draw a correlation between intelligence and survival 
but first we should ask the question whether the two necessarily should 
have a correlation.  Does high intelligence imply enhanced survival 
ability? Should we make this assumption? Have a look at species which 
have existed for long periods of time without substantial mutation in 
form.  We have already stated that birds are considered highly 
intelligent but what about sharks?  Reptiles? Amphibians? And while on 
that point, about what you said Chris about the whales: giving up a lot 
- surely you meant it was giving up a lot to choose to remain on land? 
There is more water and more life in the water than the reverse on this 
planet.

Also what about the land based civilizations in our past?  If we are 
going to talk about survival and hence sustainability lets look at the 
longevity of different approaches that have been tried. How about the 
highly technological civilizations? They lasted in the hundreds of 
years.  A thousand for Byzantium. Three times that for Egypt. Now 
contrast that with peoples who lived much more in harmony with nature.  
Europeans came here with all their superior intelligence and world 
dominating nature subduing technology and destroyed the way of life of 
my ancestors who lived sustainably here for at least 10,000 years.  
Their legacy is rapidly destroying everything needed for sustainable 
survival. Who was more intelligent then if we are going to quantify 
intelligence in terms of survival rate? You are right wisdom and 
intelligence are two entirely different things and we really need 
wisdom.  What is that sayingsomething like 'wisdom comes from 
experience and experience comes from inexperience'.  Well that saying 
leaves out the possibility of learning from other than experience.  
There are a small percentage of people who can be taught and can learn 
the lessons learned by others and not have to make the same mistakes 
themselves in order to gain the wisdom.  Perhaps these are the most 
intelligent of all? But aside from this academic question, it seems 
clear that those who live in accord with nature appear to have the 
advantage in longevity while those who try to dominate, manipulate and 
subdue nature undo themselves.  From that perspective it would seem that 
the proposal that our frontal cortex is a deadly mutation holds a lot of 
water. Maybe Robert, this is what is alluded to in all the variants of 
scripture which admonish us that life is some kind of proving ground 
where we are given the ability to choose and therefore the 
responsibility for the consequences of that freedom? Maybe judgment day 
is in every moment, not just at the end, and the ideas of heaven and 
hell are metaphors for how this life can be manifested right now, 
according to how we choose. Is this where ethics ties in with concepts 
like intelligence and free will? I think I just hurt my frontal cortex. 
Hey, maybe that will help me survive!

Joe

On 14/05/2011 1:23 AM, Chris Burck wrote:
> some define intelligence as the ability to comprehend; or to compute.  to
> "grok".
>
> others like to define it as the ability to think adaptively, i.e. to learn
> from experience.
>
> those are probably the two most common uses of the word.  people don't
> usually think of intelligence in terms of morality.  which is why
> discussions such as this can get thorny.  it's hard to keep questions of
> morality out of a discussion about raw survival;  not just our own but,
> conceivably that of all life as we know it.
>
> it's very popular (and convenient, for the agenda-setters) to trumpet human
> intelligence and ingenuity, and leave wisdom (i began writing this last
> night, so i've been preempted by your contribution, robert) out of the
> discussion entirely.  it's truly remarkable, though IMO no accident, how
> truly rarely you hear the word "wisdom" used nowadays, in almost any
> context.
>
> in any case, the question of wisdom puts chomsky's proposition in an
> entirely different light.  is it about sheer brain size?  or the kind of
> brain?  the homo sapiens brain is not the largest.  it seems whales and
> porpoises (or many of them, at least), have bigger brains than us.  and i've
> read somewhere that neanderthals, also, may have had more brain than we do.
>
> the nature/natural history programs on television like to point out that
> their brains "must have" been (read "we need to believe that they were")
> less evolved.  because the art and tools they left behind indicate this.
> perhaps.  but, even supposing this, does this mean they were less happy?
> less fulfilled?
>
> we know that they coexisted with humans for a time.  when it was proposed,
> based on some remains that were found, that homo sapiens and neanderthals
> interbred, there were a few who accepted the proposition as worthy of
> further investigation.  but many more who categorically rejected it.
>
> the "nays" have since been proven wrong by genetic ana

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[robert and benita rabello]

On 5/15/2011 6:56 AM, Chip Mefford wrote:
> Interesting discussion;
> I've heard it postulated that having a significant prefrontal cortex allows us
> humans to -if we work really really hard at it- achieve something that isn't
> pure evil. That said, we -as a species- don't really like to use our 
> prefrontal
> cortex all that much. We prefer to act based on emotion, action<->re-action.
> That's much easier. We have a pretty strong evolutionary precedent for acting
> on what serves us in the short term, the long term nearly always can only be
> considered to beneficial to others, not us, not directly.

 You're underscoring my point.  Just because we HAVE intelligence 
and the ability to judge the long-term consequences of what we do 
doesn't mean we will chose to act in the long-term best interest of our 
species.  I think, however, that even the most secular evolutionist 
would argue that altruism and cooperation have individual survival 
benefits.  I've read essays and books from die-hard materialist 
scientists, who (unlike me) do not believe in God, and yet conclude that 
evolutionary pressures have resulted in the development of traits, like 
sharing and labor division, that benefit the whole species precisely 
because the odds of individual survival are greater in a cooperative, 
social order.

 Perhaps this is wishful thinking.  Or, maybe they're on to 
something.  We are not terribly strong, nor fast, and without a big 
brain it's hard to imagine how we could have survived for long in a 
world filled with fierce predators and effective competition.
> But what about yeast? How intelligent is yeast? Are there yeast cells that 
> become
> aware of the walls of the petri dish? Do they tell their neighbors? Do the
> neighbors shout them down, calling them unpatriotic, traitors, communists, 
> etc?
>
> No, yeast cells probably don't ever become aware of the walls of the petri 
> dish,
> probably never become aware of the depletion of the agar. But then again, 
> neither
> do we.

 Oh, but there is historical precedent for societies surviving in 
environments where others failed to thrive.  China has experienced 
better than 40 centuries of continuous habitation.  The Inuit survived 
in Greenland where the Greenland Norse did not.  How did the aboriginal 
peoples of the North American desert southwest manage to eek out a 
living when the Anasazi could not?  (Jared Diamond wrote a compelling 
book on this topic entitled "Collapse.") In essence, the survivors made 
choices that harmonized with the environment, and this permitted their 
social order to continue.  We can go WAY back into the earliest reaches 
of human history on earth, where we find people who lived in what is now 
South Africa changing their diet and lifestyle to accommodate climate 
changes that wiped out other early humans.  In all cases, people who 
made intelligent decisions to live within the limits of the ecosystem 
survived.

 Why can't we do the same?
> So, as an experiment goes, this is a pretty good one, and the empirical 
> results are
> pretty telling.
>
> Intelligence? Where?
>

 I keep waiting for Keith to jump in, as he is far more optimistic 
about human nature than I.  Having written this, I don't believe for a 
moment that we're doomed to extinction because we're smart.  Our current 
social organization is not sustainable, but those of us who KNOW that 
and adapt well to the changes are more likely to survive than those who 
do not.  My heart goes out to the poor, who have little flexibility, and 
the powerless, who are easily exploited by the powerful, yet those poor 
and powerless may be the ones who laugh on the day when the wealthy and 
powerful see their world crumble around them.  I've read somewhere that 
the meek will inherit the earth . . .

 :)

robert luis rabello
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca

Crisis video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZedNEXhTn4

The Long Journey video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy4muxaksgk


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[Chip Mefford]

Interesting discussion;
I've heard it postulated that having a significant prefrontal cortex allows us
humans to -if we work really really hard at it- achieve something that isn't
pure evil. That said, we -as a species- don't really like to use our prefrontal
cortex all that much. We prefer to act based on emotion, action<->re-action.
That's much easier. We have a pretty strong evolutionary precedent for acting
on what serves us in the short term, the long term nearly always can only be
considered to beneficial to others, not us, not directly.

But what about yeast? How intelligent is yeast? Are there yeast cells that 
become
aware of the walls of the petri dish? Do they tell their neighbors? Do the
neighbors shout them down, calling them unpatriotic, traitors, communists, etc?

No, yeast cells probably don't ever become aware of the walls of the petri 
dish, 
probably never become aware of the depletion of the agar. But then again, 
neither
do we. 

So, as an experiment goes, this is a pretty good one, and the empirical results 
are
pretty telling. 

Intelligence? Where? 


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[robert and benita rabello]

On 5/13/2011 10:23 PM, Chris Burck wrote:
> some define intelligence as the ability to comprehend; or to compute.  to
> "grok".
>
> others like to define it as the ability to think adaptively, i.e. to learn
> from experience.
>
> those are probably the two most common uses of the word.  people don't
> usually think of intelligence in terms of morality.  which is why
> discussions such as this can get thorny.  it's hard to keep questions of
> morality out of a discussion about raw survival;  not just our own but,
> conceivably that of all life as we know it.

 Yet this is precisely where defining moral conduct is crucial.  I 
have heard ignorant, church-going people suggest that because God gave 
humanity a mandate to "fill the earth and subdue it" in Genesis 1:28, 
that means we have a right to do with the earth whatever we please.  
This concept not only violates the literal meaning of the Hebrew wording 
(which is better translated as "be stewards over," rather than 
"subdue"), it ignores many other verses which admonish people to care 
for animals with kindness and tend the land so that it becomes 
fruitful.  This cuts to the core of motive.  Why would people justify 
environmental degradation using the Bible if our actions toward the 
earth had no moral context?  They do that to shield themselves behind 
the moral authority of the scriptures, which is precisely what Ezekiel 
complained about with reference to his nation's spiritual and temporal 
leadership, so long ago.

 If God created life, then life should be sacred and respected.  
Often, the same people who object to abortion on these grounds think 
nothing of polluting the planet on which the rest of the world's living 
creatures depend.  Whenever we degrade the natural capital that sustains 
life, we are not alone in reaping the consequences.  Simply stated, we 
share the earth with other living things.  For that reason, 
environmental consciousness and morality are inextricably linked.  
Besides, if we ARE so exceptionally brilliant, doesn't that gift carry 
with it a responsibility to use our intellectual capacity with wisdom?  
How can we separate the two?

 I can't help but see this from a western perspective.  It would be 
helpful to broaden my understanding if some list members from the 
eastern part of the world would participate in this discussion.
> it's very popular (and convenient, for the agenda-setters) to trumpet human
> intelligence and ingenuity, and leave wisdom (i began writing this last
> night, so i've been preempted by your contribution, robert) out of the
> discussion entirely.  it's truly remarkable, though IMO no accident, how
> truly rarely you hear the word "wisdom" used nowadays, in almost any
> context.

 How true!  Wisdom means I have to constrain my desire and learn to 
be content with my possessions.  Our economic system absolutely depends 
on dissatisfaction and unbridled lust for more stuff.  Therefore, 
ignoring wisdom is part of what the agenda-setters (I like that term, 
Chris!) must do in order to perpetuate the current social order.

> in any case, the question of wisdom puts chomsky's proposition in an
> entirely different light.  is it about sheer brain size?  or the kind of
> brain?  the homo sapiens brain is not the largest.  it seems whales and
> porpoises (or many of them, at least), have bigger brains than us.  and i've
> read somewhere that neanderthals, also, may have had more brain than we do.

 Yeah, I've read that, too.  However, I have a psychologist friend 
who likes to say: "The size of the bucket is less important than what's 
in it."  I'm sure you've met your share of large-headed people who were 
less than stellar in the intellect department.  Likewise, I've taught 
children who were certainly smaller, but much smarter than me.  Size is 
an inadequate measure of cognitive capacity.
> the nature/natural history programs on television like to point out that
> their brains "must have" been (read "we need to believe that they were")
> less evolved.  because the art and tools they left behind indicate this.
> perhaps.  but, even supposing this, does this mean they were less happy?
> less fulfilled?
>
> we know that they coexisted with humans for a time.  when it was proposed,
> based on some remains that were found, that homo sapiens and neanderthals
> interbred, there were a few who accepted the proposition as worthy of
> further investigation.  but many more who categorically rejected it.

 We have a real problem when it comes to presuming our own 
exceptionalism, and that often leads us to discount the intelligence of 
other creatures.  One of my cats can open a bi-fold door.  She is pretty 
adept at problem solving--dealing with problems that a cat needs to 
solve--using the tools she has available to her.  I've seen the same 
kind of thing in birds, who are far more clever than most of us credit them.

> the "nays" have since been proven wrong by genetic analysis.  b

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[Chris Burck]

some define intelligence as the ability to comprehend; or to compute.  to
"grok".

others like to define it as the ability to think adaptively, i.e. to learn
from experience.

those are probably the two most common uses of the word.  people don't
usually think of intelligence in terms of morality.  which is why
discussions such as this can get thorny.  it's hard to keep questions of
morality out of a discussion about raw survival;  not just our own but,
conceivably that of all life as we know it.

it's very popular (and convenient, for the agenda-setters) to trumpet human
intelligence and ingenuity, and leave wisdom (i began writing this last
night, so i've been preempted by your contribution, robert) out of the
discussion entirely.  it's truly remarkable, though IMO no accident, how
truly rarely you hear the word "wisdom" used nowadays, in almost any
context.

in any case, the question of wisdom puts chomsky's proposition in an
entirely different light.  is it about sheer brain size?  or the kind of
brain?  the homo sapiens brain is not the largest.  it seems whales and
porpoises (or many of them, at least), have bigger brains than us.  and i've
read somewhere that neanderthals, also, may have had more brain than we do.

the nature/natural history programs on television like to point out that
their brains "must have" been (read "we need to believe that they were")
less evolved.  because the art and tools they left behind indicate this.
perhaps.  but, even supposing this, does this mean they were less happy?
less fulfilled?

we know that they coexisted with humans for a time.  when it was proposed,
based on some remains that were found, that homo sapiens and neanderthals
interbred, there were a few who accepted the proposition as worthy of
further investigation.  but many more who categorically rejected it.

the "nays" have since been proven wrong by genetic analysis.  but the
immediacy and vehemence of their rejection of the idea was noteworthy.
clearly motivated by a pro-human bias.  they couldn't imagine themselves
intermingling with an "inferior race", so why would early humans have done
so?  yet a few, at least, obviously did.  maybe that's why we killed them
off, you know?  the oldest story in the book.  "them so-and-so's is stealin'
our women!  we ain't gonna stand fer that!!"

seriously, though.  interbreeding happened.  but not often:  how do we know
it wasn't they who scorned us?

then there's the whales.  we know their ancestors were land dwellers.   in
other words, sea creatures gave rise to land creatures, and some of them
chose to return to the sea.
why would they do that?  this is a serious question.  after all, you're
giving up an awful lot.

think about it.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110514/3c238927/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[robert and benita rabello]

On 5/13/2011 7:33 AM, Joe Street wrote:
> I think essential to your question is that there is confusion about the
> definition of intelligence.  What does it mean?  And should we assume
> that a consequence of what we define as intelligence precludes the
> possibility of self destruction?  Perhaps our definitions are not good
> enough or maybe you are disturbed because you are just more highly
> evolved and you see a different set of incentives than the average slob?
 First of all, after reading my post I've become concerned that it 
came across a bit arrogantly.  I'd like to apologize to the list for 
that.  It's not my intention to flaunt anything.  I'm just trying to 
wrap my mind around the construct that we represent another evolutionary 
dead-end, and that having a big brain dooms us to destruction.

 You bring up an excellent point about defining intelligence.  There 
is a difference between being smart and being wise, and arguably--among 
people of equal intellectual capacity--wisdom confers an advantage.  I 
like to say: "Wisdom is the fair daughter of pain," because moderating 
personal behavior is central to how we define morality, and we often 
learn to do this after going through bad experiences.  The only 
difference between self-destruction and self-sacrifice involves motive, 
and that's a discussion that could occupy its own thread.

 It's clear to me that most people simply don't grasp the imminent 
peril we face.  Record numbers of tornadoes, lingering drought and 
massive flooding have no impact on their behavior because they either 
don't want to make the connections between our profligate, wasteful 
lifestyle and climate; or the relationship is too complex for them to 
understand.  That speaks directly to the issue of intelligence.  If 
people are smart enough to see the danger, yet keep behaving in a manner 
that leads to wide-scale death, we can rightly question their morality.  
If they're NOT smart enough to foresee danger, then it's unreasonable 
for anyone who can to hold the masses accountable.
> You are capable of choosing a more difficult road or perhaps a less
> immediately gratifying one in exchange for a much larger and more
> profound goal.  Some of us feel very disturbed in the developed world
> because it appears the majority here don't seem to be capable of taking
> that road. Perhaps we should define intelligence in terms of where a
> person is willing to make these tradeoffs.(?)  Look at the article in
> the recent post about Japanese society.  Between the lines is a
> comentary about how individuals from the lowliest worker to the highest
> executive chose to defer or ignore some aspect of personal integrity in
> exchange for a personal incentive. In this case unswerving loyalty in
> exchange for security and reward. And now we see the result. A much
> larger threat which was unconsidered. Intelligent? There are so many
> manifestations of the same thing in so many different sociopolitical and
> socioeconomic contexts.

 From a strictly behaviorist point of view, that article makes 
perfect sense.  I don't wish to diminish the impact of social 
conditioning, as our entire frame of reference is formed by neural 
connections either nurtured or trimmed by socialization, especially in 
early childhood, when we lack the sophistication to question societal 
values.  But behaviorism fails to adequately explain the concept of free 
will.  I am an American, and I see the world through an American frame 
of reference, yet I can choose to either support or oppose whatever 
construct the larger society tries to impose.  Just like in 
Japan--though perhaps to a lesser degree--there are serious consequences 
for defying the larger trends of my culture.  However, I am certainly 
not a slave to my nation's social order.

>   I find it so ironic that people like you and me
> and many here on this list live in a state of conflict with this
> dichotomy.  We are deeply ambivalent about being in a minority.  We
> enjoy living in a prosperous condition, a circumstance of a global
> minority,  and simultaneously rail amidst a majority of zombies in our
> own society.  Is it because of your intelligence or your spiritual
> evolution that you wish to brake the train before it runs off the cliff?
> Is there a difference? Will we ever know? Do we even need to have an
> answer for that?

 It's an interesting topic to discuss, but does it change anything?  
I'm responding to Mr. Chomsky's thesis that intelligence will be our 
downfall.  I don't believe that's the problem.  Keith likes to point out 
that our success as a species has come about largely because we 
cooperate with one another.  From an anthropological perspective, the 
division of labor enabled more efficient exploitation of resources.  
 From an evolutionary standpoint, intelligence enabled sophisticated 
communication.  These two form the foundation for every society that has 
developed on earth, and a lot of g

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[Joe Street]

I think essential to your question is that there is confusion about the 
definition of intelligence.  What does it mean?  And should we assume 
that a consequence of what we define as intelligence precludes the 
possibility of self destruction?  Perhaps our definitions are not good 
enough or maybe you are disturbed because you are just more highly 
evolved and you see a different set of incentives than the average slob? 
You are capable of choosing a more difficult road or perhaps a less 
immediately gratifying one in exchange for a much larger and more 
profound goal.  Some of us feel very disturbed in the developed world 
because it appears the majority here don't seem to be capable of taking 
that road. Perhaps we should define intelligence in terms of where a 
person is willing to make these tradeoffs.(?)  Look at the article in 
the recent post about Japanese society.  Between the lines is a 
comentary about how individuals from the lowliest worker to the highest 
executive chose to defer or ignore some aspect of personal integrity in 
exchange for a personal incentive. In this case unswerving loyalty in 
exchange for security and reward. And now we see the result. A much 
larger threat which was unconsidered. Intelligent? There are so many 
manifestations of the same thing in so many different sociopolitical and 
socioeconomic contexts. I find it so ironic that people like you and me 
and many here on this list live in a state of conflict with this 
dichotomy.  We are deeply ambivalent about being in a minority.  We 
enjoy living in a prosperous condition, a circumstance of a global 
minority,  and simultaneously rail amidst a majority of zombies in our 
own society.  Is it because of your intelligence or your spiritual 
evolution that you wish to brake the train before it runs off the cliff? 
Is there a difference? Will we ever know? Do we even need to have an 
answer for that?
  What if these ideals we strive for are themselves just artifacts of an 
overlarge brain mass? An evolutionary cul de sac. Mu.


Joe



On 12/05/2011 8:18 PM, robert and benita rabello wrote:
> On 5/11/2011 11:24 AM, Keith Addison wrote:
>> With the environmental crisis, we're now in a situation where we can
>> decide whether Mayr was right or not. If nothing significant is done
>> about it, and pretty quickly, then he will have been correct: human
>> intelligence is indeed a lethal mutation. Maybe some humans will
>> survive, but it will be scattered and nothing like a decent
>> existence, and we'll take a lot of the rest of the living world along
>> with us.
>   This point presumes that intelligence lies at the root of our
> environmental problems.  Unlike other creatures, we don't lack for
> understanding of the problems we face, nor do we struggle to define
> solutions.  Yet, in a supposedly well-educated society, people wear
> ignorance like some badge of honor.  Just today a "patriotic American"
> posted THIS in a different forum:
>
>   "The real problem is Taxes, Traitors, and Invaders. The purpose
> of taxes is to reduce what is taxed.  Gee... they started with products,
> then us, now every American.  Yet they don't tax illegals.  Guess we
> know what they DO want. Hmmm?"
>
>   Bald-faced and racist vitriol of this kind gets flung like ape scat
> against anyone who dares suggest that fundamental change to our economic
> system is necessary because our current model threatens the
> environment.  (I have pale skin, and nobody would say such a thing to me
> in person.  But my name evokes a visceral and very ugly response among a
> certain crowd who have never seen me.)  If the racism card doesn't work,
> the next layer is hatred of all things "progressive."  (That's the
> "traitors" part.)  Beneath that lies fear of intelligence and education,
> a la Glen Beck.  If that doesn't work, religion is the last bastion for
> the ignorant.  Even a devout person like me feels exasperated by what I
> hear in church every week.
>
>   So, is the problem really intelligence, or is it stupidity?
>
> 
>> It's particularly interesting to take a look at the people who are
>> running these campaigns, say, the CEOs of big corporations. They know
>> as well as you and I do that it's very real and that the threats are
>> very dire, and that they're threatening the lives of their
>> grandchildren. In fact, they're threatening what they own, they own
>> the world, and they're threatening its survival. Which seems
>> irrational, and it is, from a certain perspective. But from another
>> perspective it's highly rational. They're acting within the structure
>> of the institutions of which they are a part.
>   This is intelligent?  We designed the economic system.  We can
> design whatever economic system we desire.  Protagorus said this a LONG
> time ago: "Man is the measure of all things."  (Uh oh, my education is
> showing . . .  Bad me!)  I'm confident this is true, and that we COULD
> create an economic model that i

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[robert and benita rabello]

On 5/11/2011 11:24 AM, Keith Addison wrote:
> With the environmental crisis, we're now in a situation where we can
> decide whether Mayr was right or not. If nothing significant is done
> about it, and pretty quickly, then he will have been correct: human
> intelligence is indeed a lethal mutation. Maybe some humans will
> survive, but it will be scattered and nothing like a decent
> existence, and we'll take a lot of the rest of the living world along
> with us.

 This point presumes that intelligence lies at the root of our 
environmental problems.  Unlike other creatures, we don't lack for 
understanding of the problems we face, nor do we struggle to define 
solutions.  Yet, in a supposedly well-educated society, people wear 
ignorance like some badge of honor.  Just today a "patriotic American" 
posted THIS in a different forum:

 "The real problem is Taxes, Traitors, and Invaders. The purpose 
of taxes is to reduce what is taxed.  Gee... they started with products, 
then us, now every American.  Yet they don't tax illegals.  Guess we 
know what they DO want. Hmmm?"

 Bald-faced and racist vitriol of this kind gets flung like ape scat 
against anyone who dares suggest that fundamental change to our economic 
system is necessary because our current model threatens the 
environment.  (I have pale skin, and nobody would say such a thing to me 
in person.  But my name evokes a visceral and very ugly response among a 
certain crowd who have never seen me.)  If the racism card doesn't work, 
the next layer is hatred of all things "progressive."  (That's the 
"traitors" part.)  Beneath that lies fear of intelligence and education, 
a la Glen Beck.  If that doesn't work, religion is the last bastion for 
the ignorant.  Even a devout person like me feels exasperated by what I 
hear in church every week.

 So, is the problem really intelligence, or is it stupidity?


> It's particularly interesting to take a look at the people who are
> running these campaigns, say, the CEOs of big corporations. They know
> as well as you and I do that it's very real and that the threats are
> very dire, and that they're threatening the lives of their
> grandchildren. In fact, they're threatening what they own, they own
> the world, and they're threatening its survival. Which seems
> irrational, and it is, from a certain perspective. But from another
> perspective it's highly rational. They're acting within the structure
> of the institutions of which they are a part.
 This is intelligent?  We designed the economic system.  We can 
design whatever economic system we desire.  Protagorus said this a LONG 
time ago: "Man is the measure of all things."  (Uh oh, my education is 
showing . . .  Bad me!)  I'm confident this is true, and that we COULD 
create an economic model that is equitable and gentle on the earth.  But 
that would mean we'd have to give up our sense of entitlement to wasting 
our resources.  We're too worried that our brothers and sisters in other 
parts of the world will get what we think we deserve, so we compete with 
one another for the last scraps on the table.  Being a bully is very 
effective in the short term . . .




> Meanwhile, the role of finance in the economy has exploded. The share
> of corporate profit by financial institutions has just zoomed since
> the 1970s. Kind of a corollary of that is the hollowing out of
> industrial production, sending it abroad. This all happened under the
> impact of a kind of fanatic religious ideology called economics-and
> that's not a joke-based on hypotheses that have no theoretical
> grounds and no empirical support but are very attractive because you
> can prove theorems if you adopt them: the efficient market
> hypothesis, rational expectations hypothesis, and so on. The spread
> of these ideologies, which is very attractive to concentrated wealth
> and privilege, hence their success, was epitomized in Alan Greenspan,
> who at least had the decency to say it was all wrong when it
> collapsed. I don't think there has ever been a collapse of an
> intellectual edifice comparable to this, maybe, in history, at least
> I can't remember one. Interestingly, it has no effect. It just
> continues. Which tells you that it's serviceable to power systems.

 But doesn't this also call into question the intelligence of the 
rest of us who keep going along with this nonsense?  Before all of this 
started, I was complaining about unintended consequences, arguing with 
my stock-broker sister that unlimited growth is IMPOSSIBLE on a finite 
planet, but she--and apparently most of everyone else--simply didn't 
comprehend the problem.  Now, I've always known that my eldest sister 
isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer.  I wonder if there's a 
certain threshold below which intelligence offers little advantage.  
Sometimes, two standard deviations from the norm feels like the distance 
across the Grand Canyon.

 In fact, the intellectual edifi