Solar System vs. deep-sky

"Trane Francks" wrote:
Judson McClendon wrote:

Considering some 6 billion people are currently living here, and most
of the difficulties people have in living as they wish are political, not
environmental, it is far from certain that you have any real evidence
to support your claim. 'Using' something does not necessarily mean

Living as one wishes generally does not involve even a hint of
living in harmony with nature. We destroy and "conquer,"
seemingly oblivious of the consequences of our actions. Such
destruction is happily shared among the names of the likes of
politics, industry, religion and convenience. It knows no bounds;
mankind's wanton destruction of our planet is the definitive truism.

Define 'destruction'. In your terms, it means that, bottom line, man has
changed the world from what it was. Your a prori assumption, which
you are obviously unaware of, is that this somehow constitutes
something we don't/should not want.

'ruining' it. Change does not necessarily mean 'ruining', either. When
the raw materials for the computer you used to post your message were
taken from the earth and formed into your computer, was that 'ruining'
them? To come to the views you and others have espoused here, one

You stop somewhat short of the mark, I'm afraid. The working of
said materials generally goes hand in hand with ecological damage
and destruction.

Really? Then why are you assuming change is 'damage'? ;-)

has to have made the a priori assumption: that the planet 'raw' as we
found it is somehow 'better' than it is when conformed for man's use.

I stated that "If you think mankind hasn't messed up THIS planet,
I suggest you open your eyes WIDE." Just where was a discussion
of "raw is better" entered?

You're still refusing to examine your definintion of 'messed up'.

Why is man's use less 'good' than a warthog's use? Can a warthog or

I did not discuss good, bad, right or wrong. I stated that we'd
messed up the planet.

Ahem. So, then why should we avoid what you call 'ecological damage',
if it is 'good'? See, you are assuming it is 'bad'. Thus, we discuss 'bad'
and 'good'. Why is this so difficult for you? Why would we welcome
or avoid anything, unless we apply some sort of judgment that it is either
'good' or 'bad', or some combination, at least for us?

spotted owl gaze at the stars through a telescope made from materials
taken from the earth and wonder at the vastness and complexity of this
amazing and wonderful universe? You should realize that you are

Cute, but germane to nothing whatsoever other than to prove that
you consider yourself superior to our animal brethren. Or should
I say my animal brethren. Perhaps they're not your brethren, mmmm?

Didn't say I/we are superior. No, animals are not my 'bretheren'. You
can better speak for yourself, of course. ;-)

taking what amount to personal feelings and attributing them with
some kind of 'truth' that simply does not exist. This is more than quaint

Have you never stood at the spill site of an industrial outlet
and seen the dead fish floating in crud-filled water? Have you
never bothered to check the temperature of a river above and
below a hydro-electric dam and ponder the ecological consequences
of the difference? Have you never seen the top of an entire hill
strip-mined away and wondered what life was disrupted? Have you
never wondered about Chernobyl? Three-Mile Island? Have you not
considered the ramifications of living fast and loose with the
resources from which we were spawned? Do you think that an FDA
warning for pregnant women to avoid fish really just applies to
/pregnant women/? Do you believe that increasing PCB levels in
the beef that folks cook will not have ill effects? Do you think
that having some 85% of Japan's natural forests replanted with
cedar won't have serious effects here? How about the water table
problems we're seeing as a result of 90% of the rivers here being
cemented into spillways?

So? I pointed out that mankind is sometimes unwise in our actions.
But you are taking it to another level altogether, by assigning some
sort of 'cosmic evil' to the fact that man molds his environment to
suit himself. Just because people are sometimes greedy, selfish and
even malevalent, does not mean that all mandkind's acts are that.
You have so ingrained the image that animals have some sort of
'right' to the earth, you are not even aware that this is an assumption,
a personal opinion, not based in any objective fact. It is this very
thing that has led to so many 'well meaning' horrible acts that man
has fostered upon man, some of which you allude to above. Just
because you think something is true does not make it true.

I avoid rose-coloured 'truths'. Ecological atrocities abound.
Pooh-pooh them at our peril.

Au contraire. What I pooh-pooh is your muddy perception of what
constitutes bad and good.

and provincial, it is ill founded and shows a serious lack of perception
and balance. Unfortunately, the very fact that those espousing such
views of necessity had to have been confused in their thinking to have
adopted them, is ample evidence they will not be able to see the error,
even after it has been pointed out to them. Sigh.

A lack of perception and balance is, indeed, the problem. I do,
not-so-humbly, submit that the lack of perception and balance not
lay with me, sir. In fact, that entire quoted passage applies
very nicely to people who refuse to acknowledge that there are
ecological problems of our making. The planet's a mess and we are
to blame.

You know, there was much furor over a DDT plant in Alabama. In
the environment near the plant, DDT permeated almost everything,
including mother's milk. Millions of dollars were spent trying to
clean it up. Finally, the CDC did an exhaustive analysis of the health
patterns in the area. They could not find a single indicator that the
people living there were any less healthy than anywhere else. There
is a place about six or eight blocks square in Guntersville, Alabama
where the rate of cancer is some 10 times greater than surrounding
areas. The CDC did another exhaustive study there, and found not
one single environmental factor for the phenomenon. In the US there
were billions of dollars spent to remove asbestos from all buildings.
Now, even the EPA admits it was a disaster, and the asbestos
should have been left where it was. Two years after Exxon Valdes,
they had the largest salmon catch in their history. My point? We do
not know enough to unerringly discern if something is even bad or
good for the environment, and certainly not enough to know with
certainty the ultimate effects of everything we do on the environment.

Are there places where strip mines and other activities have caused
harm? Certainly. But progress *ALWAYS* comes at a price. Quit
bitching about the fact that you can't make an omlet without breaking
eggs, do what you can to make things better, and live your life, for
goodness' sake. And stop this paranoid "man is ruining/has ruined
everything" the-sky-is-falling Chicken Little nonsense. You've done
stupid destructive things in your life, and so has everyone else. So
has mankind. It's part of the proccess of living. Get used to it.

So, go ahead and sigh. In the meantime, I'll try to teach my kids
to know their place in the universe and to live as responsibly as

And what place is that? On what absolute principles do you found
the things you will teach them, hum? Oh, principles are relative?
Fine, then realize they are YOUR principles. I said this was about
making personal opinion into 'cosmic truth', didn't I?

possible. Oh, and speaking of awe and vastness, nothing could
possibly evoke those feelings more than truly grokking the
ripples cast out by the rock of an action. Admiring the
resilience of life and its ability to adapt is one thing, but
recognizing the sheer delicacy of the entire weave that is life

You don't have a clue about how 'delicate' life is or is not. Man
does not have the intelligence or information to know that. We can
only observe and learn. When we screw up, we do our best to fix
it. There is no 'place in the universe' there.

is significant. The greatest lesson learned, however, is to know
well the interdependence of all things on this planet. An event
does not happen without all things being affected. The greatest
folly of mankind is the belief that it somehow stands apart from
that interconnectedness. It is a tragedy of ignorance lief to
tryst with man's ego.

Consider:

A) If mankind was not created by God, and got here through entirely
physical processes, then mankind has just as much 'right' to use the
earth as any other living organism. In fact, the terms 'right' and 'wrong'
are meaningless, for we are simply another manifestation of physical

I'll interrupt you there. You're the one making it a moral issue.

No, it is you who fails to see that value judgments ARE a moral issue.
If not, then where do we get the idea that murder is bad, to be avoided
and punished? Or that, in your words, "trashing the environment" is a
bad thing? Those ARE moral judgments.

You're the one making it potentially a religious issue.

Moral judgments always come down to religion, whether that religion
be Secular Humanism or Christianity. A person's religion and worldview
are intimately connected. You cannot separate the two and make any
sense of human values.

Get with
the plan, Judson. This isn't about a moral or religious
good/bad/right/wrong, it's about understanding our place in the
food chain and not destroying that which sustains us.

Oh, so it is about 'us' after all? Fine, you're learning. We should deal
with our environment wisely because it is the SMART thing to do.
It is also the 'moral' thing to do, by most measures of morality. But
don't do it because of some wacky idea that an opossum is your
'brethren', or that man has no 'right' to use and mold his environment.

Your response more than amply demonstrates my thesis. :-)
--
Judson McClendon (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

"Tony Flanders" wrote:

In fact, the Moon is right next door -- you could walk
there if there was a good road.

Hummm. At 4 mph that's some 62,000 hours, 1,550 weeks at 40 hr/week,
31 years at 50 weeks/year. Some walk. :-)
--
Judson McClendon (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

I see three reasons to view an object; beauty, interest and gee-whiz.
Many astronomical objects are astonishingly beautiful. Also many of
them are very interesting from an intellectual viewpoint. Seeing Pluto
or splitting difficult doubles seem more gee-whiz, just being able to
do it is the point. Of course, many objects are beautiful, interesting
and gee-whiz. You can find objects in the solar system or deep space
that fit any or all of those. I like it all. :-)

When I look at some of the Hubble images, such as the PRC96-01deep
field, I am almost overcome by a sense of awe. The mind simply
boggles at the vastness of the universe. At least we're not likely to run
out of stuff to look at. :-)
--
Judson McClendon (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

On 11/29/03 04:15 +0900, Judson McClendon wrote:

"Trane Francks" wrote:

politics, industry, religion and convenience. It knows no bounds;
mankind's wanton destruction of our planet is the definitive truism.
=20
Define 'destruction'. In your terms, it means that, bottom line, man ha=
s
changed the world from what it was. Your a prori assumption, which
you are obviously unaware of, is that this somehow constitutes
something we don't/should not want.

Destruction, n. The act of destroying or state of being=20
destroyed; ruin; death.

Before you quip "define destroy" or whatever, I suggest that=20
Clintonisms are best avoided. The dress is a mess and it needs to=20
be cleaned.

My reasoning is based on direct observation. Your replies would=20
not seem to follow the same tack. Two words: non sequitur.=20
Destroying a habitat is not something that we should want.=20
Changing a habitat in non-destructive fashion may be fine, but I=20
would first want to consider the benefits of the change. When it=20
comes to nature, I tend to think that hands-off is best. You will=20
undoubtedly disagree with me, but, IMO, when man touches nature,=20
man tends to damage it. Where man goes, extinction follows. Our=20
species is a marvel of intelligence with a tragic lack of wisdom.

You stop somewhat short of the mark, I'm afraid. The working of
said materials generally goes hand in hand with ecological damage
and destruction.
=20
Really? Then why are you assuming change is 'damage'? ;-)

Of course, change is not synonymous with damage, but neither is=20
it synonymous with benefit. There are many examples of changes=20
that have been damaging to our environment and the eco-community=20
at large.

has to have made the a priori assumption: that the planet 'raw' as w=
e
found it is somehow 'better' than it is when conformed for man's use=
=2E

I stated that "If you think mankind hasn't messed up THIS planet,
I suggest you open your eyes WIDE." Just where was a discussion
of "raw is better" entered?
=20
You're still refusing to examine your definintion of 'messed up'.

I listed many simple and obvious examples of how we're messing up=20
this planet. Ignore them as you wish. Since there seems to be=20
some ambiguity in my meaning, however, let me state that a=20
"messed up environment" is one that no longer functions correctly=20
for the organisms contained in it. This could mean any number of=20
things because one must take into account the granularity of the=20
observation. When it comes to the planet as a whole, it helps to=20
look at larger systems. Symptoms of the planet being messed up=20
include acid rain; contamination of fish and shellfish with=20
mercury; PCB contamination in most beef and chicken; prion=20
diseases in herbivores, environmental allergies ...

The list goes on and on and on. My definition of messed up is=20
just fine. One can find a huge number of examples of things that=20
are no longer functioning normally due to our "input."

I did not discuss good, bad, right or wrong. I stated that we'd
messed up the planet.
=20
Ahem. So, then why should we avoid what you call 'ecological damage',
if it is 'good'? See, you are assuming it is 'bad'. Thus, we discuss 'b=
ad'

The problem is that one can speak of good and bad in your=20
preferred moral terms or one can speak of them as measurable=20
qualitative attributes. I prefer the latter. I have, however,=20
avoided using the terms good and bad because of the potential for=20
ambiguity. Indeed, you seem to have been confused even by my=20
non-use of these words.

Damage is negative in connotation. It entails injury or harm that=20
results in impairment. Since there are many examples of injury=20
and harm to the environment and the consequences of such damage=20
are not insignificant, it behooves us to live in a manner that=20
does less damage. Lest, of course, our intention is to become=20
extinct and take many of the planet's organisms with us.

and 'good'. Why is this so difficult for you? Why would we welcome
or avoid anything, unless we apply some sort of judgment that it is eit=
her
'good' or 'bad', or some combination, at least for us?

Many scientific observations of our environment have concluded=20
that the effects of pollution and careless urban sprawl are=20
detrimental to our environment and many of the organisms in it.=20
The conclusions made were not mine, but I fully agree with them.

Judgments in and of themselves are a part of the human thought=20
process, but since you insist on bringing moral and religious=20
overtones to the term, I shall refrain from using it.

Cute, but germane to nothing whatsoever other than to prove that
you consider yourself superior to our animal brethren. Or should
I say my animal brethren. Perhaps they're not your brethren, mmmm?
=20
Didn't say I/we are superior. No, animals are not my 'bretheren'. You
can better speak for yourself, of course. ;-)

Perhaps you didn't say it, but it does appear that you believe=20
so. Such a position is significant when it comes to living=20
responsibly with nature. A feeling of separateness from the=20
environment can lead to denial of responsibility for one's=20
actions. Often, when one fails to feel a sense of responsibility,=20
one also fails to feel incentive to act responsibly.

So? I pointed out that mankind is sometimes unwise in our actions.
But you are taking it to another level altogether, by assigning some
sort of 'cosmic evil' to the fact that man molds his environment to

I'm sorry, Judson, but your arguments are just whacked. It has=20
nothing to do with evil. You will not succeed in making it so.

suit himself. Just because people are sometimes greedy, selfish and
even malevalent, does not mean that all mandkind's acts are that.

I did not state that nor do I believe it. It is also not germane=20
to the discussion in and of itself.

You have so ingrained the image that animals have some sort of
'right' to the earth, you are not even aware that this is an assumption=
,
a personal opinion, not based in any objective fact. It is this very

Please ... sigh

Your comment once again points to the belief of a division=20
between man and animal. Man *is* an animal. Rights do not enter=20
into the matter whatsoever. Your attribution here is entirely non=20
sequitur. Not only do I not believe any animal has more rights to=20
the earth than any other animal, I did not make a comment that=20
could logically lead to the assumption that I do.

Your argument started out based on your inability to agree with=20
the single comment that mankind has messed up this planet.=20
Subsequently, your focus approximates that of a rolling apex,=20
constantly moving and unpredictable. You've challenged me with=20
frivolous charges to define common dictionary terms. You've made=20
erroneous leaps of faith regarding my belief system. You've=20
challenged me to provide proof and when I did so, you casually=20
ignored it.

thing that has led to so many 'well meaning' horrible acts that man
has fostered upon man, some of which you allude to above. Just
because you think something is true does not make it true.

I've supplied my points of fact. Disprove them. Don't wax=20
wishy-washy, disprove them. Explain how man's environmental=20
activities have no detrimental impact on the environment and,=20
therefore, how all is well. Explain how the planet is not messed=20
up. Explain how razing temperate rain forests benefits organisms=20
everywhere. Explain how rivers-turned-spillways offer benefits=20
above and beyond convenience of construction to man.

While writing the tome, please avoid terms/concepts such as God,=20
Satan, evil, master plan, nefarious and 666. Stick to the use of=20
good and bad strictly in terms of qualitative attributes that=20
directly correlate to the measurable success/failure of an=20
environmental change. As an example, should dumping pesticide XYZ=20
into your local stream reduce the brook trout population from=20
10,000 to 0, one might be inclined to note that the brook trout=20
thought it was a "bad" thing to do. Since you didn't have to take=20
the container to the dump (you just threw it into the stream=20
along with the pesticide), you thought it was a "good" thing to=20
do. It's important, therefore, to note the context of a bad/good=20
vote.

Points will be deducted for reverting to a socio-religious=20
invocation of morals.

I avoid rose-coloured 'truths'. Ecological atrocities abound.
Pooh-pooh them at our peril.
=20
Au contraire. What I pooh-pooh is your muddy perception of what
constitutes bad and good.

Back to that good-bad nonsense, are we? Good grief.

You know, there was much furor over a DDT plant in Alabama. In
the environment near the plant, DDT permeated almost everything,
including mother's milk. Millions of dollars were spent trying to
clean it up. Finally, the CDC did an exhaustive analysis of the health
patterns in the area. They could not find a single indicator that the
people living there were any less healthy than anywhere else. There

Might I then suggest that you use it as a condiment? You may find=20
it adds a certain /something/ to the meals served to you and your=20
loved ones. If you would not, state why.

one single environmental factor for the phenomenon. In the US there
were billions of dollars spent to remove asbestos from all buildings.
Now, even the EPA admits it was a disaster, and the asbestos
should have been left where it was. Two years after Exxon Valdes,

The health hazards were so well known that they pushed for the=20
removal of the substance. Unfortunately, the removal was handled=20
poorly. The health hazards they failed to avoid were non-trivial=20
and many people suffered because of it.

they had the largest salmon catch in their history. My point? We do

Uhm, to present a well-crafted set of statistics to support your=20
arguments, in exactly the same fashion that a tobacco company=20
would show statistics to prove that smoking is insignificant with=20
regard to incidence of cancer?

For example, in May this year, the EPA issued a statement=20
recommending a ban on the production, manufacture and=20
distribution of asbestos. We've known about the health hazards=20
for a long time, but with entire industries dependent on the=20
product, it will be interesting to see whether we act in best=20
practice or best profits. Will the ban on asbestos really happen=20
in 2 years? Stay tuned!

(Those of you in the U.S. just might want to give U.S. Senator=20
Patty Murray your support in her fight to ban asbestos and keep=20
it banned.)

not know enough to unerringly discern if something is even bad or
good for the environment, and certainly not enough to know with
certainty the ultimate effects of everything we do on the environment.

Of course, we don't know every possible cause and effect. We do,=20
however, well and truly know of many things/actions that damage=20
the environment. In cases where we really do't know what'll=20
happen, we should err on the side of caution. Historically, we=20
have seldom done that.

Are there places where strip mines and other activities have caused
harm? Certainly. But progress *ALWAYS* comes at a price. Quit

I didn't write that it doesn't nor did I write that it was wrong.=20
It is, however, incumbent upon us to find the right balance of=20
progress versus price so that the world that sustains us can=20
continue to sustain us indefinitely. We do not currently live in=20
a manner that contributes to the long-term success of the food=20
chain as a whole. That is "messed up."

bitching about the fact that you can't make an omlet without breaking
eggs, do what you can to make things better, and live your life, for

My intention is to ensure that people make better omelets and=20
take greater care in how they get those eggs.

goodness' sake. And stop this paranoid "man is ruining/has ruined
everything" the-sky-is-falling Chicken Little nonsense. You've done

You have failed to show that even a single point I've made is=20
nonsense. If you really disbelieve that man is not currently=20
ruining the environment, I can but suggest that you engage in=20
more study regarding the matter.

stupid destructive things in your life, and so has everyone else. So
has mankind. It's part of the proccess of living. Get used to it.

That's both clich=E9 and defeatist. We either roll over and accept=20
killing our planet and ourselves as "the process of living" or we=20
attempt to correct what we see is wrong with the system. I was=20
raised to do the latter.

So, go ahead and sigh. In the meantime, I'll try to teach my kids
to know their place in the universe and to live as responsibly as
=20
And what place is that? On what absolute principles do you found
the things you will teach them, hum? Oh, principles are relative?
Fine, then realize they are YOUR principles. I said this was about
making personal opinion into 'cosmic truth', didn't I?

I'm a parent. My job is to introduce my children to my principles=20
and give them the intellectual tools to accept them, dismiss them=20
or build upon them as they see fit. Their place in the universe,=20
as I see it, is as organisms that are dependent upon the success=20
or failure of every other organism in a complex matrix of=20
cause/effect interactions. They learn that their place is shared=20
and that they should not act without considering the=20
ramifications. They learn that they own nothing on this earth and=20
that all flora and fauna share this world on equal footing. When=20
an unwanted spider or snake finds its way into my home, I teach=20
the kids tolerance and acceptance by removing the guest from the=20
premises unharmed.

Of course, it goes much deeper than that, but I expect you'll=20
disagree with how I raise my children, too. I couldn't care less.=20
I arrived at my principles by way of upbringing, social=20
conditioning, education and abstract thinking that led to a=20
strong desire to overcome natural xenophobia and consciously=20
choose to love all things, plants, animals and persons.

At the end of the day, however, none of this has any bearing on=20
the validity of the statement I made that man has messed up this=20
planet. That statement stands on its own merit and is not to be=20
easily disproved.

You don't have a clue about how 'delicate' life is or is not. Man

I disagree.

does not have the intelligence or information to know that. We can

Odd. I was taught much of this stuff as a child and I'm now in my=20
40s. I regularly read about wildlife extinction, causes and=20
effects of pollution, habitat encroachment and many other points=20
that give us very real clues about how delicate life is.

only observe and learn. When we screw up, we do our best to fix
it. There is no 'place in the universe' there.

Doing our best to fix it each and every time is a marvelous goal=20
to which we should aspire, but we're far, far from that mark.=20
Just look at any developing country and note the pollution=20
issues. Preventive measures are available, but they are very=20
often not implemented. Without even a furtive glance as to why=20
this is (or is not) done, one can analyze the effects of the=20
decisions and note the resulting damage to the environment. Until=20
we consistently operate in terms of best practice, there is work=20
to do. As a species, we do not work in overall terms of best=20
practice.

Denying that Homo sapiens sapiens has a place in the weave of=20
existence on planet Earth merely indicates that you don't=20
understand the problem domain.

I'll interrupt you there. You're the one making it a moral issue.
=20
No, it is you who fails to see that value judgments ARE a moral issue.

Bzzzzt, wrong answer. Gosh, here we go with the dictionary again:=20
morals are about right and just human conduct. When one=20
impartially observes that there will be a significant negative=20
effect on the food chain were we to kill all spiders in North=20
America, one will hopefully decide not to do away with the=20
spiders. This in and of itself has nothing whatsoever to do with=20
morals. It has to do with critical thinking -- rudimentary=20
abstract thought.

If not, then where do we get the idea that murder is bad, to be avoided=

and punished? Or that, in your words, "trashing the environment" is a

Murder, eh? Pretty soon, I envision Godwin's Law being invoked.

It is an interesting tangent, although it isn't germane to the=20
discussion. If Hannibal were to carve up a person over the span=20
of a few years for "aesthetic pleasure," he'd be a monster to be=20
locked away. If Hannibal were to engage in precisely the same=20
aesthetic pursuit with a bonsai, he'd probably make a=20
considerable livelihood as an artist.

What makes it okay to hack up a bonsai over the span of years but=20
not okay to hack up a person? There's a lifetime worth of thought=20
in that question. The Cole's Notes answer is that it's okay to=20
hack a bonsai precisely because we do not consider the bonsai to=20
be our brother (equal). We consider it to be an insignificant=20
(perhaps pretty and maybe expensive) "it" to be pruned, pawned,=20
tossed or burned for our pleasure and convenience. We place value=20
on the human life and formulate just punishments for crimes=20
committed against another human. Relative to the human, the=20
bonsai is seen to have little or no value. Since there is no=20
perceived value, there is no perceived crime. Where there is no=20
crime, there is no punishment.

I think; therefore, I am (superior) -- this marks the=20
simultaneous rise and fall of the great species Homo sapiens=20
sapiens. Anyway, that business is far removed from the topic of=20
whether our species has harmed the planet. Interesting, yes, but=20
not relevant to the original statement.

bad thing? Those ARE moral judgments.

Trashing the environment is qualitatively bad because it has=20
negative repercussions in the environment, from which we are not=20
separate and from which we are unable to live independently.=20
Ultimately, this is not a moral issue, no matter how you'll try=20
to get me twisting in the wind to make it one. It's a matter of=20
survival. It is the behaviour of a species and how the effects of=20
that behaviour ripple throughout the entire planet to affect all=20
living organisms. Note that I did not write all /other/ living=20
organisms. All organisms are affected, including the species that=20
triggers the events.

You're the one making it potentially a religious issue.
=20
Moral judgments always come down to religion, whether that religion
be Secular Humanism or Christianity. A person's religion and worldview

Calling secular humanism a religion is an oxymoron. By=20
definition, it is a philosophy that advocates human -- not=20
religious -- values. You cannot call something that rejects=20
religion a religion. More accurately, we can state that moral=20
judgments are based on accepted cultural and/or religious=20
beliefs. Because morality and religion are inextricably linked to=20
culture and language, neither can claim universality. Both are=20
relative to the geographic and demographic definitions of the=20
areas observed. Morality can even change with altitude -- an=20
injured person at sea level will generally be assisted as much as=20
possible while an injured climber on Everest is often left to die.

Matters of survival can be, but are not necessarily, moral=20
issues. If you kill me in a territorial dispute in the year 2003,=20
a question of morals is posed. If you were to have killed me=20
50,000 years ago in a struggle to be the alpha male of the clan=20
and, therefore, pass on your genes, would there be moral=20
questions raised? If not, why not? At 50,000 years in the past,=20
Homo sapiens sapiens was a fully developed modern human.

Alas, as amusing as it may be to consider such philosophical=20
questions during moments of leisure, it is yet again not germane=20
to the discussion.

are intimately connected. You cannot separate the two and make any
sense of human values.

Here again, I believe you're confusing a meat-and-potatoes "do or=20
die" concept with the pomp and circumstance of morals, religion=20
and philosophy. I'm discussing survival of the species through=20
wise lifestyle decisions (AKA living in harmony with nature).=20
Ultimately, the issue lay with waging peace on Earth, with peace=20
being active, homeostatic interdependence with the planet's=20
resources, flora and fauna.

Get with
the plan, Judson. This isn't about a moral or religious
good/bad/right/wrong, it's about understanding our place in the
food chain and not destroying that which sustains us.
=20
Oh, so it is about 'us' after all? Fine, you're learning. We should dea=
l
with our environment wisely because it is the SMART thing to do.

That has always been my premise.

It is also the 'moral' thing to do, by most measures of morality. But

I disagree. Morality, as in generally accepted standards of=20
conduct, means that the status quo is just and right. Morality=20
might dictate that tossing virgins into a volcano is just and=20
right, but it does not make it best practice nor does it visibly=20
seem to encourage successful propagation of the species. Morality=20
and religion have a well-proven capacity to be at odds with the=20
SMART thing to do. All it takes is a charismatic leader to turn=20
common sense on its head.

don't do it because of some wacky idea that an opossum is your
'brethren', or that man has no 'right' to use and mold his environment.=


The idea of viewing other flora and fauna as our brothers and=20
sisters is wacky? I was raised to believe otherwise.

Your response more than amply demonstrates my thesis. :-)

To be honest, I could discern no thesis whatsoever.

trane
--=20
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
// http://mp3.com/trane_francks/