info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Nature is way smarter than god
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Oct 10, 2016, 8:19:44 PM10/10/16
to
On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 2:59:27 PM UTC-5, eridanus wrote:
> El lunes, 10 de octubre de 2016, 4:44:31 (UTC+1), Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher escribió:
> > On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 6:54:30 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> > > It's a common for people who suffer great loss to seek comfort in
> > > ideas that they think explain why they suffer. Think of such ideas as
> > > placebos. For a lot of people, "shit happens" just doesn't work. And
> > > if something of little consequence to others helps people cope with
> > > their suffering, it would be perverse to deny them of it.
> > > --
> > > This space is intentionally not blank.
> >
> > I wonder why they call it an "act of god" and not an "act of nature."
> >
> > It's unfair to confuse the two. Nature is way smarter.
>
> for what definition is nature smarter? It makes not any sense.
> eri
There's a clear example in the most catastrophic, stupidest, senseless command which has ruled Christian behavior and which threatens the survival of the species. I'm referring to god's command "multiply and conquer." Christians don't know about the limits placed by a given habitat on population density. In other words, that command allows blind expansion and exploitation until we finally end up killing each other or eating each other to survive.
Nature simply allows for population crash unless some sort of prevention --population control-- is put in place. Nature is way smarter than god because god is not smarter than the sheepherders that wrote the bible. What makes sense to them is that a larger herd is better than fewer sheep. Nowadays "sheep" stand for happy consumers. I call them "happy cows," if you so prefer the allegory.
But the endless traffic jams remind us we are too many.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Happy cows make the best burgers"
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing
> El lunes, 10 de octubre de 2016, 4:44:31 (UTC+1), Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher escribió:
> > On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 6:54:30 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> > > It's a common for people who suffer great loss to seek comfort in
> > > ideas that they think explain why they suffer. Think of such ideas as
> > > placebos. For a lot of people, "shit happens" just doesn't work. And
> > > if something of little consequence to others helps people cope with
> > > their suffering, it would be perverse to deny them of it.
> > > --
> > > This space is intentionally not blank.
> >
> > I wonder why they call it an "act of god" and not an "act of nature."
> >
> > It's unfair to confuse the two. Nature is way smarter.
>
> for what definition is nature smarter? It makes not any sense.
> eri
There's a clear example in the most catastrophic, stupidest, senseless command which has ruled Christian behavior and which threatens the survival of the species. I'm referring to god's command "multiply and conquer." Christians don't know about the limits placed by a given habitat on population density. In other words, that command allows blind expansion and exploitation until we finally end up killing each other or eating each other to survive.
Nature simply allows for population crash unless some sort of prevention --population control-- is put in place. Nature is way smarter than god because god is not smarter than the sheepherders that wrote the bible. What makes sense to them is that a larger herd is better than fewer sheep. Nowadays "sheep" stand for happy consumers. I call them "happy cows," if you so prefer the allegory.
But the endless traffic jams remind us we are too many.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Happy cows make the best burgers"
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Oct 11, 2016, 9:55:26 AM10/11/16
to
On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 1:51:56 AM UTC-5, Alex W. wrote:
> I am not sure of your argument.
>
> Firstly, the urge to multiply to the maximum permitted by the
> environment is universal and not specific to humans or indeed religion.
It is universal but it can be fed or it can be starved. By starving I mean we could make people face their actions, not unlike smokers are told to quit. People are on autopilot because they are waiting for Jesus and that's a recipe for disaster. We know it, the politicians know it, but they use for their own short-term benefit.
>
> Secondly, humans *are* different from other mammals. The abovementioned
> urge to reproduce to the max ceases to function once certain levels of
> material security and access to resources is assured. In other words,
> the wealthier people get, the fewer children they tend to have. This
> holds true just about everywhere. In Europe, very highly Catholic
> countries such as Poland, Spain, Ireland or Italy have very low rates of
> reproduction, to the point where the populations are shrinking.
True, then the reverse may happen: An aging population with the urge to import new immigrants from overpopulated places. That reshuffling is another recipe for disaster.
What about tax incentives (cash for babies, daycares) to create just the optimum growth? Is that too smart?
>
> Thirdly, you assume that nature is not pushing back, that the mechanisms
> to control rampant population growth are not working. This, I strongly
> suspect, is incorrect. We may have won the arms race so far, in terms
> of food supply and medicine, but that is not to say that this will
> continue. We are already seeing a marked rise in resistant "super bugs"
> and viruses jumping the species barrier. All it takes is for one of
> these to sweep the planet, and your prediction would be proved wrong.
I've never said she's not pushing back. She will strike back. She's not turning the other cheek. Only Jesus does and he paid the price.
>
> Firstly, the urge to multiply to the maximum permitted by the
> environment is universal and not specific to humans or indeed religion.
It is universal but it can be fed or it can be starved. By starving I mean we could make people face their actions, not unlike smokers are told to quit. People are on autopilot because they are waiting for Jesus and that's a recipe for disaster. We know it, the politicians know it, but they use for their own short-term benefit.
>
> Secondly, humans *are* different from other mammals. The abovementioned
> urge to reproduce to the max ceases to function once certain levels of
> material security and access to resources is assured. In other words,
> the wealthier people get, the fewer children they tend to have. This
> holds true just about everywhere. In Europe, very highly Catholic
> countries such as Poland, Spain, Ireland or Italy have very low rates of
> reproduction, to the point where the populations are shrinking.
True, then the reverse may happen: An aging population with the urge to import new immigrants from overpopulated places. That reshuffling is another recipe for disaster.
What about tax incentives (cash for babies, daycares) to create just the optimum growth? Is that too smart?
>
> Thirdly, you assume that nature is not pushing back, that the mechanisms
> to control rampant population growth are not working. This, I strongly
> suspect, is incorrect. We may have won the arms race so far, in terms
> of food supply and medicine, but that is not to say that this will
> continue. We are already seeing a marked rise in resistant "super bugs"
> and viruses jumping the species barrier. All it takes is for one of
> these to sweep the planet, and your prediction would be proved wrong.
I've never said she's not pushing back. She will strike back. She's not turning the other cheek. Only Jesus does and he paid the price.
Free Spirit, Chief of Quixotic Enterprises
Oct 11, 2016, 11:39:24 AM10/11/16
to
On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 9:55:50 AM UTC-5, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 1:09:25 AM UTC-5, eridanus wrote:
> > in the past grew, eventually expanded and robbed the land of other people.
> > They had some advantages in war, for wars are made with young people.
> >
> > All animals, more or less tend to grow up in numbers, till they crash against
> > droughts, or other catastrophes. As animals, irrational human beings are
> > in the same league as other.
> >
> > Eri
>
> You sound like the other fellow debater I addressed before, and I'll like to ask you:
>
> "Is it inevitable that we go down just like the people of Easter Island?"
>
> We are so rational and civilized and yet are ready to eat one another other over gods and dwindling resources? What are our leaders doing about it?
>
> I won't accept it and I have my own revolution. Guess what, people love it! The most humble, the most miserable, the smartest, they all love it. Let the leaders face the music. They want to keep the people dumb and waiting for Jesus.
"Just give me the fucking solution or accept the revolution!"
You know, I thought of this ultimatum while waiting for UPS delivery. The driver and I have been playing cat & mouse, and sometimes he misses me because the building door downstairs is locked or sometimes I simply miss the delivery guy. I just told UPS why they don't "stop servicing this building" and we'll know what to do instead of sitting endless hours and the driver turning back before getting to my apartment. This is the attitude we must have toward the politicians: "What's the fucking solution?" A guy like Trump doesn't believe in climate change while catering to the religious crowd? And Hillary will tell you that she believes it, but she won't due shit about it. We know because she already had a chance with Bill.
Well, I think it's time to hit the road with my monkey bike:
"OMG, that's the TibetanMonkey bike!" https://t.co/cp4uJedvX4
Fuck UPS! ;)
(mad monkey today)
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 1:09:25 AM UTC-5, eridanus wrote:
> > El martes, 11 de octubre de 2016, 1:09:27 (UTC+1), Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher escribió:
> > > On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 2:59:27 PM UTC-5, eridanus wrote:
> > > > El lunes, 10 de octubre de 2016, 4:44:31 (UTC+1), Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher escribió:
> > > > > On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 6:54:30 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> > > > > > It's a common for people who suffer great loss to seek comfort in
> > > > > > ideas that they think explain why they suffer. Think of such ideas as
> > > > > > placebos. For a lot of people, "shit happens" just doesn't work. And
> > > > > > if something of little consequence to others helps people cope with
> > > > > > their suffering, it would be perverse to deny them of it.
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > This space is intentionally not blank.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wonder why they call it an "act of god" and not an "act of nature."
> > > > >
> > > > > It's unfair to confuse the two. Nature is way smarter.
> > > >
> > > > for what definition is nature smarter? It makes not any sense.
> > > > eri
> > >
> > > There's a clear example in the most catastrophic, stupidest, senseless command which has ruled Christian behavior and which threatens the survival of the species. I'm referring to god's command "multiply and conquer." Christians don't know about the limits placed by a given habitat on population density. In other words, that command allows blind expansion and exploitation until we finally end up killing each other or eating each other to survive.
> > >
> > > Nature simply allows for population crash unless some sort of prevention --population control-- is put in place. Nature is way smarter than god because god is not smarter than the sheepherders that wrote the bible. What makes sense to them is that a larger herd is better than fewer sheep. Nowadays "sheep" stand for happy consumers. I call them "happy cows," if you so prefer the allegory.
> > >
> > > But the endless traffic jams remind us we are too many.
> >
> > the idea of population growth is rather natural. The tribes or nations that
> > > On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 2:59:27 PM UTC-5, eridanus wrote:
> > > > El lunes, 10 de octubre de 2016, 4:44:31 (UTC+1), Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher escribió:
> > > > > On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 6:54:30 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> > > > > > It's a common for people who suffer great loss to seek comfort in
> > > > > > ideas that they think explain why they suffer. Think of such ideas as
> > > > > > placebos. For a lot of people, "shit happens" just doesn't work. And
> > > > > > if something of little consequence to others helps people cope with
> > > > > > their suffering, it would be perverse to deny them of it.
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > This space is intentionally not blank.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wonder why they call it an "act of god" and not an "act of nature."
> > > > >
> > > > > It's unfair to confuse the two. Nature is way smarter.
> > > >
> > > > for what definition is nature smarter? It makes not any sense.
> > > > eri
> > >
> > > There's a clear example in the most catastrophic, stupidest, senseless command which has ruled Christian behavior and which threatens the survival of the species. I'm referring to god's command "multiply and conquer." Christians don't know about the limits placed by a given habitat on population density. In other words, that command allows blind expansion and exploitation until we finally end up killing each other or eating each other to survive.
> > >
> > > Nature simply allows for population crash unless some sort of prevention --population control-- is put in place. Nature is way smarter than god because god is not smarter than the sheepherders that wrote the bible. What makes sense to them is that a larger herd is better than fewer sheep. Nowadays "sheep" stand for happy consumers. I call them "happy cows," if you so prefer the allegory.
> > >
> > > But the endless traffic jams remind us we are too many.
> >
> > in the past grew, eventually expanded and robbed the land of other people.
> > They had some advantages in war, for wars are made with young people.
> >
> > All animals, more or less tend to grow up in numbers, till they crash against
> > droughts, or other catastrophes. As animals, irrational human beings are
> > in the same league as other.
> >
> > Eri
>
> You sound like the other fellow debater I addressed before, and I'll like to ask you:
>
> "Is it inevitable that we go down just like the people of Easter Island?"
>
> We are so rational and civilized and yet are ready to eat one another other over gods and dwindling resources? What are our leaders doing about it?
>
> I won't accept it and I have my own revolution. Guess what, people love it! The most humble, the most miserable, the smartest, they all love it. Let the leaders face the music. They want to keep the people dumb and waiting for Jesus.
"Just give me the fucking solution or accept the revolution!"
You know, I thought of this ultimatum while waiting for UPS delivery. The driver and I have been playing cat & mouse, and sometimes he misses me because the building door downstairs is locked or sometimes I simply miss the delivery guy. I just told UPS why they don't "stop servicing this building" and we'll know what to do instead of sitting endless hours and the driver turning back before getting to my apartment. This is the attitude we must have toward the politicians: "What's the fucking solution?" A guy like Trump doesn't believe in climate change while catering to the religious crowd? And Hillary will tell you that she believes it, but she won't due shit about it. We know because she already had a chance with Bill.
Well, I think it's time to hit the road with my monkey bike:
"OMG, that's the TibetanMonkey bike!" https://t.co/cp4uJedvX4
Fuck UPS! ;)
(mad monkey today)
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Oct 11, 2016, 9:09:22 PM10/11/16
to
Remember, sometimes you have to get mad...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS4aiA17YsM
0 new messages