Potemkin wrote:I presume you are referring to the Gaia Hypothesis of James Lovelock. In fact, Lovelock was merely pointing out that the Earth's ecosystem, considered as a whole, is in a state of equilibrium over the short- to medium-term. Over the long-term, of course, it is obviously not in equilibrium, and in fact has suffered a whole series of mass extinctions and has undergone massive irreversible changes over geological time scales. In fact, there is even a rival hypothesis, called the Medea Hypothesis, which asserts, with just as much plausibility, that the Earth's purpose is not to nurture multicellular life but to obliterate it.
No, I'm referring to my own experiences and observations, though I will admit to awareness of the Gaia Hypothesis. The Medea Hypothesis sounds similar to George Carlin's idea, that we are here to produce plastics.
If Earth's purpose is to obliterate multicellular life, why would multicellular life be so resistant to obliteration? Really the only thing that has majorly threatened such life is the current human-caused extinction event. You can argue that other extinction events have been more drastic, but only because you have the benefit of looking back at it on a geological timescale, and we still have not been through the head of the bottleneck yet, we are merely looking through it and speculating what it might be like. Sure, there have been worse extinction events, but we are not sure if the one we are on the path of won't be much worse than any other before it.
If the Medea Hypothesis is correct (and there is just as much evidence for it as there is for the Gaia Hypothesis) then humans are merely enacting the will of Mother Nature, however unwittingly.
Arguing for something you don't believe in to win an argument is a bad faith way to argue. Seems like trolling to me. Make fun of me for being a man of faith, but at least what I believe isn't the result of nihilistic pretentiousness.
Its habitability for whom? For ourselves, ultimately. For most of Earth's existence, only single-celled life existed on it. Mother Nature obviously regrets creating multicellular life, and created humans to eradicate it. Every time we drive another species of amphibian into extinction, we are doing the work of the Goddess.
For ourselves and the rest of the animals, yes.
You are essentially a man of faith rather than a man of reason, LV. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it means that your arguments are essentially religious in nature rather than rational.
Yeah, I'm not arguing against that. I am appealing to people's sense of faith and spiritual connection with the Earth and God.
Oh, so you do care about the fate of the human race? I thought you said you wanted us to be exterminated. Oh wait, you did say that. So why should you care about the fate of future human generations then? According to you, they shouldn't even exist.
Well, at all costs goes a little too far. I have belief in humans such that I don't think extermination is either necessary or desirable. Furthermore, I think you're reading into what I'm saying what you want it to say. I said abortions are a net positive, I think we should be reducing our population, I think we consume way too many resources, etc. I am arguing for a less resource intense, lower population, more aware society. I am not arguing for the extermination of humans, because I do believe at the end of the day that we are valuable.
Oh wait... you're serious
Absolutely, and your derision towards me doesn't weaken my faith.
Look, why not just go the whole hog and become a born-again Christian? You'll probably feel a lot happier and you'll certainly make a lot more sense. You seem to be one of those people who swallows a camel and then strains at a gnat, as Jesus so colourfully put it. You refuse to believe in the Christian God, yet happily worship an equally fictitious Gaia-like 'Great Goddess'.
I assume you are not a Christian, as you are a Marxist? It's probably for the same reason you won't believe in the Christian God yourself: it's just not true. It's the relic of a different time and place. It's a patriarchal religion with a backwards moral code. I'm not going to subject myself to a church whose God I don't agree with. Maybe you're the one that needs Jesus, calling for violent revolution, cheering on the destruction of the planet, and whatever psychotic nonsense you believe.
---------
Apparently you do not understand the definition of a living organism. Nothing about the planet earth represents the characteristics of a life form.
I did not say the planet Earth. I said the earth and the totality of its ecosystems. That includes living and non-living material. Maybe I should have included the spirit of the Earth as well in that definition.
Humans must be stopped for what? For the sake of the rock that we reside on?
Well, no. The rock isn't going to care. The other animals should be preserved, however. Earth has a natural beauty that we are destroying. Also, we must be stopped for our own sake.