|
>However, your post was about treating the planet as an individual in
>the context of altruism.
yes.
Thus, I made the assumption that you were
>assigning some sort of human characteristics to the planet.
bad assumption... can we only be altruistic to humans?
Otherwise
>we could just as easily be talking about a big rock out in the middle
>of the desert.
we could be... but i wasn't... would you like to?
Now I suppose we could treat the rock altruistically
>(how exactly this would be done is not clear to me), but as Steven
>Bissel asked, why?
if we were talking about rocks, i would attempt to answer this question...
but for now i'd rather keep the discussion focused on the earth....
>Humans are covered with countless micro-organisms.
>The Earth is covered with countless micro-organisms, therefore the
>planet has some form of human characteristics.
>
>It is still a false analogy.
is the analogy that you have just created misrepresentative of what i had
written?
yes.... it is still quite skewed, though not quite as badly as the first
time.... it wasn't even me who started the organism argument... bissell
proposed that the earth is not an 'individual' due to its condition of being
covered by (other) individuals.... at that point, i simply pointed out the
inconsistency in that logic when one considers a human to be an individual
though he or she is also covered with (other) individuals/organisms... i
wasn't saying that the earth is human.... i was saying that the earth may
be seen as an individual, just as humans are... the state of being
considered an individual is shared across many classifications of life, not
just with humans....
whether or not we can agree that the earth may be an individual, or an
organism, or if it is alive, or has interests (none of which can be proven
or disproven by any means that *i* know of), i would be happy to extend the
discussion to how we might go about being altruistic to it... but i'd like
to see where the present discussion goes first... i find this a most
interesting topic....
bryan
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, December 04, 1998 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: Is Altruism consistent with environmentalsim?
>Bryan,
>
>If you want to say that the planet is an individual as in a single
>unit thats fine with me since there is obviously not two Earths.
>However, your post was about treating the planet as an individual in
>the context of altruism. Thus, I made the assumption that you were
>assigning some sort of human characteristics to the planet. Otherwise
>we could just as easily be talking about a big rock out in the middle
>of the desert. Now I suppose we could treat the rock altruistically
>(how exactly this would be done is not clear to me), but as Steven
>Bissel asked, why?
>
>Also, my main criticism still stands with some simple rewording.
>
>Humans are covered with countless micro-organisms.
>The Earth is covered with countless micro-organisms, therefore the
>planet has some form of human characteristics.
>
>It is still a false analogy.
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>---Bryan Hyden <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> steve,
>>
>> if you are going to criticize something that i wrote, the least you
>could do
>> would be to not totally change what i said into something
>different....
>>
>> >Humans are comprised of billions of individual cells.
>> >The planet is comprised of billions of humans, therefore the planet
>is
>> >a human.
>> >
>> >Not quite.
>>
>> this is beyond a horrible summary of what i wrote... bissell said
>that the
>> planet is convered with individual organisms and that therefore it
>could not
>> itself be an individual... i was alluding to the fact that humans
>are
>> covered with countless micro-organisms (and micro is a relative
>> measurement), something which does not stop us from being
>individuals....
>> i never said that earth was a human..... as you say, that would be
>> preposerous... as is your version of what i wrote....
>>
>> bryan
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Steve <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Thursday, December 03, 1998 2:27 AM
>> Subject: Re: Is Altruism consistent with environmentalsim?
>>
>>
>> >Bryan,
>> >
>> >I do believe this is a good example of a false analogy.
>> >
>> >Humans are comprised of billions of individual cells.
>> >The planet is comprised of billions of humans, therefore the planet
>is
>> >a human.
>> >
>> >Not quite.
>> >
>> >Steve
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >---Bryan Hyden wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Not that open,
>> >> >Because it's kinda dumb to suggest that a planet covered with
>> >googols of
>> >> >individual organisms is an individual.
>> >>
>> >> sorry steven, but you did it again... :)
>> >>
>> >> why, just look at us humans.... we are, as you say, "covered with
>> >googols
>> >> of individual organisms" and are still considered individuals,
>> >> individually....
>> >>
>> >> bryan
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Steven Bissell <[log in to unmask]>
>> >> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>> >> Date: Wednesday, December 02, 1998 11:24 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: Is Altruism consistent with environmentalsim?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >-----Original Message-----
>> >> >From: Bryan Hyden <[log in to unmask]>
>> >> >To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>> >> >Date: Wednesday, December 02, 1998 8:22 PM
>> >> >Subject: Re: Is Altruism consistent with environmentalsim?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>>Why would you do that?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>steven, you leave yourself wide open! :)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>why not?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>bryan
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Not that open,
>> >> >Because it's kinda dumb to suggest that a planet covered with
>> >googols of
>> >> >individual organisms is an individual.
>> >> >
>> >> >Steven
>> >> >
>> >> >>>>>Almost by definition, "no." There is no way I can think of to
>> >extend
>> >> >>>>>altruism to the planet, that's an individual to individual
>> >action as
>> >> >near
>> >> >>>>as
>> >> >>>>>I can see
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>perhaps i was not clear... i was suggesting that the planet
>may
>> >be
>> >> >viewed
>> >> >>>>as 'an individual'....
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>bryan
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Why would you do that?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Bissell
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >_________________________________________________________
>> >DO YOU YAHOO!?
>> >Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________
>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
