>> bad assumption...  can we only be altruistic to humans?
>
>Then why did you pose the question about being altruistic to the planet?

steve, i think you should read more carefully...  as in, actually try to
understand what i am saying.  ok, scroll back up, to what i just cut and
pasted, and read what i wrote and then what you wrote three times out
loud....   go ahead...   three times....   ok, in case you didn't do it,
i'll write it again....   i said, "can we only be altruistic to humans?"
AS IN.....  "can we not also be altruistic to other things (i.e. animanls,
individuals, ect; and NOT necessarily ROCKS!)"  your question implied that
what i had said above was somehow different than an allusion to the idea
that we can be altruistic to the planet... if you do not understand this, so
be it....

>> yes....    it is still quite skewed, though not quite as badly as
>the first
>> time....
>
>No its not, it is what you put forward.

you can try to tell me what i *didn't* say all you want to....  but the
least you could do would be to go back and find exactly what i said, then
cut and paste it to include it in your agrument... otherwise you're blowing
hot air....

>As I am pointing out the illogic of concluding that the planet is
>itself an individual in the sense discribed above simply because it
>shares a similar trait with humans.  This is a perfect example of a
>false analogy.

nope, wrong again.....  i wasn't using that analogy to conclude that the
planet was an individual....   I WAS USING THAT ANALOGY TO SHOW THAT YOU
CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT THE PLANET IS *NOT* AN INDIVIDUAL BASED ON THAT
CRITERIA.....  again, you ought to both read more carefully and go back and
cut and paste, much like i do....  (i.e. if you are going to comment on
something i said in a post previous to this one, you should go back and find
that material).

As I pointed out, if you want to consider the planet
>an individual in the sense that it is a single unit (much like we can
>talk about specific rocks, i.e. individual rocks) then fine, swell,
>wonderful, but don't try to ascribe some sort of human trait to it
>with out a more substantial arguement.

fine, swell, and wonderful indeed.....    hmmm, let's see....    if i want
to consider the planet an individual in the sense that it is a single
unit....   you mean like humans are single units?  or different than that?
oh!  i see!  you mean like a ROCK is a single unit....   again, your analogy
doesn't hold up....   the criteria are not conclusive in the slightest....
I NEVER SAID THAT I COULD, NOR DID I EVER, GIVE ANY PROOF OR REASONING AS TO
THE INDIVIDUALITY OF THE PLANET....   however, i did say time and again that
it could not be proven either way by any means that *i* know of.... and
certainly no one here has changed my mind about THAT!    let me state that
it is my believe that the earth is sentient, and an individual to which we
can act altruistically...   and also that i have no proof of such to
offer....  but i delight no end in posing contradictions to anyone who
argues that it isn't....

bryan

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: Is Altruism consistent with environmentalsim?


>Bryan,
>
>My comments are below.
>
>---Bryan Hyden <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 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?
>
>Then why did you pose the question about being altruistic to the planet?
>
>> >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....
>
>No its not, it is what you put forward.
>
>   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...
>
>As I am pointing out the illogic of concluding that the planet is
>itself an individual in the sense discribed above simply because it
>shares a similar trait with humans.  This is a perfect example of a
>false analogy.  As I pointed out, if you want to consider the planet
>an individual in the sense that it is a single unit (much like we can
>talk about specific rocks, i.e. individual rocks) then fine, swell,
>wonderful, but don't try to ascribe some sort of human trait to it
>with out a more substantial arguement.
>
>> 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....
>
>Yes, but you don't treat individual rocks like you treat individual
>humans.  That is the point I was making (and Steven was as well--I
>think).
>
>Steve
>
>
>_________________________________________________________
>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%