[extropy-chat] learning to appreciate pessimists

The Avantguardian avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 7 23:31:20 UTC 2005



--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

> It might, but curiously, such dualism contradicts
> the "we are the
> world" claims of their new agey environmentalist
> worldview.
> 

     But if they truly believed their own claims, then
they would realize that we and our technology are as
natural as any other species that has evolved to the
point of out-competing other species. If they truly
believed that "we are the world" and they truly
understood the world, and thereby themselves, then
they would embrace change knowing that the world
always has and will continue to change, transform, and
evolve.

      Their contention, that the best relationship we
can have with nature is to completely "let it be" and
refrain from making any change or impact to our
ecosystem, is moronic. It essentially asserts that the
best way to mind the baby is to take off to Vegas and
leave the baby it to its own devices. In this, the
average green-luddite seems to think that the most
responsible method of stewardship of the planet is to
essentially mimic inanimate objects that are sort of
"just there" and try not to actually have any kind of
effect on our environment. Whereas even the lowly
tse-tse fly or anthrax bacterium unabashedly make huge
impacts on ecosystems in a thoroughly selfish manner.
One of the funniest jokes nature pulled on those guys
is all the damage that elephants in Kenya are doing to
trees crucial for the "preservation" of the
surrounding ecosystem. They were the ones that pushed
so hard to prevent the hunting of elephants and now
their beloved endangered species is deforesting the
state parks and killing a thousand other species. They
are mortified and confused as their philosophy of
non-interference is resulting in an ecological
"disaster" and nature is laughing at them.  For all
their talk of being "new-age" their philosophy of
luddism is no more legitimate, enlightened, or
well-reasoned than the luddites that think God will
punish us for using technology.  
  
    It bugs me when they make such a fuss
distinguishing between "organic" produce and GM
produce. As if somehow genetically engineered tomatoes
are not truly alive. In my paradigm if something is
not inorganic (i.e. composed of minerals and compounds
not containing carbon) it is by definition organic. If
they want so bad to distinguish their farming methods
from those afforded by technology, they should just
call them "primitive" or something a bit more accurate
instead of bastardizing a technically precise
scientific term.

     It also irks me to no end when I see some trendy
Hollywood starlet who goes on TV on behalf of PETA or
some such to condemn me for using mice in my
biomedical research. What truly drives me to
distraction is that, short of being prevented from
roaming where they will, those mice live exceedingly
well for mice. Are the starlets' houses teeming with
vermin due to their passionate beliefs and activism on
the part of furry rodents? Or do they set mouse traps
and call exterminators to kill them? Hell the
neighboring lab actually supplies their mice with
several hundreds of dollars worth of cocaine on a
weekly basis. 

     If you were a mouse how would you choose to live?
In the lap of luxury where surplus food and water (and
sometimes cocaine) were provided and you were
guaranteed numerous opportunities to mate and your
offspring were likewise well cared for, at the expense
of having experiments performed on you? Or in the cold
sterility of the starlett's house where there are
traps, poisons, and predators like the starlett's cat
and your chances of surviving long enough to find an
attractive mouse of the opposite sex were extremely
slim? If the starlet was not a hypocrite, she should
set up her home as a mouse sanctuary. Until then, she
should contemplate the fate of her own mice and not
mine.

      Worry not my fellow extropes, if the luddites
seem to have an advantage now, it is only temporary.
For as you may have noticed, the dinosaurs had their
day in the sun but then those that refused to become
birds are no more. Such is nature's decree and their
dodoism will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Their
worry of being "replaced" by machines fuels their fear
of change. Their fear of change manifests itself as a
refusal to adapt. Their refusal to adapt virtually
guarantees that in a rapidly changing environment,
they will be replaced, if not by machines, then by us
and our offspring. Like a deer caught in someone's
headlights, they are paralyzed by their fear of the
oncoming future and will suffer similar consequences. 
 

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list