Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] learning to appreciate pessimists

[Claribel]

From: The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>


    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.

Claribel: This is my position exactly. I am both New Age and 
ranshumanist  -- yes, some people do exist who embrace both metaphysics and 
advanced science. I do not regard them as incompatible, if each is kept in 
its proper sphere. I wonder if anyone here is familiar with the Integral 
approach of Ken Wilber? (http://wilber.shambhala.com/) This philosophy 
applies an evolutionary approach to all domains ranging from physical and 
biological to social, mental and spiritual. In some ways, I think it's a 
little too pat in drawing such equivalences, but I have found meaningful 
insights in it.

We are the world. The world is growing and changing... beautiful.

The Avantguardian:

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

Claribel: Another excellent point. The predominant New Age version of nature 
is very sanitized. I've always considered it ironic that we should "walk 
lightly on the earth" when it doesn't walk lightly on us (or on itself, 
considering earthquakes and tsunamis.)

The Avantguardian:

 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....Hell the neighboring lab actually supplies their mice with
several hundreds of dollars worth of cocaine on a
weekly basis.

Claribel: Is this for drug experiments, or for pain-killers? I've often 
wondered why experimenters don't just lobotomize the pain centers of their 
animals' brains. Could you explain the usual procedures for controlling pain 
and trauma in laboratory specimens?

I will admit that, since I eat meat and perform ruthless genocide with 
flypaper and ant traps (almost literal genocide, since I've destroyed 
several breeding populations in my house), it would be hypocritical for me 
to condemn the whole idea of sacrificing animals' lives in research.

Claribel