Prosthesis, Artificial Photosynthesis, Genetic testing. It's pleasantness does not denote its ability to be implemented. I'm not talking about destroying the gay gene here. What's wrong with creating life? Humans realized that certain pieces of convex and concave glass granted shortsighted and farsighted individuals the ability to see more clearly. The obvious solution was to make some sort of device to affix to the heads of the individuals with this ailment. Glasses. Now instead of tripping down stairs these individuals lived, passing on their genetic detriment to their children. This is what happens when we "occasionally use nature alongside technology", we piss in god's eye (figuratively) and natural selection stops weeding out those with bad eyesight. While we could fix the problem preventatively (genetic augmentation) or at the source (Ocular implants) or circumnavigate the eye (Matrix-esque simulated reality, fed and looked after mechanically, newborns are created with optimal genetic structure) i'm assuming that would cross the "moral bondaries". What are these boundaries for? To protect Life? Or just to protect how we envision current life? Who decides what these "moral boundaries" are? Do we take a vote, the ignorant public versus the knowledgeable few?
When you're going to create life, to further support our existence (e.g. create clones, so that the original human may get a liver replacement/hip replacement/etc etc etc), it is not only difficult to determine the moral bounds, but you're only permitting longer existence of one individual. While, originally, nature intended humans to live around 45 years maximum. We have people living to 110, rather regularly now, and that's prior to clones being pushed to their extreme. That's almost 3 times what nature intended for us. What do you think that does to our population? Actually, these moral boundaries are there to prevent us from doing things relentlessly. Which, we do anyway. If you consider this threads main question: "Environmentalism or Humanitarianism?" these moral boundaries play a key role in maintaining our environment. -_- Moral boundaries are determined by each individual. It is up to you to decide whether or not stem cell research is within your morals.
Evolution doesn't 'Intend' anything. Evolution is due too random genetic changes. Evolution has no Morals.
Okay, so you're saying that nature doesn't intend anything. Sure, that may be true, but naturally (What I was insinuating), humans shouldn't live longer then 50 years old. Instead, we take medicines, follow routine eating/exercise habits, etc. This only prolongs our inevitable, and while doing so, causes there to be even more so of an overpopulation.
That's hard to determine, but I'd say what's natural is close to what is going on in Africa. That is, without all the aid being sent there.
Blocks & blocks of almost the exact same looking houses. Sure, it naturally happened. I mean, it was the best thing for the human race to do. Create a split-stream system, where people can congregate into their homes, then congregate to their meaningless job, then congregate back. We, as a human race, did that naturally; to better ourselves. Though, nature is next to out the window. We have a couple trees outside, with a small plot of grass. Then around every 10 to 20 blocks, we have a park & a little bit more open area. P.S. I love when you argue just to argue... It makes me think more.
So why is what came first "natural"? Would the fiery landscape of early Earth be more "natural" than the plants that came later?
Why are houses less natural than no houses? What defines the activity of a species as unnatural and why does "the concept that defines" define it they way it does? Edited for clarity.
I'm with Nitrous on this one, the sentimental and psychological value we attach to what is commonly called nature (basically areas of uninterrupted plantlife or thereabouts, but also often looked at in terms of a natural habitat for anything other than humans) is not the same as something being natural in terms that hold weight in logical argument. I can see where you're coming from Tex, not actually towing the line of 'natural' describing some arbitrary force in the universe which has the capacity to almost approve or disapprove of actions, but nature is a word too built upon emotional connotations to really hold any weight here. Strictly speaking, nature means literally everything that happens on earth, since any being that could have agency to effect these events is part of nature, anything they do is in turn natural. Thus natural effectively means real, or something that happened, nothing more. The only reason that 'natural' holds any meaning with people is because this meaning is distorted to reflect the mental division between us and them, in terms of all life on earth, plant or animal. Anything involving either the effects and events of the environment in which we live, or any other life form than humans, is dubbed 'natural'. It serves a valuable linguistic purpose in this sense, comfortably articulating a mental approach which is common throughout the majority of humanity, urbanised humanity most notably, but in terms of logical discussion on what our approach and decision making should be based on it's not very solid.
Right, I kinda saw that after a few of the ol' back n forth with Nitrous. You pretty much said what I wanted to say. But, of course, in your Pegasi way. Though, when it comes down to it, this is a matter of opinion. I personally believe it wrong to cut down trees in order to sustain more human life (housing). Where as others could suggest that instead of that tree providing oxygen, it's providing paper, which will teach our nation's youth.
Fair enough, I can see where you're coming from. Could I ask why you believe it this wrong though? What is it that has caused you to form this opinion?
Basic human behavior has showed me that we are just a destructive, inconsiderate species, and that Earth doesn't deserve our existence.
Earth is a planet. It doesn't have feelings, it isn't sentient, and hence it cannot "deserve" anything. Believing that humanity's continued existence is less important than the combined existence of non-human fauna and flora is humble... and self-depreciative.