i think a more basic explanation is that humanity at this stage of our evolution is generally very self interested. and given the opportunity, humans gravitate towards self-interest.
it's really just another example of our present stage of evolution which, on a planetary timeline, is still in it's infancy.

On a grand scale, our overall tendency towards self-interest and our complete lack of species awareness is causing the rapid consumption of our ecosystem.

A more evolved understanding of species behavior suggest that cooperative behavior, rather than competitive, is much more beneficial to all, including the individual.

Everything good in our lives has come through a process of sharing, not competition. Whether it is language, art, science or mathematics. We are products of a communal effort, yet we continue to glorify the more primitive instinct -- competition.

Fishing by explosive is a great way to kill everything in a lake. You throw a few sticks of dynamite in, the concussion kills everything within a few hundred metres, the fish float to the surface and you scoop them up.

It's illegal in almost every nation on Earth.

It's also an excellent way to destroy ecosystems. But China doesn't care much about that.

@enoch

From the Smithsonian article:
"already more than 70 percent of the processed foods in the U.S, such as snacks, breakfast cereals and vegetable oils, contain traces of GM crops because common ingredients, including corn, soy and canola oil,usually have been genetically modified."

Also from the article:
"And so far, there’s little to indicate that GM food is harmful to humans."

It says that more than 2/3 of PROCESSED food contains TRACES of GMO. Reality just isn't as scary as melodramatic music videos on YouTube would have you believe.

My biggest concern regarding GMOs is the relatively unknown influence it will have on natural ecosystems and therefore I am definitely concerned about Monsanto's political influence, but to say that it is all poison is just silly.

And yes, a YouTube video that uses dubious claims and a harrowing soundtrack in order to gain Facebook shares sounds pretty slactivist to me.

I wouldn't say anything, I don't think that it would be particularly effective. We all have our own idea of what morality is, and Stalin's is a very complex result of innumerable factors like upbringing, disposition and circumstance, and it would be a bit self important of me to think that I could argue that out of him. He lived, acted, died and left his mark on history. The paremeters set forth by the physical world and the collective actions of everyone else who has lived either as a contemporary or since has judged which of those actions have value and will live on. It's a messy process, certainly, but it's just how things work.

In other words, you don't have any argument as to why Stalin should adopt your morality and abandon his own. If you do I invite you to post it here. How can you escape Ravi's charge that atheism is incoherent in the absence of any such argument?

Thankfully, we seem to be heading in a direction that diverges considerably from that Stalin would espouse. I think that a certain evolutionary tendency towards beneficial collectivism is responsible for that.

Mind you that I'm not arguing for a one world government here, but rather I think that a sense of connection and personal responsibility for the wellbeing of everything else on this planet, ecosystem and all, will bode well for how I and my descendants experience this thing we call life.

It's only one of many competing survival strategies, and nothing more.

So if Hitler had won and the world was in the grips of his totalitarian regime, this would just a particular evolutionary tendency playing out? What makes one better than the other?

"Do you believe that there has ever been a case where slavery has been justified, and do you believe that there has ever been a good reason for anyone to butcher a toddler with a sword?"

Why is it wrong to do either of those things?

Wrong, my question is in no way off topic and implying otherwise may be easier for you, but it won't do much to convince anyone. We are discussing the incoherence of atheism relative to the superior coherence of Christianity as it pertains to systems of morality. Therefore any question regarding the efficacy of a Judeo-Christian theistic moral compass is entirely relevant.

So my question remains, but I'll answer yours because it too is relevant:

I wouldn't say anything, I don't think that it would be particularly effective. We all have our own idea of what morality is, and Stalin's is a very complex result of innumerable factors like upbringing, disposition and circumstance, and it would be a bit self important of me to think that I could argue that out of him. He lived, acted, died and left his mark on history. The paremeters set forth by the physical world and the collective actions of everyone else who has lived either as a contemporary or since has judged which of those actions have value and will live on. It's a messy process, certainly, but it's just how things work.

Thankfully, we seem to be heading in a direction that diverges considerably from that Stalin would espouse. I think that a certain evolutionary tendency towards beneficial collectivism is responsible for that.

Mind you that I'm not arguing for a one world government here, but rather I think that a sense of connection and personal responsibility for the wellbeing of everything else on this planet, ecosystem and all, will bode well for how I and my descendants experience this thing we call life.

It's only one of many competing survival strategies, and nothing more.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question

Because pythons are wreaking havoc on the native ecosystem of the Everglades.
Succinct official explanation here:
http://www.nps.gov/ever/naturescience/burmesepythonsintro.htm

Well, that looks like an intact, functioning ecosystem.

They look to be about 1'... so not big, but not tiny. I'm guessing that for that area, they aren't very big (spider species in tropical areas can get much bigger than what we have in the states... though they have plenty of small spiders as well)

Imagine how many insects there would have to be to feed a colony of spiders that large. I hope that some scientists are able to study the effects that such a large population of insect predators have on the surrounding ecosystem.

yes i'm not saying the roads are consistent, only more consistent than the shoulders.
Roads are generally no less than the width of 2 cars. Some consistency cuts manufacturing costs which will eventually be a factor in EOREI (energy returned on energy invested). Can it work....uhhh dunno. Many roads are created sectionally as it is. which is good. but yeah i have to worry about chains, rocks, studded tires....
Legally you wouldn't have any "takings" issues.

But IMHO, most technical solutions are further away than the more immediate solution - education, family planning, and worldwide contraception programs. the real problem is that there are too many people on the planet. We are consuming more of the ecosystem than we replenish. we need to USE less, but that necessarily means less people...which = more resources available per person, and less emissions.
Meanwhile keep working on the tech side to create efficiency.
Conceptually however, it is interesting to look at roads in energetic terms. They do produce all sorts of heat (and friction) and kinetic energy.

The idea that humans should not change the ecosystem in a myriad of ways is entirely retrogressive. Chomsky proves here that he is anything but progressive in his views.

Neil should play Portal.

Personally what interests me about the future of videogames is the prospect of more advanced AI. Seems that the goal of games for a while has been life like graphics and proper physics. We're getting pretty close there, but it still leaves us with a rather empty virtual world. I'd be much more interested in creating a virtual ecosystem complete with all forms of life, both simple and complex that are all able be autonomous. The rise of parallel processing/multiple cores might make this sort of thing a reality, as well as more realistic AIs. Hell, maybe the technological singularity will emerge from game development...

The science seems pretty clear on man made climate change, what isn't as clear is what the means for the ecosystem at large. Weather models are harder to predict than climate, but that is even more reason to tread lightly. In the end, though, until clean energy is cheaper than dino fuels, don't expect any change. That is why I place my chips on nuclear energy, it is the fastest and cheapest way to roll out energy cheaper than coal...the only kind of energy the emerging 3rd world can afford.

I am sure this happens on both sides... a lot of people actually believe in the two party system enough to get their hands dirty.

But, I would be more suspicious of billionaires who can easily buy support, fraud and media influence to continue gauging the american citizenry. Not many progressive or left wing billionaires out there, not to say that democrats are left wing or progressive.... And if your company is making a billion in profit... chances are you/they are doing something undemocratic, unamerican and unethical like outsourcing labor or polluting/damaging ecosystems.

>> ^Jinx:

Its not just the cute fluffy mammals which are crucial to ecossytems and possible hold the keys to further discovery. I don't feel sorry for the spider, I have no empathy towards it at all but we still have a responsibility to at least study it and its habitat BEFORE we build a road over it and possible extinguish any chance of discovery for good. The road can wait a little longer when concerning an organism that took millions of years to evolve.
Who knows, one day when we're building things out of spider silk you might be glad we took the time to study this rare arachnid


Precisely. Let's not assume that a species is useless only a few seconds after realizing that it existed at all. Moreover, one should not make assumptions when one has zero biological background whatsoever.

You don't know what it eats. You don't know what eats it. You don't know its importance to its ecosystem. It could be a keystone species, an indicator species, an endemic species, or one of a hundred other important parts of a complex network of organisms. Do your research and then make conclusions. Not the other way around.

>> ^Yogi:

It's an eco-disaster? I wouldn't think it could be that bad seeing as it's in a horrible wasteland of a desert. It makes sense it would harm the ocean near it though. I was more concerned as you said about the human rights aspect and the slave labor used to build it.


Wastelands are a result of an imbalance in a biosphere. They are usually a result of human interaction within an ecosystem, or occasionally large asteroids/meteors. Deserts are not wastelands, they have some of the most diverse and adaptive lifeforms on the planet.

Yes, fucking up a desert is still considered causing an Eco-disaster.

As for the slave labor... 95% of our goods in North America are from sweat shops over seas. Who are we to pass judgment on ethical practices overseas when we endorse those same practices in every consumer product we purchase?

There is a good reason I find it harder to sleep as each new night approaches.

Edit: dammit that made me bitter. It's a good video of people having fun.