Who said Skydiving was dangerous??

[flyhi 24]

Quote

we are the supreme organism on the planet.

I went out with a cocktail waitress once who said she had the supreme organism on the planet. Are you saying there was a tie?
Is it hot in here, or am I crazy? - Charles Manson
flyhi

[JDBoston 0]

I actually really like the quote from the Matrix where the agent guy says that humans and viruses are the only organisms that destroy their host/environment instead of living in harmony with it. Hmmm......
Joe

[Nick 0]

Can't quote exactly but you have to think:
We believe that we are superior to dolphins due to everything we have created, cities cars, war etc. when all they have done is swum around having a good time, eating fish and jumping through hoops.
But the dolphins think that they are superior for exactly the same reason!!
Nick

[AggieDave 6]

Sure, viruses, sickness, etc can still defeat us *now* but we're beginning to understand how those things work and we will have better and better ways to fight these things as we go. That is my point, you will always find something that *can* defeat us, but we seem to find ways to overcome.
Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.-General George Patton-

[kingbunky 3]

Douglas Adams had an interesting way of looking at things didn't he?"Jumping out of planes for the thrill of it all."
-J.Geils Band

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Douglas Adams had an interesting way of looking at things didn't he

Yeah! Too bad about earth, nice freeway, though.
Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.-General George Patton-

[skygeek 0]

So long!! and thanx for all the fish!!

[SpeedRacer 1]

Wait a minute. Cro Magnon man was not around 250,000 years ago. you're going back to Homo erectus there(stop laughing, Clay!)
Cro Magnon man was anatomically identical to us (i.e, Homo sapiens sapiens). Basically only culturally different.
Anyway, this argument about fitness of different species is kinda flawed because to take away the tool-use/intelligence of humans would be like taking away the size, strength & teeth & claws of the grizzly, so it's not a fair comparison.
Incidentally, our ancestors could kill woolly mammoths, and that was before the development of the bow & arrow, or even hafted weapons (stone-tipped weapons). No other predator could do that.
Oh, by the way, I want a komodo dragon for Christmas next year.Speed Racer
"My God! It's full of stars!"

[SpeedRacer 1]

Biologists have multiple organisms.
Speed Racer
"My God! It's full of stars!"

[JDBoston 0]

I think intelligence and tactics are at least as important to wild animals as claws and fangs. Most predators in the wild use stealth, surprise, and hunting strategies to compensate for physical disadvantages vs. large prey. One wolf by itself isn't likely to kill a moose - that's why they band together and then take turns darting in and biting it until they finally weaken it. Even tigers like to attack from behind.
Species have evolved to make their fights with other animals as unfair as possible. So in my opinion the ones that are the best at this (humans) are at the top of the evolutionary chain, unless you want to include microorganisms too, which have been kicking our ass since the beginning of time.
Joe

[MarkM 0]

Quote

I'll say it again ....anyone can kill anything with a gun or what ever, but takes those away and its a diff story!!!!

Not true! I have video proof that a human can defeat a bear using wits alone.
http://loki.thebisgroup.com/~mmealman/salmon.asf

[billvon 3,072]

>I actually really like the quote from the Matrix where the agent guy says that humans and viruses are the only
>organisms that destroy their host/environment instead of living in harmony with it. Hmmm......
Not true at all, and especially ironic since the Matrix was filmed in Australia, where one of the great environmental catastrophes of modern times occurred. Rabbits were introduced there in the late 1800's and nearly destroyed the place - they turned a great many savannahs into deserts, drove dozens of species to extinction, and radically changed the plant life throughout the island. Like most animals, their numbers are controlled only by predation and food supply, and there are were no rabbit predators in Australia when they were introduced.
Man has had much less impact on Australia than the rabbits had. We're the only species out there who _can_ live in harmony with nature, if we choose to - we can eat without killing everything around us. We just have to decide to do it.
-bill von

[chickenhawk420 0]

Ummmmm, just a little point but unless rabbits discovered scuba gear how the fuck did they get there

• Quote

[Nick 0]

It's a shame he's gone.

[kingbunky 3]

it sure is, i was really looking forward to his new book.. heard they were going to publish it anyway. supposed to be called 'salmon of doubt' or something similar. i'd heard of the hitch-hikers guide to the galaxy, tehn bought the first book on teh way to ontario by train. read the first book before i got to montreal, jumped off the train, found the second book i a store at the station, read it before i got to toronto, jumped off the train again, found the third one and had it mostly read before i got to brantford... awesome books! since then i have read all of his others. he will be missed, and they never got around to doing a movie of it. (the bbc series sorta sucked imho)
"Jumping out of planes for the thrill of it all."
-J.Geils Band

[JDBoston 0]

I think when other species have destroyed the local environment, it's usually been because man put them somewhere they didn't belong (i.e. where they weren't part of the native ecosystem). Kudzu, rabbits, zebra mussels, whatever.
Not that humans aren't capable of being part of a stable ecosystem. They clearly are, in a lot of remote areas where tribes have been living in the same general area for thousands of years. But in my opinion, when people stopped being hunter-gatherers, and created cities, writing, and the wheel, they made it pretty certain that harmony with nature would become a distant memory.
The changes in humans' lifestyles as a result of technology will ALWAYS be too fast for the natural environment around them to keep up through evolution. The best we can do is use our technology to keep MacGyver-ing along, fixing little environmental problems when we can, and hope in the meantime that we don't manage to fuck up in any really major way. Which in my opinion is not really "harmony."
Corrections welcome -
Joe

[scottbre 0]

Quote

Not true! I have video proof that a human can defeat a bear using wits alone.

LMAO!! Was NOT expecting that.
"Can't keep my mind from the circling sky. Tongue-tied & twisted just an earth-bound misfit, I."

[chickenhawk420 0]

Got to be my favourite advert of last year

[kingbunky 3]

"look, an eagle!"
"Jumping out of planes for the thrill of it all."
-J.Geils Band

[chickenhawk420 0]

Is it me or does it sound like the bear says "Where?" in a gruff bear voice?

• Quote

[kingbunky 3]

could be, i'm usually laughing too hard at that point to make it out
"Jumping out of planes for the thrill of it all."
-J.Geils Band

[billvon 3,072]

>I think when other species have destroyed the local environment, it's usually been because man put them somewhere they didn't
>belong (i.e. where they weren't part of the native ecosystem). Kudzu, rabbits, zebra mussels, whatever.
Well, humans have certainly done that, but that happens in nature all the time. A lake's level will drop due to a drought, a land bridge will emerge to an island, and a new predator will eat all the birds on the island. That's how native americans got to North America - there was a land bridge across the Bering Strait at one point.
>Not that humans aren't capable of being part of a stable ecosystem. They clearly are, in a lot of remote areas where tribes
>have been living in the same general area for thousands of years. But in my opinion, when people stopped being
>hunter-gatherers, and created cities, writing, and the wheel, they made it pretty certain that harmony with nature would
>become a distant memory.
Gotta disagree with that. A city of 100,000, with the associated farms, natural gas power plant, modern cars etc. is a _lot_ more harmonious than a spread out village of 10,000 that hunts for food, chops down trees for heat, and poops next to the road. One can exist that way for a long time without much change to the landscape - the other will eventually cut down all the trees and kill all the game in the area, with the only regulation being deaths from starvation and feces-borne disease.
>The changes in humans' lifestyles as a result of technology will ALWAYS be too fast for the natural environment around
>them to keep up through evolution.
It requires no adaptation for a hawk to coexist with a solar power system, or for a frog to coexist with a nuclear power plant. The only adaptation needed is for the loss of those few acres of habitat, and as long as we're wise as to how much we leave to nature, we can make that adaptation an easy one.
>The best we can do is use our technology to keep MacGyver-ing along, fixing little environmental problems when we
>can, and hope in the meantime that we don't manage to fuck up in any really major way. Which in my opinion is
>not really "harmony."
Harmony is impacting the environment as little as possible, while living how you choose. We know how to do that now. We can design houses that take no outside energy and produce no sewage or wastewater. We can generate power without producing much pollution. We can farm without massive amounts of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers. It's more expensive to do that, so we do have to be willing to pay for it. I think it's worth it.
-bill von

[JDBoston 0]

Well, humans have certainly done that, but that happens in nature all the time. A lake's level will drop due to a drought, a land bridge will emerge to an island, and a new predator will eat all the birds on the island. That's how native americans got to North America - there was a land bridge across the Bering Strait at one point.
--- true, but I don't think it happens on a very large, quick, disruptive scale unless humans play a role
Gotta disagree with that. A city of 100,000, with the associated farms, natural gas power plant, modern cars etc. is a _lot_ more harmonious than a spread out village of 10,000 that hunts for food, chops down trees for heat, and poops next to the road. One can exist that way for a long time without much change to the landscape - the other will eventually cut down all the trees and kill all the game in the area, with the only regulation being deaths from starvation and feces-borne disease.
-----Maybe or maybe not, but cities and villages alike are BOTH less harmonious w/nature than bands of hunter-gatherers. I put sedentary farming in the same category as freeways and housing developments - just a question of scale.
It requires no adaptation for a hawk to coexist with a solar power system, or for a frog to coexist with a nuclear power plant. The only adaptation needed is for the loss of those few acres of habitat, and as long as we're wise as to how much we leave to nature, we can make that adaptation an easy one.
-----Agreed. The main drain on the environment in my opinion is transportation because it 1) requires a lot of infrastructure, 2) requires a lot of fuel, 3) lets population densities change very rapidly, and 4) can carry little stowaways like zebra mussels.
Harmony is impacting the environment as little as possible, while living how you choose. We know how to do that now. We can design houses that take no outside energy and produce no sewage or wastewater. We can generate power without producing much pollution. We can farm without massive amounts of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers. It's more expensive to do that, so we do have to be willing to pay for it. I think it's worth it.
-----No disagreement here. But I may be less optimistic than you about whether it's possible to get people to do that.
Joe

[MarkM 0]

Quote

No disagreement here. But I may be less optimistic than you about whether it's possible to get people to do that.

I'm not. When I moved down to SE Florida one of the things that stood out was how seriously they take care of the coral reefs down towards the keys. They're a national treasure and treated as such.

[AggieDave 6]

JDBoston--my reply to super-evironmentalists (although very one sided/mean, so please bare with me Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.-General George Patton-