The Perfect Planet

2

Comments

  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    @Bill_Noble said -
    Yet it is difficult to be here now. To be fully present.

    My dogs find it really easy.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    @Bill_Noble said -
    Yet it is difficult to be here now. To be fully present.

    My dogs find it really easy.

    Must be the food.

    That or the ability to lick your own testicles.

    *sigh*
  • Bill_Noble wrote: »
    The past is as equally non-existent as the future. So Matthew 6:34 applies equally to yesterday as it does to tomorrow.

    Yet it is difficult to be here now. To be fully present.

    Absolutely. I used to do a lot of meditation (Zen), and the number of avoidances of the present is amazing. We used to call it mind fucking. Time is very odd in this respect.

    I suppose theism systematizes it, by speculating on a past and a future, that are appealing/appalling. It's too tiring for me now to think about.

    Any particular reason you cut down on meditating?
  • Bill_Noble wrote: »
    Bill_Noble wrote: »
    The past is as equally non-existent as the future. So Matthew 6:34 applies equally to yesterday as it does to tomorrow.

    Yet it is difficult to be here now. To be fully present.

    Absolutely. I used to do a lot of meditation (Zen), and the number of avoidances of the present is amazing. We used to call it mind fucking. Time is very odd in this respect.

    I suppose theism systematizes it, by speculating on a past and a future, that are appealing/appalling. It's too tiring for me now to think about.

    Any particular reason you cut down on meditating?

    It's very hard work, as we used to do 3 day retreats, or a week. I prefer watching Miss Marple now.
  • Bill_Noble wrote: »
    Bill_Noble wrote: »
    The past is as equally non-existent as the future. So Matthew 6:34 applies equally to yesterday as it does to tomorrow.

    Yet it is difficult to be here now. To be fully present.

    Absolutely. I used to do a lot of meditation (Zen), and the number of avoidances of the present is amazing. We used to call it mind fucking. Time is very odd in this respect.

    I suppose theism systematizes it, by speculating on a past and a future, that are appealing/appalling. It's too tiring for me now to think about.

    Any particular reason you cut down on meditating?

    It's very hard work, as we used to do 3 day retreats, or a week. I prefer watching Miss Marple now.

    I know what you mean. Full-on observance is held up as the goal of a true follower no matter what the group.

    It works fine for some, but not for others. Difficulties arise if such variation is taken as some sort of affront.

    It’s not just big business that has been forced to adapt because of lockdowns. The same has happened to big faith. A tiny addition to the plus column.

    Less traffic and better air quality is another.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Has it been established what a perfect world would look like? Until we have, I don't see how then topic can be coherently discussed.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    I suppose he means ‘perfectly balanced ecosystems’ and humans are putting them dangerously out of balance?
  • Boogie wrote: »
    I suppose he means ‘perfectly balanced ecosystems’ and humans are putting them dangerously out of balance?

    "Perfectly balanced ecosystem" is a myth. There have been what, seven mass extinction events? Ecosystems are constantly changing and evolving, and are never really balanced for long, let alone perfectly so.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    I think the point about the "perfect planet" is not a moral judgement on how its species interact. It's that they exist in an environment that provides everything needed for flourishing ecosystems, even though part of being part of a flourishing ecosystem for everything below the top predators is Being Eaten.

    The distinctive feature of humanity is that we are able to change, and have changed, the environment itself, which makes those ecosystems unstable or causes them to fail altogether. An Antlion can set a trap in a single location for a few unfortunate insects; we can lay a strip of tarmac to flatten thousands of migrating frogs. And lay them here, and there, and everywhere. And that's just roads and frogs.

    Yes, that is more what I meant. Although Mousethief now points out that there is no such thing as a perfectly balanced ecosystem, or at least not for long. Creative tension, perhaps?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Chorister wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I think the point about the "perfect planet" is not a moral judgement on how its species interact. It's that they exist in an environment that provides everything needed for flourishing ecosystems, even though part of being part of a flourishing ecosystem for everything below the top predators is Being Eaten.

    The distinctive feature of humanity is that we are able to change, and have changed, the environment itself, which makes those ecosystems unstable or causes them to fail altogether. An Antlion can set a trap in a single location for a few unfortunate insects; we can lay a strip of tarmac to flatten thousands of migrating frogs. And lay them here, and there, and everywhere. And that's just roads and frogs.

    Yes, that is more what I meant. Although Mousethief now points out that there is no such thing as a perfectly balanced ecosystem, or at least not for long. Creative tension, perhaps?

    Which is why I said flourishing, not perfectly balanced.

    When the environment changes, species evolve to adapt to the changes. The more abrupt the change, the harder that is and the more likely extinction occurs instead.

    Human impact on the environment is often rapid and also often profound.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    I suppose he means ‘perfectly balanced ecosystems’ and humans are putting them dangerously out of balance?

    "Perfectly balanced ecosystem" is a myth. There have been what, seven mass extinction events? Ecosystems are constantly changing and evolving, and are never really balanced for long, let alone perfectly so.

    Yes, I used the wrong term.

    But I think places like the rainforests would have millions more years of ‘perfection’ if humans didn’t exist.

    Of course there are random natural events which strip the land - but they are puny compared to what we do. 😢

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited February 4
    Boogie wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    I suppose he means ‘perfectly balanced ecosystems’ and humans are putting them dangerously out of balance?

    "Perfectly balanced ecosystem" is a myth. There have been what, seven mass extinction events? Ecosystems are constantly changing and evolving, and are never really balanced for long, let alone perfectly so.

    Yes, I used the wrong term.

    But I think places like the rainforests would have millions more years of ‘perfection’ if humans didn’t exist.

    Of course there are random natural events which strip the land - but they are puny compared to what we do. 😢

    Not necessarily. But they are rare. The K-T event (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinction_event) was huge and sudden. And resulted in mass extinction.

    On a more local level, things like volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and tsunamis can also cause sudden catastrophic damage to ecosystems. Volcanic activity isn't always local in effect either; I'm not thinking simply of the eruptions which have world wide effects for a few years; around the same time as the K-T event there was also the formation of the Deccan Traps (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps) which over a geologically very short time period (30K years) produced a global temperature drop of around 2C. Comparable, admittedly, with what we've achieved in a tiny fraction of that time. Which is an important point when people compare anthropogenic climate change with changes which have occurred in the past. People find it very difficult to envisage the timescales involved in earth history - tens, even hundreds, of thousands of years are geological instants. To put a perspective people rarely seem to grasp - the K-T event and extinction of large non-avian dinosaurs and other large reptiles was recent. 65 million years ago. By that time the first dinosaurs were already over 150 million years in the past. Life has been around for 3.5 billion years at least. The earth for a billion more.

    The thing about human influence is that it's an ongoing series of massive changes.
  • Jane RJane R Shipmate
    Even top predators are eaten in the end... when they're too old or injured to hunt, for example.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    KarlLB: I think the point about the "perfect planet" is not a moral judgement on how its species interact.

    Perhaps not generally, but I fail to see how it can be anything other than a moral judgement on how human beings interact with other species and the physical environment. Excluding the Creator, I cannot see how there can be a concept of 'perfect' if humans do not exist.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Kwesi wrote: »
    KarlLB: I think the point about the "perfect planet" is not a moral judgement on how its species interact.

    Perhaps not generally, but I fail to see how it can be anything other than a moral judgement on how human beings interact with other species and the physical environment. Excluding the Creator, I cannot see how there can be a concept of 'perfect' if humans do not exist.

    I think you read too much in. "Perfect" was probably chose as much because it alliterates with "planet" than anything else. This is popular media when all's said and done, even if the scientifically literate intelligent end of it.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    KarlLB: I think you read too much in. "Perfect" was probably chose as much because it alliterates with "planet" than anything else.

    If it's a question of alliteration, why not "Pliable Planet" given the immense changes it has experienced over geological time?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited February 4
    Kwesi wrote: »
    KarlLB: I think you read too much in. "Perfect" was probably chose as much because it alliterates with "planet" than anything else.

    If it's a question of alliteration, why not "Pliable Planet" given the immense changes it has experienced over geological time?

    Because it's far from obvious what on earth that's referring to?

    This is getting fecking ridiculous, arguing over what the BBC decided to call a popular science program. Fuck's sake.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    This is the first time in the thread that it’s been made clear that “The Perfect Planet” is actually the name of a BBC TV program.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Jane R wrote: »
    Even top predators are eaten in the end... when they're too old or injured to hunt, for example.

    Death is necessary.

    In Terry Pratchett’s book ‘Reaper Man’ Death goes on holiday and things quickly become very difficult!


  • Bill_NobleBill_Noble Shipmate
    edited February 4
    Or you could have A More Perfect Planet (which we are also trying to create......allegedly.....it’s hard to tell these days)
  • Boogie wrote: »
    Jane R wrote: »
    Even top predators are eaten in the end... when they're too old or injured to hunt, for example.

    Death is necessary.

    In Terry Pratchett’s book ‘Reaper Man’ Death goes on holiday and things quickly become very difficult!

    I love that book!

    “What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the Reaper Man?”
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    KarlLB:. This is getting fecking ridiculous, arguing over what the BBC decided to call a popular science program. Fuck's sake.

    In your view, KarlLB, I'm engaged in pedantry, but that is not my intention. Rather I'm trying to point out that to describe the planet as 'Perfect' is not a scientific concept because it is a value judgement that science is not equipped to make. Just because the BBC uses the term for a scientific programme, of which like Dave W, I was unaware, is not sufficient justification, and reflects poorly on the broadcaster's presentation of the nature of science. The issue of planetary perfection is more a question for philosophy, aesthetics and religion, whose disciplines might have a lot of challenging things to say.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited February 4
    SMH

    Why don't you send that to the BBC? I'm sure they'd love to engage on Philosophy and Morality of Popular TV Programme Naming...

    Bugger me, I can get obsessed with stuff but a bunch of angels just stopped dancing on a pinhead to go "WTAF?" at each other.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    I suppose he means ‘perfectly balanced ecosystems’ and humans are putting them dangerously out of balance?
    "Perfectly balanced ecosystem" is a myth. There have been what, seven mass extinction events?

    Five or six, depending on whether you believe we're at the start of the Sixth Great Extinction.

    Humans really are destructive to biological diversity. This can be illustrated by the recovery of wildlife in places like Chernobyl or the Korean DMZ. Human activity is apparently worse for other species than a nuclear meltdown or landmines.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    This is the first time in the thread that it’s been made clear that “The Perfect Planet” is actually the name of a BBC TV program.

    I guess you should have the name of every TV program from every network memorized. I do.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Kwesi wrote: »
    KarlLB:. This is getting fecking ridiculous, arguing over what the BBC decided to call a popular science program. Fuck's sake.

    In your view, KarlLB, I'm engaged in pedantry, but that is not my intention. Rather I'm trying to point out that to describe the planet as 'Perfect' is not a scientific concept because it is a value judgement that science is not equipped to make. Just because the BBC uses the term for a scientific programme, of which like Dave W, I was unaware, is not sufficient justification, and reflects poorly on the broadcaster's presentation of the nature of science. The issue of planetary perfection is more a question for philosophy, aesthetics and religion, whose disciplines might have a lot of challenging things to say.

    It’s not really a science programme. It’s an entertainment/education programme with some science thrown in.
  • Yes, it is a name of a particular series. But it is also one of many current natural science / environmental programmes out there at the moment, so it didn't seem relevant to link to a particular one.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    This is the first time in the thread that it’s been made clear that “The Perfect Planet” is actually the name of a BBC TV program.

    This.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Boogie: It’s not really a science programme. It’s an entertainment/education programme with some science thrown in.

    Fair enough, but what are we supposed to be discussing?
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Boogie: It’s not really a science programme. It’s an entertainment/education programme with some science thrown in.

    Fair enough, but what are we supposed to be discussing?

    The OP. Would the planet be better off without us?

    Are we really a dysfunctional anomaly (not the biblical view, but then maybe we had to make that up to justify our existence), too clever for our own good and only here to mess things up?



  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Fair enough, but what are we supposed to be discussing?
    The OP. Would the planet be better off without us?

    Are we really a dysfunctional anomaly (not the biblical view, but then maybe we had to make that up to justify our existence), too clever for our own good and only here to mess things up?

    That's freighted with a lot of assumptions, like the idea that the planet (or the biological life on the planet) has a clearly "function" beyond simply existing. Given the way that evolution is contingent, all specific forms of life could be said to be "an anomaly", though some are less of an anomaly than others.

    At any rate, the planet itself would be fine whether humans existed or not. On the other hand humans do seem to be inimical to other forms of biological life unless they're human symbionts (e.g. dogs, wheat) or human parasites (Guinea worm, malaria, etc.)
  • The whole “isn’t nature wonderful” perspective is only true because you and I don’t have to gain a living from working in it. Nature is presented as a holiday destination of thrills and spills or like some sort of listed building which may be lost forever.

    Even if we were somehow the most careful and harmonious species on earth, nature itself would still be exactly the same.

    As @Crœsos points out, everything that lives is exploring and exploiting energy wherever it can be found by whatever means necessary: Photosynthesis, symbiosis, parasitism and predation. And because of entropy, mitosis is never perfect, giving rise to the random mutations in ageing and inheritance.

    Why are we stuck in a world like this, one which is far from perfect? Why are we assailed by age and disease?

    Because what we want isn’t perfection, but stasis. We want to hold on to our loved ones, our past, our looks, our lives. We cannot bear the thought of change. Living as we do, we recoil from all the violence and the blood of nature. The only nature that is allowed into our homes are insects, pets and cut flowers. Churches only allow cut flowers, oddly shaped seasonal vegetables, moulds, plus the occasional bat or bird.

    The response to this universal change isn’t to fear it or fight against it. Our control is an illusion anyway. The world was always meant to be like this, just as surely as we were always going to react badly to it. Every day is a battle with change. If you can, be grateful for this moment. If you are able to thank someone, thank someone you love. Chances are that you don’t do that enough.
  • caroline444caroline444 Shipmate
    edited February 6
    Bill_Noble wrote: »
    The whole “isn’t nature wonderful” perspective is only true because you and I don’t have to gain a living from working in it. Nature is presented as a holiday destination of thrills and spills or like some sort of listed building which may be lost forever.

    Even if we were somehow the most careful and harmonious species on earth, nature itself would still be exactly the same.

    As @Crœsos points out, everything that lives is exploring and exploiting energy wherever it can be found by whatever means necessary: Photosynthesis, symbiosis, parasitism and predation. And because of entropy, mitosis is never perfect, giving rise to the random mutations in ageing and inheritance.

    Why are we stuck in a world like this, one which is far from perfect? Why are we assailed by age and disease?

    Because what we want isn’t perfection, but stasis. We want to hold on to our loved ones, our past, our looks, our lives. We cannot bear the thought of change. Living as we do, we recoil from all the violence and the blood of nature. The only nature that is allowed into our homes are insects, pets and cut flowers. Churches only allow cut flowers, oddly shaped seasonal vegetables, moulds, plus the occasional bat or bird.

    The response to this universal change isn’t to fear it or fight against it. Our control is an illusion anyway. The world was always meant to be like this, just as surely as we were always going to react badly to it. Every day is a battle with change. If you can, be grateful for this moment. If you are able to thank someone, thank someone you love. Chances are that you don’t do that enough.

    I think nature can be wonderful and awful, and people who celebrate the former can usually also acknowledge the latter, whilst people who whinge on about the latter (as I do), are glass-half-full types of folk, who will inevitably see the blowfly strike in that pretty flock of sheep.

    "Why are we stuck in a world like this, one which is far from perfect? Why are we assailed by age and disease?

    Because what we want isn’t perfection, but stasis. "

    I don't think it's a desire for stasis that makes the world 'imperfect'. It just is what it is.... At the risk of inviting a ton of bricks on my head, I don't think anyone, even God, can go against the laws of nature. Certainly not when they are doing anything as massive as creating a world. If nature is sometimes cruel, surely it is because the world and life could not have been otherwise.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited February 6
    This is the introduction to ‘A Perfect Planet’- https://youtu.be/xxibm1ODEpI

    David Attenborough certainly seems to think it’s perfect in every way and only being spoiled by humans.

    The New Scientist says “ A Perfect Planet is a great blend of natural history and earth science, making it one of Attenborough’s best projects. This unique experience is sure to make us think more about how natural forces have shaped the planet to allow life to flourish and to make us question the scale of human impact on it.”

    I think the biggest problem humans are causing is climate change. It’s not just local but global - and soon to become irreversible. This sort of programme brings the subject into every living room and, by doing this, makes us all think about our personal impact.




  • If nature is sometimes cruel, surely it is because the world and life could not have been otherwise.

    Isn't that simply a rephrasing of the idea that this is "the best of all possible worlds"? It's one I find simply doesn't pass the smell test.
  • If nature is sometimes cruel, surely it is because the world and life could not have been otherwise.

    Isn't that simply a rephrasing of the idea that this is "the best of all possible worlds"? It's one I find simply doesn't pass the smell test.

    I googled the phrase and it would seem to have a much broader scope than the one I intended. I was merely applying it to the act of creating a physical world. There are bad physical things, but I think they are part and parcel of how the world had to be created in order to function. It may be that this process was begun with the arrival microbes - and perhaps the rest was just fallout from that.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited February 6
    Nothing would live without microbes. We wouldn’t live without our own personal microbes.

    Humans are colonised by many millions of microorganisms, the average human body is inhabited by ten times as many non-human cells as human cells.

  • caroline444caroline444 Shipmate
    edited February 6
    @Boogie Yes - the beginnings of life, the beginnings of evolution. To get to that state - the appearance of microbes must have been a vast step forward.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    @Boogie Yes - the beginnings of life, the beginnings of evolution. To get to that state - the appearance of microbes must have been a vast step forward.

    It’s definitely mind blowing.



  • My basic concerns are pain and suffering. They shouldn't happen to anyone or anything.

    (And yes, I know that pain is a warning signal that something's wrong--and, in that sense, not inherently evil. But it also causes suffering.)

    Most living creatures (animals, plants, fungi, microbeasties, humans, etc. included) feed on other living creatures, even if they don't directly kill. If it were simply a matter of a creature suddenly dying of natural consequences, with no suffering, and other creatures then feeding on its remains, that would be far less horrible, IMHO. Sometimes, that happens.
  • caroline444caroline444 Shipmate
    edited February 7
    @Golden Key

    I have so much respect for vultures - treated as an abomination for so long, in truth they do a wonderful job. They only eat dead animals, they absorb all sorts of toxic chemicals with impunity, and they keep our landscapes clean. I agree, it would be wonderful if all living creatures operated in this way, but that is not how it is. :neutral:
  • I don't think it's a desire for stasis that makes the world 'imperfect'. It just is what it is.... At the risk of inviting a ton of bricks on my head, I don't think anyone, even God, can go against the laws of nature. Certainly not when they are doing anything as massive as creating a world. If nature is sometimes cruel, surely it is because the world and life could not have been otherwise.

    I agree. This is how the universe is supposed to run: “Wild” and “Down”. Without any external intervention everything will end up at Absolute Zero (as intended).

    The good news IMHO is that God isn’t stuck in here with us and is able to reforge/remake the whole thing long before the stars go out. The even better news is that God does not have a dispassionate and disinterested Dr Manhattan-like personality.

    God can go against the laws of nature. They are up for reforging along with everything else. And if God exists both within and without our present spacetime then the miraculous can happen, anywhere and any-when. The problem is that while I know this, I do not believe it as I should.

    Faith isn’t supposed to be pick and choose. Truth is, I am comfortable trusting God for my own salvation. A more useful faith that can move “mountains” is a very disturbing prospect for everyone; most of all me.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    At any rate, the planet itself would be fine whether humans existed or not. On the other hand humans do seem to be inimical to other forms of biological life unless they're human symbionts (e.g. dogs, wheat) or human parasites (Guinea worm, malaria, etc.)

    This is certainly the concern of many environmentalists, that humans are capable of doing extreme damage to the planet which may be its downfall. Of course, the sun might suddenly flare up or a huge asteroid might slam down, doing the damage instead of us, but such widespread destruction is unlikely to be caused by any other species. Viruses and fungal diseases do seem to right themselves over time, although humans, certainly in some parts of the world, do feel it is their duty to help eradicate these as much as they are able.

  • If nature is sometimes cruel, surely it is because the world and life could not have been otherwise.

    Isn't that simply a rephrasing of the idea that this is "the best of all possible worlds"? It's one I find simply doesn't pass the smell test.

    Perhaps it's "the best of all possible worlds" within the constraints God made on himself: a balanced, functioning ecosystem made to be the setting for flawed (ie sinful) creatures with free will to choose to do the least harm and live simply - or to slash & burn, pollute and generally selfishly bugger things up for short term gains and an easier life.

  • I thought that Leibniz arrived at this idea within certain constraints, e.g., that God is good, and would not create the worst possible world, or indeed a mediocre world.

    But it's interesting to consider it in a non- theistic context. If the number of worlds is infinite, then every possible world exists. As the joke goes, Elvis is king of England. And this is neither good nor bad.

  • But it's interesting to consider it in a non- theistic context. If the number of worlds is infinite, then every possible world exists. As the joke goes, Elvis is king of England. And this is neither good nor bad.

    Cripes, it sounds like an episode of Red Dwarf. Every star shall sing a carol, eh?

  • Chorister wrote: »

    But it's interesting to consider it in a non- theistic context. If the number of worlds is infinite, then every possible world exists. As the joke goes, Elvis is king of England. And this is neither good nor bad.

    Cripes, it sounds like an episode of Red Dwarf. Every star shall sing a carol, eh?

    That's hilarious on a Christian forum.
  • ChoristerChorister Shipmate
    edited February 7
    That's hilarious on a Christian forum.
    Why, particularly? ITTWACW

    Fixed quoting code. BroJames, Purgatory Host
  • Chorister wrote: »
    Chorister wrote: »

    That's hilarious on a Christian forum.
    Why, particularly? ITTWACW

    Your quotes have me puzzled. I mean that Christianity sounds like Red Dwarf.

  • Your quotes have me puzzled. I mean that Christianity sounds like Red Dwarf.

    Parables are more widespread than we think. We can’t just shut the Bible in the hope that they will go away.

    Speaking of which; in the parable of the creation, God describes it as merely good/very good.

    Not perfect.

    Our objection to this is not that God is incapable of perfect creation but, looking back, we are convinced that we deserved a perfect world to support our original place as top creature.

    What smegheads!
Sign In or Register to comment.