It is currently Tue Jul 25, 2017 1:45 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
 On what's unnatural 
Author Message

Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:19 am
Posts: 195
Location: Sweden
Post On what's unnatural
This post started out as a reply to phryks post GFP fish. I noticed that I digressed from the topic and I didn't want to hijack his thread. The quotes are from an article on GFP Fish in The Guardian. (almost always a brilliant paper btw).

Quote:
'This is the thin end of the wedge,' said Keith Davenport, chief executive of the Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association. 'You could put all sorts of different genes in animals and do all sorts of damage.'

I often think about why people keep saying things like that. It's like there is a supernatural belief that if you mess with nature it, nature, will punish you for it.

Drew Endy said in a talk that everything has been hacked by now except for living organisms. And he is right. We're comfortable with hacking everything else, but when it comes to life we seem to be in magic land. “Better not tinker with that, nature won't like it, bad things will happen”.

Quote:
And that is the scenario that worries British aquarium enthusiasts. 'One idea being explored is to add genes - taken from cold water fish - that will allow tropical fish to live in unheated aquarium,' said Derek Lambert, editor of Today's Fishkeeper. 'Just imagine what would happen if they got released. You could end up with strange coloured GM tropical fish in our waters.'

....yeah, that would suck.

Why the comment on the color of the fishes? The colors don't matter in the context, they are just used as a marker for something that 'goes against nature'. These fish have the supernatural quality of being unnatural.

Bring back the wizards and shaman ...maybe they can cast a spell to make the fish natural. To restore the order.

-Splicer

_________________
We can't stop here, this is Bat Country
- Raoul Duke


Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:37 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:14 pm
Posts: 13
Post Re: On what's unnatural
DEEP ideas abut soul in christan religon ?
budhism dont have this worrys or are pepol scared to find oute that we dont have soul ? that ervything are chemical in brain mental hospitlas are just palce we put ppl that have difrenct chmicals then avrage that pericsipon and matrix like?
thinks are true that humansim free choice and enlhigment are just a other idea made from brain chemcials ( other psychopats that dont have the chmicals that amek ppl have conscionce ) that all other then postmodernism and nhilism phliophy are no more true then telogi and religon that have been a waste of time ?


Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:06 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:19 am
Posts: 195
Location: Sweden
Post Re: On what's unnatural
kluss wrote:
DEEP ideas abut soul in christan religon ?

More like thoughts of ghosts of christianity. When the big guy in the sky disappeared he just withered away because people stopped caring. He wasn't replaced by a cosmology where we're alone and noone is in charge... because we were left in a vacuum some of us put "nature" in charge.

kluss wrote:
budhism dont have this worrys or are pepol scared to find oute that we dont have soul ?

Not sure that the buddhists don't believe in a soul, most of them think something reincarnates. The zen version doesn't, but have their own kinks. Like the importance they attach to stopping the inner dialogue. They too are caught in the trap that we are perfect creatures who just have to stop the inner dialogue and everything will be shiny. In reality we're not perfect creatures. We were built by evolution, our brain is full of bugs and the ping that breaks our attention can be perceived as one. The very thing the zen buddhists hold as unnatural is actually built in.

kluss wrote:
that ervything are chemical in brain mental hospitlas are just palce we put ppl that have difrenct chmicals then avrage that pericsipon and matrix like? thinks are true that humansim free choice and enlhigment are just a other idea made from brain chemcials ( other psychopats that dont have the chmicals that amek ppl have conscionce )

Yeah, at one level it's all chemicals and electric signals. And we have to learn how to deal with that if the fact seems uncomfortable. As for mental illness; Evolution builds individuals in a population slightly different, mentally and otherwise. One can't point to a single view of the world as being normal. Rather in reality in a population there is always a spread(evolution again). The hospitals keep people who don't function in the real world. And this is the issue biotech can address, it can patch people up to the level where they function.

kluss wrote:
...that all other then postmodernism and nhilism phliophy are no more true then telogi and religon that have been a waste of time ?
There is this popular image that science with great effort is going to climb the big mountain of knowledge an when they reach the peak there will be some religious guy waiting for them saying "Told you so". To me this is just dumb. There is nothing like science, there is no way one can know as much about anything as one can with science, anything. Biotech is going to make people live and think for a thousand years. It will explain the inner workings of your brain. It answers the question of your origin by reading the dna you actually carry. How can this be compared to the ideas of say some guy in a loincloth making shit up in a cave? Or some king 1400 years ago, or some son of a carpenter in the roman provinces 2000 years ago. What did they know?

-Splicer

_________________
We can't stop here, this is Bat Country
- Raoul Duke


Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:14 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:14 pm
Posts: 13
Post Re: On what's unnatural
southeast asia budhgist think soul can be evrywher so no problem to gentech cloning stemcells or ai more liberal abut what foks can do make a new lifetyle more likley to hapen ther then the west just look at californa vs spain on ideas and lifestyle they dont know what happen next so they are maybe more open minded to tru new things i guss test oute chemcial brain stuff since its no greaat lord controling things

no normal but since just 2 % of the pepol shoot to kill thats not normaly acsetped in any socyitety (we just for the sake of arugemt the odeas abut reavnge and what make reavnge just and stuff like that )

hmm full of bugs will you go as far as hedweb.com foks ?

yes fuction read somwher that a guy whioute medicen could not work but was very creative now he could work in the week and be creative in the weekends when he didnt take his medecine and porbebley make a lots of wronlyg dignosed menatl hospital pastines free and misunderstood pepol
more mainstream/infulnce

we will have to live whit it but is it not more importent on the way we deal whit it ? like much of postmodernisme are a way to deal whit the mony and air travel we get then news we get from around the world that we cna do more and difrent in difrent ways then we could do in 1900 ?
its mean a lots of posibeltys to live when nothing is normal will make the would westerne world and asian country more like sanfransico ?
will it make more creatiev becuse dna and chemcials we have a map to what to do and only we need are make tools and poprpuse ? maybe somtking like hakims beys taz ?


Sat May 09, 2009 7:25 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:19 am
Posts: 195
Location: Sweden
Post Re: On what's unnatural
kluss wrote:
asia budhgist think soul can be evrywher so no problem to gentech cloning stemcells or ai more liberal abut what foks can do make a new lifetyle more likley to hapen ther then the west just look at californa vs spain on ideas and lifestyle they dont know what happen next so they are maybe more open minded to tru new things i guss test oute chemcial brain stuff since its no greaat lord controling things ?

Maybe these things are easier to handle in societies that don't have the Abrahamic religions, I don't know. Religion is something useless in any case, and maybe if a religion clashes harder with science people abandon it sooner. It seems when religion meets science religion disappears or becomes so flexible trying to incorporate science that it becomes meaningless to it's followers. And so we get the reactionaries. The problem with religion is that it's fundamentally flawed to begin with and can't be patched and the vast majority of people participating in it know it. But it's not something we are supposed to talk about so it lingers on. If a buddhist believes the soul is everywhere as opposed to in one place he is still wasting his time on nonsense.


kluss wrote:
no normal but since just 2 % of the pepol shoot to kill thats not normaly acsetped in any socyitety (we just for the sake of arugemt the odeas abut reavnge and what make reavnge just and stuff like that )?

On one hand the amount of murder is dependent on the conditions people live under(their society). Stress, alienation and fear alter the way people behave. On the other hand the reason we react the way we do is biological... it's part of a survival mechanism that helped the ancestors survive. It payed of to go into a heightened state of alertness if you suspected that a tiger was watching you. It paid off to be able to go into a rage to defend your family and so on. So in one sense it's not abnormal behavior. I think the only way to address the problem is to look at it through the goggles of biology. Like it seems to me to be a bad idea to put young people into prison effectively saying to them “You're not one of us, this is your peer group now”. Also In the end one has to accept that it's normal for a few people in a population to be just plain nuts. Cause that's the way evolution works.


kluss wrote:
hmm full of bugs will you go as far as hedweb.com foks ??

This is my personal view; I think we need to recognize that we have bugs but not necessarily fix them - if we don't want to. I think the bugs are part of the human experience and can be a source of great pleasure. But it's important to know that we have them. Like we have this bug that says “If I profit from this, and my peer group says it's ok I will do it/believe it even if I know it's wrong”. So many decisions by so many smart people have been done this way. It's the bug that's responsible for the financial meltdown and countless - in hindsight - bizarre decisions in war and business. Knowing that one has this bug is useful information. In a way my vision of Biopunk is more like Crowleys(without the mumbo jumbo) than the hedweb peoples.


kluss wrote:
yes fuction read somwher that a guy whioute medicen could not work but was very creative now he could work in the week and be creative in the weekends when he didnt take his medecine and porbebley make a lots of wronlyg dignosed menatl hospital pastines free and misunderstood pepol
more mainstream/infulnce?

I don't know, to me the main thing is to get people to the level where they function. Other than that it becomes a personal choice... if someone wants to take or not take drugs to be creative, alert, smart or strong it's up to the individual. If someone needs psychoactive drugs to function it's not that different from wearing glasses to be able to see.

kluss wrote:
we will have to live whit it but is it not more importent on the way we deal whit it ? like much of postmodernisme are a way to deal whit the mony and air travel we get then news we get from around the world that we cna do more and difrent in difrent ways then we could do in 1900 ?,
its mean a lots of posibeltys to live when nothing is normal will make the would westerne world and asian country more like sanfransico ??

On how to deal with it. A biological view of the world includes everyone from the beginning. We are all in this together, no matter who anyone is they are still the descendants of African apes maybe 2 million years ago. It doesn't matter where someone lives, what religion, color and history they have. We are all biological creatures acting out out genetic programming. I think 'the dealing with it' starts from there.

It was a long time since i looked at Hakim Bey. Yeah I think biology will give birth to taz:es, I hope to be part of one that matches my vision of Biopunk. It could become a taz: It's hidden, people don't understand it, it's not on the radar of anyone, so it's left alone. It can harbor wonderful discussions and great creativity, and it will eventually become mainstream and vanish.

- Splicer

_________________
We can't stop here, this is Bat Country
- Raoul Duke


Tue May 12, 2009 4:12 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:14 pm
Posts: 13
Post Re: On what's unnatural
hmm if you go as far future as ai brain uplading and nanotech maybe the soul will be all palces ?yes western religon is probely dead (but america have more problem then europe abut that thing )only we have usefull now is 100 plus yeard of pilosphey written based on the dead religon

disagrree on the rage thing (maybe before it was good but the last 600-1500 years they have been to prison and could not make new familys )but bilogy are just a new matrix maybe ? maybe surive in warrior culture like caucasuss and papu new guniea but they will still not have the tech and mony that those that dont have rage and follow socyitety or drop oute pacefully

i did the more pilosphy thing in owen topic so it get clean discussesn and mayeb more readers

hmm wareing glasses but what abut parents that force or schoole that force or conservative culture that force them? (somthing that a big change when you are younger then 16-15 year old ) will it not make the 10%-of-the-school-drop-out-in-usa-have-iq 130+ thing more real ?
maybe make those ppl more idendepent in a way (live on welfer, survaivelists ,live in a tent somwher in the forest save up mony to backpacikng, can spend alle day long setup and fuine tune a server or network gadegt )but will not other sociyteys get better then us becuse of that in the long term ? like san farnascio suck up alle the nonconformist from alle of usa and mayeb the world and made silicon valley real ?

tribes in borno ? villages in camboida ? jungels culture in amazonas ? crypted data havens somwher in carbien or pafic ? like internet now befre it was usenet not hard to discusse ideas and thoerys but know its in dead forumnes and spread all over thats useless ?

they will be more left alone the outcastes ? just like before like say 1880 moste ppl that hade the posibiletys to be a academic or a lawyer did not have the mony/time to go to unversety so they end up just make a good farm or a good funtiture shop or just left and worked on the sea ?


Sat May 16, 2009 11:01 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:19 am
Posts: 195
Location: Sweden
Post Re: On what's unnatural
kluss wrote:
hmm if you go as far future as ai brain uplading and nanotech maybe the soul will be all palces ?

The concept of a soul is still in the realm of the supernatural. If you imagine a cell as being a collection of molecules interacting according to the laws of physics. A soul would have to be something on top of this. There isn't anything there.

kluss wrote:
yes western religon is probely dead (but america have more problem then europe abut that thing )only we have usefull now is 100 plus yeard of pilosphey written based on the dead religon

It's a lot longer than 100 years. The thing is... religion has to go, all of it. Religion and science don't mix and religion can't be patched. Let the current religions become a historical footnote like the religions before them. The only way to keep a society religious for a little while longer is to impose ignorance on it. And that will only work for a while.

kluss wrote:
disagrree on the rage thing (maybe before it was good but the last 600-1500 years they have been to prison and could not make new familys )but bilogy are just a new matrix maybe ? maybe surive in warrior culture like caucasuss and papu new guniea but they will still not have the tech and mony that those that dont have rage and follow socyitety or drop oute pacefully

In evolutionary terms the most successful women in the US are probably living in trailer parks, are uneducated, live on welfare and have 9 kids by different fathers by the time they are 25. Women, especially young women, choose aggressive men because of sexual selection. Men in prison have lots of kids and women can even seek them out in prison because of the sexual selection thing. During the last century probably more people were killed in the european wars than during all previous wars ever put together. It's a jungle out there, aggressiveness pays off more than almost anything else I think.

- Splicer

_________________
We can't stop here, this is Bat Country
- Raoul Duke


Tue May 19, 2009 10:40 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:14 pm
Posts: 13
Post Re: On what's unnatural
soul did think more of the conspet of memmory you act on youur memorys information and experince when you read your greatgarnd father diaery you get a iead abut how and why he did think

do evelunary term realy matter now or is it what alle the god thing darwin wrote in his book... lots of stuff he wanted to expalin and worry abut put it in context but did not realy matter 40 years from then becuse the civilization was from the new stage.

hmm will not religon exist until some kind of uplading or copy your dna and your memory into some tech stuff _ since much religon is abut what happen after you dead the religous stuff abut why accidents happen are alredy not much use then the west now anyway

what abut iq... pay of in analazyin in advance systems
2% mof the popultion have iq 160 can that not be a way of the evultion are going .... if it was decrassing it would be more likely we did have a big advance civiltzation behind us somthing we likey dont the geeks loners and nerds are maybe just what adhd foks are from the hunter socityets... a way of things to come

more kids but for how long when the silicon vally guy can buy and understand nanotech tool and fly to dubai and fix stem cell stuff ....when he can mnodefiey and counstruct things from nanobots and nano asmbelers would not the evuliton things be like compare foks live in papu new guniea whit sombody live in manhatten... ever herd abt the flyy effect more reading and modern society have incrased prolmlem sloving,logical iq ehit 60 iq points since 1900..

and the bell curve book ....the mony and intrestes for seek out smart drugs and emmbeded nano/gen tech stuff will porbebly matter in future like take risk was in hunter gather tribes, nomades probelbly get more kids then villagers and pyschopat gen just get turned one when they live on a margenalized part of society prove the point that when you are comfertebal you dont need rage manipulation and crime to get what you want


Tue May 19, 2009 5:50 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:19 am
Posts: 195
Location: Sweden
Post Re: On what's unnatural
kluss wrote:
soul did think more of the conspet of memmory you act on youur memorys information and experince when you read your greatgarnd father diaery you get a iead abut how and why he did think

It sounds a bit like the cyberpunk 'Ghost in the Shell' idea. There is a wonderful Japanese animated movie with that name. The ghost is a form of consciousness which can be contained in a body or uploaded to the net making it omnipresent. There were subcultures holding this idea in the early nineties. I think the most notable group were the Extropians.

The cyberpunks explored the question ”If I can upload and emulate myself, then who am I?”. It's the feeling of excitement that comes from realizing that everything in the natural world can be simulated.

In the Biopunk universe everything in the natural world can be built. Flesh can be built and hacked. So 20 years after Cyberpunk the corresponding Biopunk question would be ”If I can hack myself, then who am I?”


kluss wrote:
do evelunary term realy matter now or is it what alle the god thing darwin wrote in his book... lots of stuff he wanted to expalin and worry abut put it in context but did not realy matter 40 years from then becuse the civilization was from the new stage.

Evolution is the idea that explains everything living. It's possibly mankinds most beautiful and elegant idea. It's so simple a 5yearold can easily understand it yet a lot of people won't give it the 2min they would need to get it. I don't know how many times I've heard people arguing against evolution with ”An explosion in a scrapyard won't produce a Boeing747”. It would take 2 minutes of their time to understand that no one is claiming evolution works that way.

kluss wrote:
hmm will not religon exist until some kind of uplading or copy your dna and your memory into some tech stuff _ since much religon is abut what happen after you dead the religous stuff abut why accidents happen are alredy not much use then the west now anyway

Why wait? just take religion off life support. It fills no function now either. We are humans, we´re imperfect. It freaks us out that we die and cease to be. If we would live forever that would freak us out too and we would struggle to find ways not to have to do that. It's just a glitch. It seems to me we freak out whenever we try to solve a problem we have no information on. Why not just acknowledge that it is a glitch of this variety and get on with out lives.

kluss wrote:
more kids but for how long when the silicon vally guy can buy and understand nanotech tool and fly to dubai and fix stem cell stuff ....when he can mnodefiey and counstruct things from nanobots and nano asmbelers would not the evuliton things be like compare foks live in papu new guniea whit sombody live in manhatten... ever herd abt the flyy effect more reading and modern society have incrased prolmlem sloving,logical iq ehit 60 iq points since 1900..

Yes, kids are an obvious biotech killer application, desiger babies. They are going to be smart, pretty and healthy. And we're gonna be horrified, debate it and legislate against it and parent's are gonna go ahead and do it anyway. The last century gave birth to airoplanes, vaccine, computers, spaceflight and the internet. We can glimpse what this century is going to bring... designer babies is a given. 1000 year lifespan and fixes for all ailments are a very real possibility. Other than that, who knows. Could someone living in the 1950ies even grasp what the internet is? Could the concept even be explained to him?

kluss wrote:
and the bell curve book ....the mony and intrestes for seek out smart drugs and emmbeded nano/gen tech stuff will porbebly matter in future like take risk was in hunter gather tribes, nomades probelbly get more kids then villagers and pyschopat gen just get turned one when they live on a margenalized part of society prove the point that when you are comfertebal you dont need rage manipulation and crime to get what you want

There are two schools of thought I think. In the first school violence is a learned trait. So it would for example be bad to teach a young man boxing. Because it would make him more violent.

In the other school the violence is genetically built into young men. If so the smart thing to do is to provide a safe outlet for it... like boxing. Otherwise it will express itself anyway and people will get hurt.

One day we'll understand the biology of it and have the definite answer, in the meantime I subscribe to the second point of view: Young men fight cause evolution built them that way. The movie 'Fight Club' is a seemingly bizarre move, yet every man understands it and watches it with a big grin on his face. And I think evolution selects for the trait because sexual selection draws women to bad boys. And I think you have observed it yourself time and time again.

-Splicer

_________________
We can't stop here, this is Bat Country
- Raoul Duke


Wed May 20, 2009 7:50 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:14 pm
Posts: 13
Post Re: On what's unnatural
eh did write part of the last post after did drink redbull so do follow up post to explian it depper later got a bit to fast i think `.]

christans maybe but not sure asian will do it or arabian maybe t will happen the same as eh usa vs singapore now hmm what will the cnsecqens be be somkind of 3 world country those contry that dont do it... have any biopunk wrote anything abut it... eh sombody in 1948 i got a clue abut 1984 but did not get evrything rhigt
.'| yes i allways think its funn when womans are anyomuse in newspaper and say ther children will never know what ther seedbank child will have as a father like they have any idea abut how dna,networks,infomation,nanotech will be 40 years from now... they who would think or try to expalina the conspect would probelbly looked as crazy... but probly expliand just newspaper and letters faster then before and libaerys and archives at your fingertips singullarite and nanoasmbelers do get explaind but most ppepol dont belive it .... think its imposibel and say thsoe the belive it are ecsentric ,=)

gosth in the shell yes did watch in but when englihs are your 2. lanuges its hard to undertsand advance enghlis tralntlate it and analayzse it pjlopshyly at the same time...

hmm freaks us oute ,,, is it not thew reasson why theybuild house or write books to make ppl be undeadly or why some are hedonisit maybe its just freak oute the foks that keep up whit the joes ,confomists,and live how the system tell them to live** |nice car carrer nice house conusmerism be normal get a mortage build a house dont so your owen thinking >
what happend whit those subcultures ....

those quastins get ironicly anwser by postmodernism maybe but we dont any consept to handel it yet

so do any of the reades of this post have any comment on this post

glitch the new word for religon.[

brain chemicals to find the glitch some kind of pilosphy drug and moderta verdion of what foks feel when they are mheolconich maybe ;]

what are the difrence between relogon a theorey and a philosphy ,"=8

kirkegard did try to avoid religon the same did kant and marx but still have kind of reloigous backabone to it:{

build concepts and will still frame ouer world wiew from ouer presceitptions they who dont be looked on as crazy ;=<<(


Wed May 27, 2009 5:27 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:34 pm
Posts: 60
Post Re: On what's unnatural
Splicer wrote:
This post started out as a reply to phryks post GFP fish. I noticed that I digressed from the topic and I didn't want to hijack his thread. The quotes are from an article on GFP Fish in The Guardian. (almost always a brilliant paper btw).

Quote:
'This is the thin end of the wedge,' said Keith Davenport, chief executive of the Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association. 'You could put all sorts of different genes in animals and do all sorts of damage.'

I often think about why people keep saying things like that. It's like there is a supernatural belief that if you mess with nature it, nature, will punish you for it.

Drew Endy said in a talk that everything has been hacked by now except for living organisms. And he is right. We're comfortable with hacking everything else, but when it comes to life we seem to be in magic land. “Better not tinker with that, nature won't like it, bad things will happen”.

Quote:
And that is the scenario that worries British aquarium enthusiasts. 'One idea being explored is to add genes - taken from cold water fish - that will allow tropical fish to live in unheated aquarium,' said Derek Lambert, editor of Today's Fishkeeper. 'Just imagine what would happen if they got released. You could end up with strange coloured GM tropical fish in our waters.'

....yeah, that would suck.

Why the comment on the color of the fishes? The colors don't matter in the context, they are just used as a marker for something that 'goes against nature'. These fish have the supernatural quality of being unnatural.

Bring back the wizards and shaman ...maybe they can cast a spell to make the fish natural. To restore the order.

-Splicer


I can see how luminous fish could screw up the current species by changing selection pressures and predator hunting strategies, et cetera. But it's unlikely they're survive anyway; a glow-in-the-dark fish is going to be eaten.

The question of tropical fish is a little more serious -- they sound harmless now, but so did rabbits when we introduced them to Australia. Feral species are very unpredictable. Of course, normal goldfish haven't taken over the natural world around us so I don't see why altered tropical fish would either. And if such fish are legal, laws can be put in place to contain them (they're FISH, it's not like they can escape your house); if they're illegal, they can't.


Tue Jun 02, 2009 3:25 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:19 am
Posts: 195
Location: Sweden
Post Re: On what's unnatural
clouded_perception wrote:
I can see how luminous fish could screw up the current species by changing selection pressures and predator hunting strategies, et cetera. But it's unlikely they're survive anyway; a glow-in-the-dark fish is going to be eaten.

The thing I react against is the way the concept of something being 'natural' is used. I think there is a distinction between what's beneficial for our species and what's natural.

To me the climate change debate illustrates this. The climate is probably changing because of our CO2 emissions this time. If this is the case it's probably a good idea to do something about it. Because if we don't large populations will find themselves without water, with too much water or in climates too cold or too warm to grow food. This would also make populations start moving around thus increasing the unpleasantness. We should do something about it not because it's unnatural but because many of us could be fucked if we don't.

What's the difference between doing something because it's unnatural vs. doing the same because we stand to loose something? The reason is that 'unnatural' is a word without meaning. It's one of those words which is used by someone to make someone else do what they want without explaining why. It hinders discussions about the issue and keeps us stupid. it's defined by anyone who uses it. Whether the topic is racial rights, same sex marriage, GMO:s, stem cell research or biohacking.

clouded_perception wrote:
The question of tropical fish is a little more serious -- they sound harmless now, but so did rabbits when we introduced them to Australia. Feral species are very unpredictable. Of course, normal goldfish haven't taken over the natural world around us so I don't see why altered tropical fish would either. And if such fish are legal, laws can be put in place to contain them (they're FISH, it's not like they can escape your house); if they're illegal, they can't.

I can understand one can want to keep the rabbit population low with an argument like “The rabbits eat the crops we need for food”. I'm not as sure about an argument like “The rabbits are not natural to this habitat”.(Not saying you made that argument).

-Splicer

_________________
We can't stop here, this is Bat Country
- Raoul Duke


Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:39 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:34 pm
Posts: 60
Post Re: On what's unnatural
The Australian rabbit problem is pretty complicated. The biggest problem is that the rabbits present an active threat to native species, and Australia has a lot of native species that are found nowhere else in the world. High rabbit populations encourage increases in fox populations (another introduced species), and foxes present a threat to both our livestock (particularly sheep) and endangered native wildlife. The eating habits of rabbits are significantly different to those of Australian wildlife and kill native trees. They play a role in deforestation and desertification, putting other species in danger due to habitat loss (of course, Australian farmers do that too). Uh, sorry about that random off-topic ranting...

The "unnatural" argument is utter rubbish and I wish people would stop using it. Cyanide, malaria and starvation are "natural". Almost all modern crops and livestock, antibiotics derived by modern means and the electrical grid are "unnatural", although it's a bit hard to be sure because these people never give a definition of what "unnatural" is supposed to mean. If people have concerns about genetic modification, that's fair enough, but using meaningless buzzwords like that detracts from the real issues on either side and does nobody any favours.


Fri Jun 05, 2009 3:31 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 7:57 pm
Posts: 15
Post Re: On what's unnatural
ditto, Everything is part of the Natural world, therefore everything by definition is natural even our action to create artificial environment. The question is whether if we would profit or lose from the impact or effect


Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:10 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.
phpBB SEO