"The planet does not need more successful people"

[Voice for Peace]

[Cary]

1. Mr. Orr overstates our importance, IMHO

Let's put this in the proper perspective. The planet has been here about 4.5 billion years and will probably be here at least that much more, regardless of what we do. By contrast our species, homo sapiens sapiens has been here a mere 50,000 years at best. For a little contrast Neandertal was around about 200,000 years.

I put the odds at at least 50 - 50 that we are not around for more than a couple hundred more years or so and that our adaptation of our intelligence will be what does us in, ultimately, in one way or another. That may mean that we render our own environment uninhabitable. For ourselves. Clearly we will take other species with us as we have already wiped out quite a few. But equally clear in terms of the earth's time frame whatever we do will be a blink of the eye and relatively meaningless.

From an even larger perspective look at ourselves and even our earth and our sun compared to the known universe. We can be even humbled if we look at contemporary physics and what we now think we know about time and reality but that's for another thread. I think I have made the point here.

Our species is nothing but a minute little experiment. I think we have potential but if we fail it's no big thing. The earth will be just fine without us and if we succumb to our own stupidity, which I think we will, then we get what we deserve as far as I am concerned. I would hope we could be smarter, but I'm just not seeing much evidence that we are.

[greyl]

2. Orr was talking about our culture, not the human species

(which has been around for a few million years, btw.)

If you miss the point that our culture does not represent humanity at large, you are not part of any solutions.

[Cary]

7. I would take you more seriously if you knew what I was referring to when I said homo sapiens sapiens

Apparently your mind is not supple enough for that nuance so I just have to dismiss you.

[greyl]

58. Homo sapiens sapiens are "modern humans."

"Homo" means human.

[Cary]

59. Which you claim, incorrectly, to have been around for a few million years.

Anatomical modernity is about 200,000 years and behavior modernity is only around 50,000 years.

There is controversy in this, but not anything that is anywhere near what you claimed.

[greyl]

60. Humans have been around a few million years.

I should been more clear and said "human species(or members of the human genus "homo&quot have been around for few million years, not "the human species has been around for a few million years.

So, to be clear, modern humans have not been around for a few million years, but humans have indeed.

And Orr was talking about our culture, not homo sapiens sapiens at large.

[Cary]

61. I specified homo sapiens sapiens

You were wrong. Belly up.

[Cary]

62. And yes my specification mattered as that was the whole point of my comment

The only species we know of with our particular intelligence and our particular adaptation is homo sapiens sapiens. We are indeed on the verge of rendering that adaptation a mistake of evolution. Some claim there is a God that cares. I doubt it.

[Voice for Peace]

3. Unimportant in one sense - mortal, brief, forgotten

Your perspective is your own, but I wouldn't call it the "proper"
one. It's entirely different from mine, and therefore not proper
at all.

If you recognize the capacity of your own heart and intelligence,
surely you can see that we are more than "a minute little
experiment."

Can you marvel at the amazing complexity of your own body,
not to mention your consciousness? This life, and each of us
in it, is constantly changing, constantly unfolding, & wondrous.

It's about while we are here, not whether we'll be here forever.
We know we won't. Even if our descendents survive we'll be
gone. But while we're here: we are not nothing, not by a
long shot.

[Inkfreak]

4. Wondefully said.

[Cary]

8. Perhaps

But I detect a certain antipathy for science going on here and I find that to be odd.

[Voice for Peace]

10. absolutely no antipathy for science here

I passionately love science.

But science is limited, still. And there are many sciences still
undiscovered. And there are so many egomaniacal so-called
scientists out there who, unlike Einstein, disdain anything
that can't be measured, proven, defined. I'm not saying you're
one of them but there are many. It's probably what holds
science back, in fact - ego.

[Cary]

12. Einstein was great and that's an understatement.

But you're way behind. Our knowledge base now doubles every two years of so and Einstein died 67 years ago.

I would refer you to Stephen Hawking.

[Voice for Peace]

14. again.. no need to correct me "you're way behind"

[Cary]

16. Well you are way behind.

I could lie in an attempt to spare you feelings, but that's not my style. You may in fact have some awareness of contemporary physics but if so then you're holding back.

[Voice for Peace]

17. good grief

don't spare my feelings, please.

But thinking you know anything about me is silly.

[Cary]

18. I know a little aboit science.

I know enough in fact to know that the understanding that you have thus far displayed indicates to me that you are not equipped to appreciate the concepts I related to you. I am also skilled enough to see that you attempted a fairly low level appeal to my ego instead of admitting that you don't really understand current theories about who and what we are and about our universe.

Of course my evidence is circumstantial but them most evidence is circumstantial. I have a reasonably objective argument and I openly and eagerly invite you to prove me wrong.

I presented a truly interesting, no, utterly fascinating twist to opening post. You really ought to open your mind a little. My person here is of no relevance and your attack on me is a waste of bandwidth.
We are learning some absolutely incredible things. As I said we have potential. But just yesterday I was listening to something about how the ocean is expected to rise 2 meters or more by the end of this century. This is good science, but do you know what our fellow humans did in South Carolina? They outlawed developers from anticipating any rise in sea level in their coastal development plans.

Unfuckingbelievable or what? And you question my lack of confidence in our species?

[Voice for Peace]

19. OK then.. by the same deductive reasoning, I know enough about you

to know that you have little respect for others,
that you aren't interested in the viewpoints of others if they
don't agree with yours, and though you claim to be nobody
you clearly think you are smarter than others, about whom you
know nothing but your own projections.

You have no interest in improving your communication skills
in order to make better connections and exchange knowledge
with others. You are indifferent as to whether your words
or attitudes are perceived as insulting.

You have a terribly bleak view of human beings and you don't
seem to understand much at all about people although you
claim to know a great deal.

You aren't 'equipped enough' to understand the most simple
elements of human communication and interactions, nor
the complexities of your own psyche and how you affect others;
nor do you have any direct knowledge of the source of life
and the immense beauty available to the human experience.

You don't hesitate to dismiss the perspectives of others;
therefore you have no idea whether their perspectives and
knowledge may be as absolutely incredible and fascinating,
or even more so, as what you have to offer.

Of course I don't know you at all, therefore I have no
idea if any of this is true. I'm just making a point. It's easy
to make assumptions about people on a forum. Did I describe
you?

I had posted a simple OP. You more or less hijacked the OP for
your own purpose.

You could have avoided the waste of bandwidth when I told you
that I felt your post was condescending, and why.

You could have said, "I'm sorry, I truly didn't mean to be
condescending." If that were true. But instead
you went on offensive toward me.

I don't understand why you say I attacked you, it's
the other way around. I responded respectfully to your post.

[Cary]

20. Your science phobia ought to be easy enough to dispel.

Writers like Stephen Hawking make science accessible even to low science aptitude types, and even to science haters like you.

[antigone382]

23. It has nothing to do with science-phobia.

Saying that Dr. Orr overestimates the importance of human beings, and that our existence does not really matter, is not a scientific statement. Determination of how "important" something is, or how much it "matters," are value judgments, and science does not ascribe value or meaning to things. You are free to say that in the scheme of things, the human race means little, just as the OP is free to say that the human race is worth working to save.

You could make a sound argument based on the best scientific data we have available to support either of those positions, and you could have an interesting and mutually respectful discussion on this subject if you chose. But neither of those perspectives reflect purely scientific thought. A conversation about the relative worth of human beings fundamentally involves value judgments, and if you think that science is in the business of assigning worth to the things it observes then you profoundly misunderstand the purpose of scientific inquiry, even as you claim to promote it.

So if your understanding of science, and your own sense of values and priorities, leads you to the conclusion that human life does not matter, that's fine. But it's a personal judgment, not an expression of scientifically understood truth--and not a superior perspective to those who, for whatever reason, feel that human life does have intrinsic value.

[Cary]

25. Unilke you I regard evolution as science.

If your comprehension were a little better you would see that I cited the fact that our intelligence is nothing more than the product of evolution. In other words it is an experiment of nature, like any other mutation. Whether it is is a successful adaptation is yet to be determined. There are millions if not billions of examples of unsuccessful mutations and adaptations in nature. I suggest that to summarily find that we are any better or any worse than any other adaptation is something akin to racist.

It may sound odd at first to consider this akin to racism but there is actually a rather credible, IMHO, argument amongst paleoanthropologists that certain concepts favoring our own species over, say, Neandertal, is a form of racism. While not wholly convinced of that, it does raise a good point and it does give me pause. We do need to be careful here I think. I know I have a tendency to want to favor my own species and I think we need to be careful in order to preserve our objectivity.

You could argue that our adaptation of our intelligence is already a success and in some regards it is. But given the fact that Neandertal survived for 4 or 5 times longer than we've been around, I suggest such an argument is premature and not well taken. That's not a "value". It is an argument based on the facts. If we end up destroying ourselves because of our intelligence where is the purpose or success in that?

The fact that we're poised to destroy ourselves in so many ways is not a testament to the particular wisdom of our adaptation. And then in terms of our actual place in the universe, we are all made up of dust from the explosion of stars. Therefore we are all star dust. I don't know about you but I find that to be an extremely cool idea. It's way cooler, I think, than believing that the earth is somehow the center of the universe and that our species is somehow apple of God's eye and the final product and achievement.

And then in terms of what "we" really are, it actually gets a lot more amazing and cool since our perception of reality clearly is an illusion. Where do "we" actually reside? Is it actually in our brains? Or are we actually a projection of something going on on the outside of a black hole?

Even more interesting are the parallels between what is being discovered in contemporary thought with Eastern philosophy.

Seriously, you ought to back off a little from your homo sapien sapien bias and look at this stuff. It is incredible and it gets more incredible every day.

[antigone382]

32. Your response has nothing to do with what I posted.

I did not give my opinion about the value or non-value of humans as opposed to other organisms or the universe as a whole. And where exactly you got that I don't view evolution as a science--seeing as I've taken and done well in more than a few advanced biology classes at the post-secondary level--is a total mystery. I'll also point out that I know just a tad about anthropology since it's my field of study.

My point is that value judgements are not, and cannot be, scientific. There is no empirical right or wrong answer to questions of human worth, because science does not define worth. That point stands.

[Voice for Peace]

33. thank you!

well said

[Voice for Peace]

28. please, stop. I beg you.

[Cary]

30. Good grief and please please right back to you.

Please don't take either me or yourself so seriously. It's a discussion board. Your family and friends still love you. The still rises in the east and sets in the west.

[Voice for Peace]

35. A discussion board is an excellent opportunity to improve the quality of communication skills.

These are useful in life.

It's not about taking you or myself seriously, or whether anybody loves me.

It's about effective communication.

The key word is "effective."
effective (adj): Successful in producing a desired or intended result.

Otherwise it's just garbage.. like on tv news shows where
everybody's talking over each other, nobody's listening to
anybody except themselves, and hardly anyone is saying
anything of consequence.

[Cary]

36. I am a trial lawyer Voice for Peace

I communicate and persuade for a living. My skills are as sharp as they will ever be.

I am also a published author of successful articles and technical handbooks.

Posting is a hobby and frankly the level of skill here and everywhere else is so bad, generally, that if anything it is corrosive.

[Voice for Peace]

37. I told you that I thought you expressed yourself well, which you dismissed I think as an

insincere or lowlevel attempt to inflate your ego.

What I have found missing is that you seem to have little
interest in the person to whom you are communicating,
ie, what they have to say, or how your words may be
affecting them. You seem quick to be demeaning in your
posts -- as if the other people here aren't actual human
beings.

Maybe you're not aware you're doing this, or how
disrespectful it is, because it's so common everywhere.
Disrespect is the norm.

It's an attitude that generates misunderstanding and
conflict, wastes time, disables teamwork, and darkens
the horizons overall.

Inter-human communication is not the same as being a
lawyer. It involves understanding, not just articulate
persuasion. You don't have to convince me that you are
an excellent lawyer, or that you know much more about
physics and subatomic particulate consciousness than I do,
and I have no reason to doubt you.

But simple human connection, quality communication,
ability to understand and respect the other -- these I do
know about.

[Cary]

40. Pfeh

You take yourself, and this posting, too seriously. That's a weakness that is easily exploited.

Lighten up.

[Voice for Peace]

45. honestly I wonder if you considered a word I wrote.

This isn't heavy to me, not at all.

But you continue to be condescending and apparently can't see it.

OK let's call it a day.. not much point to continuing -- çiao.

[greytdemocrat]

22. OK...

You're a "Doom & Gloom" idiot. How's that???

[Voice for Peace]

26. ?

[Cary]

29. All funning aside, there is much to Orr's wisdom

Okay?

I see where he's coming from. Where I take issue with him is simply in his implication that our planet really cares about us. But we had more people of the kind he suggests then yes, our species would be better off. We would not be so likely to destroy ourselves and to end the experiment that is the adaptation of our intelligence and our consciousness.

There are more galaxies in the universe than there are grains of sand on earth and each of those galaxies have billions of stars. There are other species with intelligence and what we need is more humility. You can't seriously be disputing that.

[Voice for Peace]

31. I'm definitely not disputing that.

But people have known for a long time that there are
stars and moons and planets and it hasn't made them
humble. Maybe a few, but most don't pay enough
attention, or have enough time to think about it, or
care.

My perspective on humility is that humility follows
when we understand who and what we are. It is
not because we are insignificant, it is the opposite.

Maybe this doesn't seem to be in the realm of
science, for you, but for me it's the ultimate science,
the connection between the immortal and the mortal.

It is about the energy of life which animates everything,
including every moment of my day, & every breath.

Every person has the potential to know, thereby to be
humbled, & to be fulfilled. There is a bottomless
well of beauty & peace inside of every human being.
It is limitless, as far as I can tell.

The better I know this energy in myself, the more
I see it everywhere else as well. Not only in the stars.
But the very same, in people, and in everything else
too. It is literally an omnipresent beauty.

I don't know anything about the guy, Orr, I just
liked the quote. Much of my life has been spent
undoing all the wrong nonsense in my own head,
the programmed beliefs that weren't even my own,
all the well-meaning ideas of how to be a successful
person -- all downloaded for free, courtesy of the
world around me. The stuff that jams the CPU,
slows down the human operating system.

[Cary]

34. I am not actually saying we are insignificant

It's more of a suggestion that our idea of our significance is in and of itself silly, immature, myopic, and misguided. It's more of a comment on us than it was an actual shot at you.

[antigone382]

38. Then why the need to insult other peoples' comprehension and understanding of science?

Insults, I might add, which are based on distortions or baseless extrapolations of what they actually said? You can get people to ponder things without smugly asserting your own intellectual superiority over them...particularly when such assertions are based on radical distortions of what they actually said.

Newsflash: a lot of people are aware that the universe is a big place that makes humanity seem insignificant by comparison. You aren't revealing anything particularly deep or new to most of us. A lot of those same people, for reasons which have nothing to do with ignorance of science, would also like to avoid seeing much of humanity needlessly suffer if it can be avoided.

And just so you're aware of my scientific credentials: you want to talk about the three different lines of scientific inquiry that point to the universe being 14.6 billion years old? Sure, I can talk to you about that. You want to talk about the process by which carbon, as well as the other elements necessary for life as we understand it, was born out of generations of dying stars, setting the stage for the possibility of life on Earth and other planets? I can talk about that. You want to talk about the incredible astronomical, chemical, and biological processes through which life came to be, resulting for a little while in a species called the human being? I can talk about that.

You want to talk about our greater and greater understanding of the capacity for sentience and complex language among other species on this planet (much less other planets), the negative health impacts of the agricultural revolution on peasants, or the ways in which studies of mitochondrial DNA can be used to trace human migrations, and how those studies dovetail perfectly with analyses of language families as well as physical characteristics? I can talk about that.

Oh yeah, and that whole Eastern religions thing: I'll even discuss with you the origins and cosmology of Buddhism in pre-Asoka India, how it evolved into the Theravada and Mahayana schools as it spread throughout Asia and surrounding areas--and appears to have had significant influence even on ancient Greek philosophy--not to mention the ways in which it is and isn't compatible with a modern understanding of physics at both the astronomic and subatomic level (and for good measure, let's throw in the ways in which astrophysics and nanophysics are stepping closer and closer to being understood in a single, comprehensive, unified field theory). I can gladly talk about any of these things and link you to peer-reviewed studies and other authoritative sources discussing them in depth.

What I won't do is sit back and watch someone smugly deride the rest of us unworthy hoi polloi for our "lack of comprehension" and our ignorance of science for something that is a *subjective judgment* in the first place--and then pretend they aren't insulting people, but are just here to benevolently spread knowledge, if only the rest of us could appreciate it. Congratulations on being enlightened enough to not give a fuck about the fate of human beings--not the human *race* or the human *species,* but the individual human beings: fathers, mothers, and children, who will suffer and die at the individual level if drastic steps are not taken--while posting comfortably on your computer. I'm glad you can be so philosophical about it. But here's a reality check: I know at least as much about science as you, am less smug about it, and have come to a different conclusion. I hope that doesn't disrupt your run-of-the-mill cosmology, but opinions are like assholes, and as I'm sure many are by this point abundantly aware, the internet is full of both.

[Cary]

41. Get angry about it.

Get really really angry and post long rants that I won't read.

Hey, if you don't know what you're talking about I'm going to say that you don't know what you're talking about. And if you have a problem with that then you have the problem. Cry me a river.

[antigone382]

44. I'm not the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about.

...and way to not actually address any points that might force you to acknowledge being incorrect. Is that a trial lawyer thing?

[Cary]

46. How do you expect me to respond to your whiny rant when I didn't read it?

<shrug>

[antigone382]

47. Cling to that smugness as tightly as you can.

Doesn't change the fact that you got showed up knowledge-wise, and you know it. Or maybe you don't. Proceed to conflate "objectivity" and "subjectivity" while lecturing us about our deficient understandings of the real meaning of things. I have no more patience for this.

[Cary]

50. Oh good!

The old "you got showed up knowledge-wise" ploy.

Like I haven't seen that one 8 zillion times already. Got anything better or more original?

And you wonder why I don't bother to read your long rants?

[Voice for Peace]

49. excellent post

but I think wasted on this person, who has no apparent
interest in what others know or think.

On the other hand, very affirmative for me personally, and
well done.

[antigone382]

51. Thanks!

I try to be civil, but some folks just deserve to have their bluff called. I admire Dr. Orr and appreciate your OP, and I'm sorry it has been hijacked in this way by such smug and narrow-minded pseudo-intellectual codswallop. I've made my point, whether our friend chooses to admit it or not, and will waste no more time on the matter.

[Voice for Peace]

53. you were also civil

for the record.

[FrodosPet]

39. For all there is to know and understand about the universe, our world, and ourselves

We are at best, up to being a clever two year old. We're not even ready for preschool yet.

[Cary]

42. If that.

But being less than two how would I know?

[Cary]

6. What's wrong with the idea of being "a minute little experiment?"

Actually we don't know whether "we", whatever "we" really are, will be "here", whatever "here" really is, "forever".

We're pretty sure that "we" "here" and "forever" are illusions.

Of course I marvel. That's the whole point of my post. If you're just marveling at your body and your consciousness you are missing out. There's a whole universe out there, and probably more than that.

[Voice for Peace]

9. there's a whole universe inside of us as well

and consciousness itself is endlessly fascinating.

There may be a limit to what is outside of us; certainly all
of it is changeable, subject to time. But inside of us
is something not subject to time, or change, and it is
more fascinating than anything else I've encountered.

I was responding to the tone of your post, as much as anything.
It's probably not your intention but you're coming across
a bit condescending. Why feel the need to minimize our
human existence, or another person's perspective?
Referring in particular to your use of the word "proper" in your
other post, which directly implies everyone else's point of view
is improper; this sets a tone & doesn't invite friendly
discussion.

A suggestion, if you want it: to reword your statement above
like this:

Of course I marvel. That's the whole point of my post.
If I'm just marveling at my body and my consciousness,
I am missing out. There's a whole universe out there, and
probably more than that.


The original statement sounds condescending. The
revised version is about you, not me, and presents your
own point of view -- which is the only pov any of us
can actually know.

You have no way of knowing whether someone else is
missing out or not. You only know if you are missing out,
or if you feel that you are.

The most important thing for me in my life is to make
sure I'm not missing out.

And I hope you'll forgive my suggestions on your self-
expression; but I firmly believe that poor communication
is the cause of tons of misunderstanding, confusion,
hurt feelings, unnecessary arguments, and more.

[Cary]

11. I appreciate your intent behind your lecture

But I am not responsible for you interpreting my statement as being condescending. If you choose to interpret it as such that's your doing.

I don't have a problem with self-expression but if I ever find that I do, then maybe I will consult with you. Well, probably not because frankly I'm not all that impressed with your lecture or your cosmography.

[Voice for Peace]

13. ok, no problem

just editing to add that you may not have a problem with self
expression, it's not that -- because you express yourself well.

But if you want others to hear and understand what you
have to say, that's a different matter.
I didn't intend my post as a criticism and apologize if it
sounded that way..

[Cary]

15. Some will, some won't, so what?

I am not the Oracle of Delphi. I know a few things but I'm just a person posting here at DU.

[drokhole]

55. It's a matter of seeing very well who we are...

...the jolly old Ancient of Days.

(moniker courtesy of Alan Watts)

[lunatica]

24. I think he was referring to the planet as humanity.

Although you're point is right.

But when he's referring to peace, loving people and living well in your culture he means humanity. He could have changed the wording to 'humanity needs...', but I think it didn't occur to him as both terms are interchangeable and/or inferred.

[Cary]

43. I don't see any good reason to argue about what he meant.

If you see the point that I made then you see the larger context in my words as well. I too went well beyond the literal "planet" and even beyond the literal "humanity".

But as I said in an earlier post there is wisdom in what he is saying. I am quite amused that certain people would get all hot and bothered about it.

[DeSwiss]

5. Agreed.

- K&R

If a man has an apartment,

stacked to the ceiling with newspapers...

...we call him crazy.


If a woman has a trailer house,

full of cats...

...we call her nuts.


But when people pathologically hoard so much
cash that they impoverish the entire nation...

...we put them on the cover of [font color=orange]Fortune[/font] magazine
and pretend that they're role models.

B. Lester

[LaurenG]

21. I scratch my head

over what lots of people think of as success. Success to me is when you bloom where you're planted and love like there is no tomorrow. I have failed having a successful day many times but don't give up.

[Voice for Peace]

27. +1

I'm still dealing with deleting all those old "shoulds"
from my brain: a lifetime of them.

All the shoulds that define success in our world:
kick'em out.

[LaurenG]

52. Yeah that sounds right!

[JI7]

54. it seems like success is seen as having a lot of money by too many

it doesn't matter how you got that money or anything else. and as a result you are better and deserve to be president or something like that.

[drokhole]

56. Wonderful

Just wanted to say I appreciate the quote and everything you've written in this thread. Don't have much else to add aside from reply #55 and a couple other quotes I like:

"It is the desire for success that prevents humility; and without humility how can there be understanding? The man of success is hardened, self-enclosed; he is burdened with his own importance, with his responsibilities, achievements and memories. There must be freedom from self-assumed responsibilities and from the burden of achievement; for that which is weighed down cannot be swift, and to understand requires a swift and pliable mind. Mercy is denied to the successful, for they are incapable of knowing the very beauty of life which is love."

- Jiddu Krishnamurti

"Greed has poisoned men's souls; has barricaded the world with hate; has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical; our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness, we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost."

- Charlie Chaplin (from The Great Dictator)

[Voice for Peace]

57. thanks very much, and these are great quotes.

esp Charlie Chaplin who's dear to my heart.