[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: the future is wild, review

I think the points of lasting disagreement are getting identified.

I'm arguing that most substantial human destruction is unintentional, error
in pursuit of goals common to any species, basically survival, while HP Rita
Miller is arguing for heedlessness reinforced by an attitude of superiority
embodied in myths:
<There is nothing "accidental" about the damage. We merely plow through
whatever barriers stand before us in the mythological theory and childish
opinion that it belongs to us anyway so why shouldn't we destroy it if we
feel like it ...>

>From my premise, I'm arguing that people in general are capable of observing
these excesses and preventing them or making repairs.  Dominant species
create difficulties for other species, but there is nothing inherent in
humans which requires destruction unnecessary to survival.  If I'm
understanding correctly, HP Miller from her premise is arguing that what I'm
calling errors are actually inherent, necessary concomitants of the nature
of humankind and our way of thinking:
<Our species is most notable for its errors. If it had been notable for its
wisdom, this conversation would not be taking place -- or is all this damage
to the earth the result of aliens from outer space?>

When the irreducible differences have been clarified, discussion can
gracefully end.  Did I get it right?