I see, but with agreement we all justsomehow manage to keep things together
and live happily ever afterwards?
That is assumiing we do not blow ourselves up, encounter a giant meteorite
or have a nuclear winter event cause then the Yellowstone volcano rips the
guts out t of the usa then.
Living on spaceship earth is a pricarious business and always has been.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
"Without a Paris agreement, global warming is set to reach as much as 5C
(41F) above pre-industrial levels. Scientists estimate that warming above
2C (35.6F) will result in catastrophic and irreversible changes to the
weather, including droughts, floods, heatwaves, fiercer storms and sea
level rises."

Bill

On 01/12/2015 15:01, Brian-Gaff wrote:
I see, but with agreement we all justsomehow manage to keep things together
and live happily ever afterwards?
That is assumiing we do not blow ourselves up, encounter a giant meteorite
or have a nuclear winter event cause then the Yellowstone volcano rips the
guts out t of the usa then.
Cheerful *******.

Bill

On 01/12/2015 15:13, Bill Wright wrote:
On 01/12/2015 15:01, Brian-Gaff wrote:
I see, but with agreement we all justsomehow manage to keep things
together
and live happily ever afterwards?
That is assumiing we do not blow ourselves up, encounter a giant
meteorite
or have a nuclear winter event cause then the Yellowstone volcano rips
the
guts out t of the usa then.
Cheerful *******.

Brian's fundamentally correct. If human development had been some sort
of grand experiment, it would have been deemed to be an unmitigated
failure long ago.

We've managed to totally bugger our environment, and (unlike every other
species) we kill and maim each other gratuitously.

Taking a broad dispassionate view, the best thing that can happen is a
bloody great asteroid hits the planet and gives it massive reboot, but
if it doesn't I suspect we'll all be gone anyway in less than 200 years.

Merry Christmas.


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 02/12/2015 08:58, Mark Carver wrote:

Brian's fundamentally correct. If human development had been some sort
of grand experiment, it would have been deemed to be an unmitigated
failure long ago.

What about mankind's astonishing achievements in science, technology,
and medicine? The average standard of living throughout the world has
never been so high.

I know there are many bad things in the world, but on the whole I think
humanity does remarkably well. Even in the Third World conditions are
slowly improving.

I have faith in humanity.


We've managed to totally bugger our environment,

Well, when I look out of the window I see blue sky. The air is cleaner
than it has been since the 1750s thanks to clean air Acts. The Antarctic
ice is growing. The planet is greening over with many desert areas now
able to support plant life, thanks to increased atmospheric CO2.

and (unlike every other
species) we kill and maim each other gratuitously.

Only a few people do that. They are aberrant. Don't judge a whole
species on just a few individuals. Positive action is to educate people
so that they do not follow the aberrant few.


Taking a broad dispassionate view, the best thing that can happen is a
bloody great asteroid hits the planet and gives it massive reboot,

Well let's hope it happens after dinner but before the washing up.

but
if it doesn't I suspect we'll all be gone anyway in less than 200 years.

I don't think humanity will die out, unless there is a cataclysm. We are
too clever.

Bill

On 02/12/2015 14:49, Bill Wright wrote:

I don't think humanity will die out, unless there is a cataclysm. We are
too clever.


Perhaps too clever though ? I've heard it suggested that man-made
features (Great Wall of China, New York, the M1 etc) viewed from space
by another life form, might be interpreted as some sort of viral
growth on the planet.

Don't get me wrong, I love flying around the world, using my smartphone,
feeling the central heating work, having drinks in the local boozer etc
etc. However, in total, is all of that beneficial for the planet ? Does
mother nature attempt to wipe us all out every 100 years or so with a
pandemic as part of a balancing scheme ?

I'm talking totally philosophically here, trying to view the human race
completely dispassionately. (Difficult when you're one of them !)

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

On 02/12/2015 15:11, Mark Carver wrote:
On 02/12/2015 14:49, Bill Wright wrote:

I don't think humanity will die out, unless there is a cataclysm. We are
too clever.


Perhaps too clever though ? I've heard it suggested that man-made
features (Great Wall of China, New York, the M1 etc) viewed from space
by another life form, might be interpreted as some sort of viral
growth on the planet.

Don't get me wrong, I love flying around the world, using my smartphone,
feeling the central heating work, having drinks in the local boozer etc
etc. However, in total, is all of that beneficial for the planet ? Does
mother nature attempt to wipe us all out every 100 years or so with a
pandemic as part of a balancing scheme ?

I'm talking totally philosophically here, trying to view the human race
completely dispassionately. (Difficult when you're one of them !)

I read somewhere that global warming is the earth having a fever in an
attempt to kill off an infection.

Cheers
--
Syd

On 02/12/2015 08:58, Mark Carver wrote:
On 01/12/2015 15:13, Bill Wright wrote:
On 01/12/2015 15:01, Brian-Gaff wrote:
I see, but with agreement we all justsomehow manage to keep things
together
and live happily ever afterwards?
That is assumiing we do not blow ourselves up, encounter a giant
meteorite
or have a nuclear winter event cause then the Yellowstone volcano rips
the
guts out t of the usa then.
Cheerful *******.

Brian's fundamentally correct. If human development had been some sort
of grand experiment, it would have been deemed to be an unmitigated
failure long ago.

We've managed to totally bugger our environment, and (unlike every other
species) we kill and maim each other gratuitously.

A lot of other species kill to achieve a better position just like
people do. Some individuals kill for no good reason just like people too.

We have yet to bugger our environment to any significant degree as far
as we are concerned. We have buggered it for several other species but
is that a failure or evolution?

On 02/12/2015 15:47, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Mark Carver
wrote:

However, in total, is all of that beneficial for the planet ?

This is a meaningless question.

After you trimmed it, but that's the kind of thing silly little *******
like you do.

On 02/12/15 15:11, Mark Carver wrote:
is all of that beneficial for the planet ?

I read the above, and my jaw dropped open!

What on earth does 'beneficial for the planet' mean?

What OUGHT a planet to be like, other than what it is?

The whole implication that there is some external value judgement that
can be applied to a planet is pure religious flummery.


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 02/12/15 15:58, Fido wrote:
On 02/12/2015 15:47, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Mark Carver
wrote:

However, in total, is all of that beneficial for the planet ?

This is a meaningless question.

After you trimmed it, but that's the kind of thing silly little *******
like you do.

No, it is meaningless unless you have some Godlike judgement to tell you
what a planet OUGHT to be like.

I don't. I can't say whether a plant without people would be 'better'
than one with.


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/12/15 15:11, Mark Carver wrote:
is all of that beneficial for the planet ?

I read the above, and my jaw dropped open!

What on earth does 'beneficial for the planet' mean?

What OUGHT a planet to be like, other than what it is?

What it might mean is "leave it suitable for future generations".

--
Please note new email address:

On 02/12/2015 16:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/12/15 15:11, Mark Carver wrote:
is all of that beneficial for the planet ?

I read the above, and my jaw dropped open!

What on earth does 'beneficial for the planet' mean?

What OUGHT a planet to be like, other than what it is?

I don't know, I'm just trying to provoke a philosophic discussion, but
it seems to have wound you up (ironic given your name).


The whole implication that there is some external value judgement that
can be applied to a planet is pure religious flummery.

Yes, perhaps it is, I'd describe myself as an atheist BTW.



--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

On 02/12/15 16:22, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/12/15 15:11, Mark Carver wrote:
is all of that beneficial for the planet ?

I read the above, and my jaw dropped open!

What on earth does 'beneficial for the planet' mean?

What OUGHT a planet to be like, other than what it is?

What it might mean is "leave it suitable for future generations".

generations of what?
Bacteria?
Polar bears?
Cycads?
Champagne socialists and green morons?

--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/12/15 16:22, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/12/15 15:11, Mark Carver wrote:
is all of that beneficial for the planet ?

I read the above, and my jaw dropped open!

What on earth does 'beneficial for the planet' mean?

What OUGHT a planet to be like, other than what it is?

What it might mean is "leave it suitable for future generations".

generations of what?
Bacteria?
Polar bears?
Cycads?
Champagne socialists and green morons?

Take your pick. I was thinking about "normal human beings", but perhaps
they don't exist.

--
Please note new email address:

On 02/12/15 16:54, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/12/15 16:22, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/12/15 15:11, Mark Carver wrote:
is all of that beneficial for the planet ?

I read the above, and my jaw dropped open!

What on earth does 'beneficial for the planet' mean?

What OUGHT a planet to be like, other than what it is?

What it might mean is "leave it suitable for future generations".

generations of what?
Bacteria?
Polar bears?
Cycads?
Champagne socialists and green morons?

Take your pick. I was thinking about "normal human beings", but perhaps
they don't exist.

No, I think they became extinct about 1970.


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 02/12/2015 16:54, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/12/15 16:22, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/12/15 15:11, Mark Carver wrote:
is all of that beneficial for the planet ?

I read the above, and my jaw dropped open!

What on earth does 'beneficial for the planet' mean?

What OUGHT a planet to be like, other than what it is?

What it might mean is "leave it suitable for future generations".

generations of what?
Bacteria?
Polar bears?
Cycads?
Champagne socialists and green morons?

Take your pick. I was thinking about "normal human beings", but perhaps
they don't exist.


Well what exactly do you think we could do that made the planet
uninhabitable by humans?
There is zero chance that we could change the climate enough to do so so
what else?
WW3? even then would it really kill everyone?

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Well, when I look out of the window I see blue sky. The air is cleaner
than it has been since the 1750s thanks to clean air Acts

Think what you may mean is *look* clearer. The unseen pollution levels in
towns and round motorways etc are at an all time high.

--
*It is easier to get older than it is to get wiser.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Mark Carver wrote
Bill Wright wrote
Brian-Gaff wrote

I see, but with agreement we all justsomehow manage to keep things
together and live happily ever afterwards?

That is assumiing we do not blow ourselves up, encounter a giant
meteorite or have a nuclear winter event cause then the Yellowstone
volcano rips the guts out t of the usa then.

Cheerful *******.

Brian's fundamentally correct. If human development had been some sort of
grand experiment, it would have been deemed to be an unmitigated failure
long ago.

That is very arguable indeed. Apart from some insects like say cockroaches
and some vermin like say rats, its hard to come up with any species that
is so completely pervasive right thruout the entire world and those don’t
have anything like the level of control over their environment that humans
have which allows humans to do fine in places like Antarctica and to now
almost completely eliminate famine except where the place has deteriorated
into the most obscene levels of civil war and civil chaos or have been
stupid
enough to let some clown like Kim Jong Il rule the roost etc.

And even those are readily fixable too, we just
choose not to do that for various reasons.

Leaves what any animal or insect species gets to wear for dead. They get
to watch their kids starve to death in the worst drought etc. We don’t.

We've managed to totally bugger our environment,

But can also improve it dramatically over what was there before too.

and (unlike every other species) we kill and maim each other gratuitously.

There are other species that do that too.

Taking a broad dispassionate view, the best thing that can happen is a
bloody great asteroid hits the planet and gives it massive reboot, but if
it doesn't I suspect we'll all be gone anyway in less than 200 years.

Not a chance, you watch.

We don’t even have full world wars anymore.

Merry Christmas.

On 02/12/2015 15:11, Mark Carver wrote:
On 02/12/2015 14:49, Bill Wright wrote:

I don't think humanity will die out, unless there is a cataclysm. We are
too clever.


Perhaps too clever though ? I've heard it suggested that man-made
features (Great Wall of China, New York, the M1 etc) viewed from space
by another life form, might be interpreted as some sort of viral
growth on the planet.

That would be a good thing because they'd keep away.

Don't get me wrong, I love flying around the world, using my smartphone,
feeling the central heating work, having drinks in the local boozer etc
etc.

Having a tooth, appendix, or tumour removed under anaesthetic. . .

However, in total, is all of that beneficial for the planet ?

I don't believe in the Gaia concept of 'the planet'.

Does
mother nature attempt to wipe us all out every 100 years or so with a
pandemic as part of a balancing scheme ?

I don't believe in Mother Nature, or any other all-powerful being.

Except Allah of course. Not gonna say I don't believe in Him in a public
forum am I? Not likely!

I'm talking totally philosophically here, trying to view the human race
completely dispassionately. (Difficult when you're one of them !)

I don't think there's any point in doing that. I think we should simply
carry on as we are, because we are progressing so well with everything.

Bill

On 02/12/2015 15:23, Syd Rumpo wrote:

I read somewhere that global warming is the earth having a fever in an
attempt to kill off an infection.

How sweet.

Bill

On 02/12/2015 16:59, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Well, when I look out of the window I see blue sky. The air is cleaner
than it has been since the 1750s thanks to clean air Acts

Think what you may mean is *look* clearer. The unseen pollution levels in
towns and round motorways etc are at an all time high.


But when I was a kid the pollution was far worse. Good grief we had smog
so bad they used to send us home from school at dinner time. When I was
fixing aerials as a teenager the rain used to sting my eyes so bad I
couldn't see.

They tell us how bad it is now and yes it could be better, but things
are improving.

Bill

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Bill wrote:

Well, when I look out of the window I see blue sky. The air is cleaner
than it has been since the 1750s thanks to clean air Acts

Think what you may mean is *look* clearer. The unseen pollution levels in
towns and round motorways etc are at an all time high.


Yes, the thing I noticed when flying back after periods in
Scotland was the foul smell of exhaust fumes in the South of England.

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Think what you may mean is *look* clearer. The unseen pollution levels in
towns and round motorways etc are at an all time high.


But when I was a kid the pollution was far worse. Good grief we had smog
so bad they used to send us home from school at dinner time. When I was
fixing aerials as a teenager the rain used to sting my eyes so bad I
couldn't see.

Never seen a smog when I was a kid despite coal fires everywhere. It would
depend on the part of the country you lived in.

They tell us how bad it is now and yes it could be better, but things
are improving.

Again, that would depend on which part of the country/world you live in.

--
*When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
On 02/12/2015 08:58, Mark Carver wrote:

Brian's fundamentally correct. If human development had been some sort
of grand experiment, it would have been deemed to be an unmitigated
failure long ago.

What about mankind's astonishing achievements in science, technology, and
medicine? The average standard of living throughout the world has never
been so high.

I know there are many bad things in the world, but on the whole I think
humanity does remarkably well. Even in the Third World conditions are
slowly improving.

I have faith in humanity.


We've managed to totally bugger our environment,

Well, when I look out of the window I see blue sky. The air is cleaner
than it has been since the 1750s thanks to clean air Acts. The Antarctic
ice is growing. The planet is greening over with many desert areas now
able to support plant life, thanks to increased atmospheric CO2.

and (unlike every other
species) we kill and maim each other gratuitously.

Only a few people do that. They are aberrant. Don't judge a whole species
on just a few individuals. Positive action is to educate people so that
they do not follow the aberrant few.


Taking a broad dispassionate view, the best thing that can happen is a
bloody great asteroid hits the planet and gives it massive reboot,

Well let's hope it happens after dinner but before the washing up.

but if it doesn't I suspect we'll all be gone anyway in less than 200
years.

I don't think humanity will die out, unless there is a cataclysm.

I know it wont, even if there is a cataclysm.

We are too clever.

Indeed. Even a massive meteor strike that we couldn’t work out
how to avoid, or an immense volcano eruption like Yellowstone
going bang again wouldn’t wipe out humans now.

Mark Carver wrote
Bill Wright wrote

I don't think humanity will die out, unless there is a cataclysm. We are
too clever.

Perhaps too clever though ?

No evidence of that. Yes, the industrial revolution has some
very real downsides as far as the environment is concerned
but clearly we did have enough of a clue to fix those downsides
when they became bad enough to be a serious problem.

I've heard it suggested that man-made features (Great Wall of China, New
York, the M1 etc) viewed from space
by another life form, might be interpreted as some sort of viral growth on
the planet.

Irrelevant to the fact that some prefer NY the
way it is now to what was there before it.

Same with other places like London and the whole of the Netherlands etc.

Don't get me wrong, I love flying around the world, using my smartphone,
feeling the central heating work, having drinks in the local boozer etc
etc. However, in total, is all of that beneficial for the planet ?

Who cares ? No other species does.

Does mother nature attempt to wipe us all out every 100 years or so with a
pandemic as part of a balancing scheme ?

That isn't what humans do. Even the Black Death wasn’t due to humans.

I'm talking totally philosophically here, trying to view the human race
completely dispassionately. (Difficult when you're one of them !)

But we are clearly by far the most successful species now that we
can do anything we like to the environment we are stuck with.

We'd survive even a massive meteor strike that was 100
times worse than what we have ever had before now.
Same with a repeat of Yellowstone but much worse.

Sure, both would have a massive effect, but not eliminate humans.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
Think what you may mean is *look* clearer. The unseen pollution
levels in towns and round motorways etc are at an all time high.


But when I was a kid the pollution was far worse. Good grief we had
smog so bad they used to send us home from school at dinner time. When
I was fixing aerials as a teenager the rain used to sting my eyes so
bad I couldn't see.

Never seen a smog when I was a kid despite coal fires everywhere. It
would depend on the part of the country you lived in.

They tell us how bad it is now and yes it could be better, but things
are improving.

Again, that would depend on which part of the country/world you live in.

There was one serious smog event in London - end of 1962, I think, but it
might have been early 1962. It was so think that even taxis wouldn't run.
Those of us on the late shift at TC had to spend the night there.

--
Please note new email address:

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 02/12/2015 16:54, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/12/15 16:22, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/12/15 15:11, Mark Carver wrote:
is all of that beneficial for the planet ?

I read the above, and my jaw dropped open!

What on earth does 'beneficial for the planet' mean?

What OUGHT a planet to be like, other than what it is?

What it might mean is "leave it suitable for future generations".

generations of what?
Bacteria?
Polar bears?
Cycads?
Champagne socialists and green morons?

Take your pick. I was thinking about "normal human beings", but perhaps
they don't exist.


Well what exactly do you think we could do that made the planet
uninhabitable by humans?
There is zero chance that we could change the climate enough to do so so
what else?
WW3? even then would it really kill everyone?

Even a full nuclear holocaust wouldn’t.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Well, when I look out of the window I see blue sky. The air is cleaner
than it has been since the 1750s thanks to clean air Acts

Think what you may mean is *look* clearer. The unseen pollution
levels in towns and round motorways etc are at an all time high.

But are nothing like the problem health wise that
we saw with the worst of the industrial pollution.

In message , Rod Speed
writes
Mark Carver wrote

I've heard it suggested that man-made features (Great Wall of China,
New York, the M1 etc) viewed from space
by another life form, might be interpreted as some sort of viral
growth on the planet.

Irrelevant to the fact that some prefer NY the
way it is now to what was there before it.

Same with other places like London and the whole of the Netherlands etc.

Also surely any alien race technologically advanced enough to be able to
view man-made features on our planet from space would have comparable
alien-made features on their own home planet, so they should not
misinterpret ours. They might not be precisely clear just what the
purposes of some of the structures were, but they would have no trouble
identifying them as artificial constructs.
--
John Hall
"Honest criticism is hard to take,
particularly from a relative, a friend,
an acquaintance, or a stranger." Franklin P Jones

In message , Bill Wright
writes
On 02/12/2015 16:59, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Well, when I look out of the window I see blue sky. The air is cleaner
than it has been since the 1750s thanks to clean air Acts

Think what you may mean is *look* clearer. The unseen pollution levels in
towns and round motorways etc are at an all time high.


But when I was a kid the pollution was far worse. Good grief we had
smog so bad they used to send us home from school at dinner time. When
I was fixing aerials as a teenager the rain used to sting my eyes so
bad I couldn't see.

They tell us how bad it is now and yes it could be better, but things
are improving.

Cue the Four Yorkshire men sketch (one already here, three more needed).
--
Ian

On 02/12/15 19:15, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 02/12/15 15:11, Mark Carver wrote:
is all of that beneficial for the planet ?

I read the above, and my jaw dropped open!

What on earth does 'beneficial for the planet' mean?

What OUGHT a planet to be like, other than what it is?

The whole implication that there is some external value judgement that
can be applied to a planet is pure religious flummery.

I conclude the Mr Carver is a twerp.

He and his chums are very amateurish.


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 02/12/2015 18:10, Bill Wright wrote:

Does
mother nature attempt to wipe us all out every 100 years or so with a
pandemic as part of a balancing scheme ?

I don't believe in Mother Nature, or any other all-powerful being.

Nothing at all to do with religious mumbo-jumbo, but are we not part of
one big self regulating eco-system ?


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Mark Carver wrote
Bill Wright wrote

Does mother nature attempt to wipe us all out every 100 years or so with
a pandemic as part of a balancing scheme ?

I don't believe in Mother Nature, or any other all-powerful being.

Nothing at all to do with religious mumbo-jumbo, but are we not part of
one big self regulating eco-system ?

Sure, but its silly to call that mother nature.

And the one big self regulating eco-system doesn’t attempt to wipe us all
out every 100 years or so with a pandemic as part of a balancing scheme ?

On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 18:51:26 +0000, charles wrote:

There was one serious smog event in London - end of 1962, I think, but
it might have been early 1962. It was so think that even taxis wouldn't
run.
Those of us on the late shift at TC had to spend the night there.

I remember that one. I drove from Wood Green (North London, Milord) to
Highbury with a colleague hanging his head out of the passenger window to
tell me how far from the kerb I was! Buses were following a man with an
oil burning torch at walking pace! Those were the days!

--
TOJ.

On 02/12/2015 19:43, Rod Speed wrote:
Mark Carver wrote
Bill Wright wrote

Does mother nature attempt to wipe us all out every 100 years or so
with a pandemic as part of a balancing scheme ?

I don't believe in Mother Nature, or any other all-powerful being.

Nothing at all to do with religious mumbo-jumbo, but are we not part
of one big self regulating eco-system ?

Sure, but its silly to call that mother nature.

And the one big self regulating eco-system doesn’t attempt to wipe us all
out every 100 years or so with a pandemic as part of a balancing scheme ?

What's the biological purpose of a pandemic, or any disease then ?


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

On 02/12/15 19:53, Mark Carver wrote:
On 02/12/2015 19:43, Rod Speed wrote:
Mark Carver wrote
Bill Wright wrote

Does mother nature attempt to wipe us all out every 100 years or so
with a pandemic as part of a balancing scheme ?

I don't believe in Mother Nature, or any other all-powerful being.

Nothing at all to do with religious mumbo-jumbo, but are we not part
of one big self regulating eco-system ?

Sure, but its silly to call that mother nature.

And the one big self regulating eco-system doesnt attempt to wipe us all
out every 100 years or so with a pandemic as part of a balancing scheme ?

What's the biological purpose of a pandemic, or any disease then ?


Biology doesn't have a purpose, silly.


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 02/12/2015 19:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/12/15 19:53, Mark Carver wrote:
On 02/12/2015 19:43, Rod Speed wrote:
Mark Carver wrote
Bill Wright wrote

Does mother nature attempt to wipe us all out every 100 years or so
with a pandemic as part of a balancing scheme ?

I don't believe in Mother Nature, or any other all-powerful being.

Nothing at all to do with religious mumbo-jumbo, but are we not part
of one big self regulating eco-system ?

Sure, but its silly to call that mother nature.

And the one big self regulating eco-system doesnt attempt to wipe us
all
out every 100 years or so with a pandemic as part of a balancing
scheme ?

What's the biological purpose of a pandemic, or any disease then ?


Biology doesn't have a purpose, silly.

No, but it follows a design, and evolves it ?

(And can you stop ****ing about with the follow-up settings please ?)


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

On 02/12/15 20:09, Mark Carver wrote:
On 02/12/2015 19:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/12/15 19:53, Mark Carver wrote:
On 02/12/2015 19:43, Rod Speed wrote:
Mark Carver wrote
Bill Wright wrote

Does mother nature attempt to wipe us all out every 100 years or so
with a pandemic as part of a balancing scheme ?

I don't believe in Mother Nature, or any other all-powerful being.

Nothing at all to do with religious mumbo-jumbo, but are we not part
of one big self regulating eco-system ?

Sure, but its silly to call that mother nature.

And the one big self regulating eco-system doesnt attempt to wipe us
all
out every 100 years or so with a pandemic as part of a balancing
scheme ?

What's the biological purpose of a pandemic, or any disease then ?


Biology doesn't have a purpose, silly.

No, but it follows a design, and evolves it ?

No. it doesn't.

Your ignorance is spectacular'

(And can you stop ****ing about with the follow-up settings please ?)

No, I cant. Albasanin doesnt allow X posting without it





--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

Mark Carver wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Mark Carver wrote
Bill Wright wrote

Does mother nature attempt to wipe us all out every 100 years or so
with a pandemic as part of a balancing scheme ?

I don't believe in Mother Nature, or any other all-powerful being.

Nothing at all to do with religious mumbo-jumbo, but are we not part of
one big self regulating eco-system ?

Sure, but its silly to call that mother nature.

And the one big self regulating eco-system doesn’t attempt to wipe us all
out every 100 years or so with a pandemic as part of a balancing scheme ?

What's the biological purpose of a pandemic, or any disease then ?

There is no purpose, its just something that happens occasionally.

There is no purpose for humans either, its again just something
that happens occasionally, a very successful species shows up.

Same thing happened with ants, rats etc too.
Just nothing like as successful as humans.

Mark Carver wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Mark Carver wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Mark Carver wrote
Bill Wright wrote

Does mother nature attempt to wipe us all out every 100 years or so
with a pandemic as part of a balancing scheme ?

I don't believe in Mother Nature, or any other all-powerful being.

Nothing at all to do with religious mumbo-jumbo, but are we not part
of one big self regulating eco-system ?

Sure, but its silly to call that mother nature.

And the one big self regulating eco-system doesnt attempt to wipe us
all out every 100 years or so with a pandemic as part of a balancing
scheme ?

What's the biological purpose of a pandemic, or any disease then ?

Biology doesn't have a purpose, silly.

No, but it follows a design,

No it doesnt. There is no design.

and evolves it ?

Certainly biology evolves. And humans have evolved
to be much more successful than anything else has
ever been, particularly being able to work out what
is a desirable outcome for that species etc.

With some very real downsides too like the invention of religion.
Something no other species has ever managed to evolve.