Extinction:
This is a subject I’ve been curious about for a while now. Seeing Evils post about green bigots got me thinking about it again. Why do we seek to protect endangered species? If they are meant to be extinct, why do we interfere? Are we trying to become more "Godlike" and save these animals? Or are we afraid that we were the cause of their extinction and we want to protect them? If that's the case, are we actually messing up the natural balance of life even more because these animals are Suppose to be extinct? (Keep in mind, survival of the fittest.) Are we keeping something alive that could be our downfall in the future? Now granted, I do believe that we've screwed up on certain things, and I believe we need to be more careful with our natural resources and environment, but should we be trying to actually bring them back?
posted by RT at 3:12 AM
3 Comments:
Evolution:
I'm currently reading a book by Ian Tattersall, I don't know how good the rest of the book will be, but the first 30 pages are Amazing! It almost gives me a chill when I think of the philosophy behind what this guy is saying. The one main point, that I caught anyway, was that science is much like religion in the fact that both are based on faith. Everyone seems to think that science holds certain "truths", but he says- and with the way he put it, I tend to agree- it's not true at all. It's merely a theory that they try to prove right or wrong. I imagine it's something like a thesis in college, you come up with an idea based of previous, similar knowledge and give your version of it and try your best to make it sound logical, then see if anyone will dispute it. If they do, then so be it, if not, then it goes down as fact until the time comes when someone comes up with something better. Kind of like how the earth was flat. Tattersall says that seeing how we believe (some people, anyway) that all of creation came from one single cell, why couldn't it have come from more than one? Were did that one cell come from anyway? and why do we assume there weren't more?
That, to me, sounds very logical. However, if you take it one step further, who's to say that there aren't billions of those cells still starting new species everyday? And can it be possible that all the different races of the world, may have come from different cells? Making us different, yet similar, species? What an awesome concept! We just assume that we are all the same, and for the most part, we are, but what if we are indeed, of different species?
Could there be species forming right this minute in areas of the world that are somewhat inaccessable to people?
Could there be a giant snow sloth sucking up all the water in the Antarctic? Maybe that's why the world hasn't flooded yet from all the "global warming". And what do think would happen if say, one of those whalers shot a snow sloth instead of a whale? Tidal wave? Sound a little bazaar? Sure it does, I meant it to. But, that's an obvious change in what we understand to be true. What about something that's not quite so obvious? Organism usually start out small and then evolve into larger things. Could it be that there are thousand of tiny new organisms starting out in the world, organisms that could very possibly turn into something larger much faster than we thought they could.
This has definitely changed the way I look at science. And I doubt that it I will ever hold any of it as truth, seeing how it's been pointed out so well, that science is indeed, not fact. If you're ever in doubt, just remember, the earth is not flat.
That alone could open a billion doors to theories and suspicions if what could be.
Probably the closest thing to hard science is engineering. Either what you're trying to design works, or it doesn't. You can well extrapolate then that if engineering is a 'hard science' then it's not beyond reason that much of the rest of science (since so much is applicable in engineering) is 'hard' as well.
For example, I'm around creationists a bit and their wild ideas drive me nuts at times, but in the end, their ideas are irrelevant. They must craft their ideas to the 'hard science', a type of retro fit. Although their theories have other failings, in the end the hard science has won. Everyone's life is dependent on the facts 'hard science' is known to produce, while wild ideas about how the facts came about are exactly that.
Well, if cloning is perfected, we won't have to worry about a shortage of cows. Thing is, how do we know if those cloned cows are going to safe to eat? If not, we may not see any effects for years.
Oh man! I'm starting to see the error of my ways... most of these subjects are very easy to intermingle. It's going to be tough to stay on topic.
Hey Evil Sandmich, Good Point! I didn't even think of engineering. I was thinking more about mathematics being a science that's considered exact (which I guess, is a part of engineering), but then I was reading somewhere that, how can you be sure that mathematics are perfect, when there's nothing to compare it to... Or something like that. I know I'm not explaining it right, but it made sense when I read it.
Anyway, :D I'm probably one of those people who will drive you nuts. I love formulating crazy ideas, just to see where they will lead me. Whether they work or not doesn't always matter, the reward is in the journey!
Post a Comment
<< Home