From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Mar 18 2004 - 17:37:36 GMT
Hi Mark,
> Taking each point at a time:
> 1. Ongoing geophysical fluctuations.
> Research into the history of our Planet indicates that Global variations in
> temperature have been occurring in cyclical fashion for millennia. Evidence
> for this is found in the rate of vegetation growth, the laying down of dead
> organic Ocean sediments, etc. This being the case, how may we differentiate
> the current Global increase in temperature, which has been attributed to
> Human activity, and natural increases?
Thanks for the clarifications. As to point 1., arguments about the causes
of global warming are very much related to your question. The answer is
still up in the air. :-)
> 2. Radioactive patterns in the food chain.
> Unlike the current debate over Global temperature, Radioactivity can be
> easily distinguished from that generated by Human activity and that
> generated by Geophysical processes. While it may be argued that
> Radioactivity is of minimal concern, (those experiencing raised exposure
> would no doubt disagree with this, as may be the case with people living on
> the coast of the Irish sea for example)? Ozone depletion may be far more
> serious?
>
> The context within which these examples were introduced was that of
> Environmental impact due to prolonged Human activity, and the danger such
> activities may pose for future generations of Humans.
Again, no complete agreement among scientists about such dangers. The jury
is still out.
> 3. Planetary biological diversity. (PBD)
> Prolonged Human activity has had a significant impact upon PBD. This is
> beyond question. What is PBD? PBD is the extent to which DNA has evolved
> life forms - Organic patterns of value. Human activity is reducing PBD by
> illuminating them at an increasing rate.
>
> The context within which this example was introduced was that of
> Environmental impact due to prolonged Human activity. But is this a problem
> for future generations of Humans? I feel this is an exceptionally
> interesting question when examined in MoQ terms, and leads directly on to
> the following considerations:
I question the value of biological diversity due to most of it being wiped
out at least once, resulting in the rise of humanity along with the social
and intellectual levels, of which I'm very happy about. :-)
> 4 and 5. A coherent relationship to DQ. Coherent state of the static
> repertoire.
> a. A coherent relationship with DQ is a description of an aesthetic sense
> of beauty, in which static patterns of Quality maintain or reach a high
> Quality relationship with Dynamic Quality.
This I still have trouble understanding. Can it be explained in 10 words
or less, like "Dynamic Quality is a response to beauty." ? ?
b. The static repertoire is
> simply the sum total of all static patterns of Quality. In the case of
> Organic patterns, this is the biosphere. So, Coherent state of the static
> repertoire is, in the case of Organic patterns, a description of the beauty
> of the biosphere.
Beauty for the biosphere is a lot different than beauty for us. It's the
level of tooth and claw, kill or be killed. Beauty for this level consists
of the four F's: fighting, fleeing, feeding, and f---ing. "Beauty" we
ascribe to this level, such as we see in roses, is anthropocentric.
> Before Humans evolved to the stage when they could manipulate their
> environment, the Earths' biosphere - the repertoire of static Organic
> patterns of Quality evolving in the event stream - had reached a beautiful
> or coherent state.
See comment above.
I feel we may fully describe life in this way because
> the evolution of life is moral process according to the MoQ. I would argue
> that the beauty of the static repertoire, (and this goes for all levels) is
> in its diversity, because diversity resonates more vigorously with DQ than
> does a limited repertoire. One may wish to consider a limited gene pool as
> an example? The more diverse the gene pool of any species, the more able it
> is to respond to change?
See above about the time when most of the bio-level was wiped out.
> 7. Geophysical catastrophe.
> An Earthquake, Volcanic activity, Super Volcanic activity, Ice age, Meteor
> impacts.
>
> The context within which these examples were introduced was that of
> Environmental impact due to natural processes. If prolonged Human activity
> has the potential to disrupt the biosphere to a similar extent to that of
> natural processes, then the matter must be examined carefully. Science
> cannot defend PBD on aesthetic grounds. The MoQ can, and does i would
> argue.
I doubt if human activity, no matter how prolonged, will ever impact the
environment more than an errant meteor of some size hitting Los Angeles or
London.
> Hope this clarifies my approach?
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to elucidate your views.
Best regards,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 18 2004 - 17:37:08 GMT