From: Matt poot (mattpoot@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Mar 19 2004 - 00:19:05 GMT
Hello,
I am interested.
Platt: 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. :-)
Poot: Yes, this question is very much so "up in the air". I agree with you
(to a certain point), that global warming is hyped up these days. Most
people attribute this to the greenhouse gasses, but in fact, the most
dangerous thing is the hole in the ozone layer[caused by things like
styrofoam, and aerosol], at either pole (especially the south pole). Now,
the hole on top of ozone layer in the south pole was reaching enormous
proportions, but it has seemed to reduce in size quite significantly.
However, recently (how recent I'm not exactly sure), a piece of ice(glacier)
from antarctica, has broken off and begun to float towards to atlantic.
This is not really that big of a deal. However, the iceberg just happens to
be roughly the size of Prince Edward Island (square km): 5, 656 (2,184
square miles). So, as you can see, it is quite the chunk of ice, on its way
to commonly used shipping lanes. I don't want to appear to be the alarmist,
but I think it could turn out to be an ..interesting.. situation.
Mark: 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
Platt: Again, no complete agreement among scientists about such dangers. The
jury
is still out.
Poot:When have scientists (or any other such 'group') ever agreed
unanimously? By those standards, we should all just do whatever we want,
without any consideration of the consequences. After all, the jury might
not be 100% conclusive, right (O.J?)
This is where I differ most in viewpoints, with you, Platt. I don't
believe that it is 'best' for us to have the attitude that "well, we don't
know for sure, but I'll just keep doing what I'm doing until I find out its
too late to change". I know that I have to spend the rest of my life (which
is longer, since I am younger) living on this planet. And then, there will
be the generation after me. And after them. Etc.
Platt: 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.
Poot: Yes. You may indeed be correct. However, you must remember, that
the asteroid that hit the earth, nearly extinguished all life on earth.
Making, however pales in comparison. We have only directly caused the
extinction of 100's if not 1000's of species, and paved over what once was
biological. Humans as a whole, have a continuing dynamic effect on the
biosphere.
Operating on a purely scientific basis, as a source for guidance, can have
damaging results. Or , we could find out , that things _are_ really ok? I
don't want to get into the environmental estrogen business again, b/c my
input on that subject is 'not relevant' to Quality.
I have to go.
Poot
>From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD SQ-SQ coherence and the Biosphere.
>Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:37:36 -0500
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 : Fri Mar 19 2004 - 00:29:03 GMT