tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post1526163194577072653..comments2024-02-13T12:50:30.457-05:00Comments on Rants Within the Undead God: Humankind as Life’s Executioner: The Environmentalist’s NightmareBenjamin Cainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-63069397617418386732013-06-22T10:08:10.569-04:002013-06-22T10:08:10.569-04:00I think you're raising a different scenario he...I think you're raising a different scenario here. The thesis of this article isn't that we're an evolutionary mistake; on the contrary, it's that we're the end of the process of organic evolution (given that we have self-awareness, intelligence, and the opposable thumbs to act on our acquired knowledge). The idea here is that organic evolution had some mysterious beginning, it's had a long middle period in which life evolved a great variety of forms, until finally we came along and perhaps the emergence of some such species is the end game of the process of life's emergence on a planet. Just as stars and galaxies have beginnings, middles, and ends, so too may life. And maybe we're the instrument that brings about this particular version of life's end. Instead of seeing a mistake here, maybe we should see natural necessity; that's the nightmare.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-63915173131758307002013-06-21T22:39:31.598-04:002013-06-21T22:39:31.598-04:00Or, to put it perhaps more succinctly, we are one ...Or, to put it perhaps more succinctly, we are one of Nature's mistakes. In the geological time frame, even assuming we last another unlikely 10,000 years before extinction, making a total of perhaps 200,000 years at best in our present form, we will have been but a tiny blip, just another failed species.<br /><br />My more cynical view is that western environmentalists are trying to preserve a status quo that favors the rich white guy with a summer home in Florida, but who insists on clean water and lots of gas for his SUV.Welch's Rarebitshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09183345901778644627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-2220425630933662222013-05-07T12:57:36.536-04:002013-05-07T12:57:36.536-04:00Hey, Benjamin. Here's another fun site. The ...Hey, Benjamin. Here's another fun site. The posts on honeybee decline a few down focus on the stupidity of humanity in its short sighted management of the world. <br /><br />The site is almost so unrelentingly grim that I don't follow it on a regular basis (I tend towards a dour outlook myself, so), but...<br />"enjoy"<br /><br />http://www.declineoftheempire.com/Brian Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-34277057318423762092013-05-06T09:38:07.443-04:002013-05-06T09:38:07.443-04:00I show how some cosmology is consistent with the m...I show how some cosmology is consistent with the myth of God's creative destruction here (see the last section):<br /><br />http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com/2012/11/god-and-science-ironic-theophany.html<br /><br />But you raise a good point about the quantum fluctuations. As I understand it and as Krauss says, the chaotic quantum field is eternal since it's not part of spacetime. Thus, the universes that spring from those fluctuations will come and go for eternity. <br /><br />On my version of monotheism, the quantum field is a filter, transducing God's infinite transcendent Being into the corresponding field of finite bodies (the multiverse). If the field is eternal, does that it mean that the multiverse includes universes that are absolutely identical, as in Nietzsche's myth of the eternal return of the same? If so, this might not sit well with my version of monotheism, since even if the quantum field is eternal, parts or versions of God would die with each fading, boiling, or ripping universe. But if each part will be recreated and has already been created infinite times, that makes each partial death less final. <br /><br />However, this isn't the right way of looking at it, precisely because the quantum field is timeless. Thus the identical universes wouldn't be created in time; they wouldn't come one after the other, and the death of each universe would indeed be final. Therefore, the myth retains it's aesthetic power. Maybe we can think of all the universes in the multiverse as being simultaneous or as subsisting in a timeless dimension.<br /><br />So maybe God's transcendent body is infinite and his self-destruction is the creation of an undead corpse that never really disappears completely, since the quantum field keeps creating iterations of God. Mind you, since the quantum field's eternity means that it's timeless and that it doesn't keep creating universes one after the other, but creates infinite universes "all at once," the death of each universe in its own time might spell the complete death of God even though there's no time or space in which to measure the end of the whole multiverse. (You'd need God's transcendent perspective.) <br /><br />Moreover, from our perspective within a particular universe, we can be moved by the idea that God would prefer to destroy himself, albeit imperfectly, since our universe seems finite and might suffer the Big Rip.<br /><br />Of course, I'm no expert on physics or cosmology, so take all this with a grain of salt.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-11659362424628688602013-05-05T11:38:39.976-04:002013-05-05T11:38:39.976-04:00I'm sure you heard about the book by Lawrence ...I'm sure you heard about the book by Lawrence Krauss "A Universe from Nothing". He argues that the universe came from fluctuations in the quantum field and I think this sounds reasonable. So is the quantum field also part of of his/her body? I quess outside of God is only nothing, real nothing, not the fake nothing that is actually a field or anything like that. Or is his body infinite and there is no end of God? I'm interested because does this mean his/her Death is impossible?<br />Sorry for these metaphysical questions that might not lead to anything but I'm a curious person :-) <br /><br />Thanks for your answer.dietlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-47471346217640761292013-05-05T09:35:21.803-04:002013-05-05T09:35:21.803-04:00According to the myth which is based on Mainlander...According to the myth which is based on Mainlander's theology, organisms add up to only one part of God's undying corpse. His body includes all of the universe and indeed all of the multiverse. Living things might be echoes of his mind. But God would be dead only when everything material fades or boils away or rips apart.<br /><br />In the antinatalism article I say I have a nephew, not a cousin. So I have two brothers (and also several cousins).Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-36217215365017011182013-05-05T06:05:37.601-04:002013-05-05T06:05:37.601-04:00So if I get it right, God finally dies when all po...So if I get it right, God finally dies when all possibile ways life can evolve have become actual in the field of Becoming and all those ways have ended. Every elimination of life would be another step towards the Undead God's Death. Does that also mean that everytime Life is born or another possibilitiy becomes actual that that process is step towards her revivification? So that if enough life manages to succeed that God might be alive again? Or is it already too late for that?<br /><br />My answer to the Life-filled vs. empty universe question is that I *prefer* my universe to be full of Life from my human perspective but I see no reason to call it better this way.<br /><br />I have a short qestion concerning your article on antinatalism: Are you an only child? It's just something I asked myself while reading the part about your cousin.dietlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-89917784711698199032013-05-04T15:53:05.076-04:002013-05-04T15:53:05.076-04:00You're right, of course, that if life came fro...You're right, of course, that if life came from nonlife, life can emerge that way again even if it's wiped out on one planet. Still, that's consistent with my speculation that the emergence of life is a finite process that's likely to produce its own executioner. Each time an order of evolving species arises from nothing, the environment will likely at some time select for an intelligent species like us that has the means to end not all life in the universe but at least a whole, independent biological order, such as all life on that planet.<br /><br />The myth of the undead god does indeed posit a cosmic process of eliminating possibilities by making them actual in the field of Becoming, which field is the natural order in which everything has a material basis and thus tends to be finite owing to conflicts between the material parts, which leads to entropy and to change in general (evolution). The rise of intelligent organisms, and the shenanigans such species get up to, may be nature's ways of ending one possible way Life can evolve, thus helping to transduce God's infinite being and to complete God's suicide.<br /><br />Is a Life-filled universe best? High Arka seems to think so, since she says anything that holds back life is evil. I think Life is good mainly because organisms have the potential for heroically rebelling against the natural order that causes their existential plight. But without life there would be no such plight. So what's better, a world with no problems in it or one that contains the problems and the potential for solving them with great art, for example? That's a tough question. Antinatalists would say the lifeless universe is best, but I've rejected antinatalism.<br /><br />http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2012/11/the-question-of-antinatalism.html Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-86755815317679027342013-05-04T13:28:58.971-04:002013-05-04T13:28:58.971-04:00I'm not sure I agree with this the-planet-did-...I'm not sure I agree with this the-planet-did-this-and-that-talk but it reminds me of an article by Eric Schwitzgebel called "If Materialism Is True, the United States Is Probably Conscious".<br /><br />Here is the link: http://faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzAbs/USAconscious.htmdietlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-44085250415106669482013-05-04T13:24:28.031-04:002013-05-04T13:24:28.031-04:00I think the characterisation of environmentalist t...I think the characterisation of environmentalist that shines through my post is a bit one-sided. So there is the aspect of environmentalism that's based on reason, but it is a position that also relies on emotions like empathy. An environmentalist sees value in the natural balance of the ecosystem and in this regard she/he is a conservative. It is in my view a short-sighted position if you are looking at time periods like a million years, but if you are talking about centuries or decades, environmentalism and the preserving of ecosystems are important.<br /><br />I regarded the other species we'd be killing off as part of the environment that is good for us. Even if one would say that there is no intrinsic value in animal life, one would still have to admit that animals are good *for* human beings (which is similar to a position Peter Singer argues for in Animal Liberation).<br />Is a diversity of forms a good thing? Should human beings therefore try to create new species to increase the diversity of life?<br />Also, time is relative. A thousand years is a lot of time for us, but in proportion to the history of this planet, it is nothing.<br /><br />Okay, let's imagine a science fiction scenario. So there is a technology that can extinguish all life, even all bacteria ect. For whatever reason human beings were stupid enough to cause this to happen. There would still be the fact that life somehow evolved out of non-life, at least if you believe in what science says. Why couldn't this happen again? All it takes is time and if our solar system still exists long enough there might even be another species similar to human beings but a bit smarter, I imagine mollusks to have some potential in this regard ;-). <br />But maybe this will not be the case and life ends, the Undead God will finally be left to rest in peace and die (for real). Is a universe full of life better than one without? <br />dietlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-45577441236821816752013-05-04T09:12:02.340-04:002013-05-04T09:12:02.340-04:00Yes, the planet destroyed most species that have e...Yes, the planet destroyed most species that have ever lived, but only as part of the destructively creative process of natural selection. The environments kill off species that can't adapt to make room for new species that can. Those extinctions happened over a very long period of time, not all at once in a mass extinction event.<br /><br />If an organism can be thought of as eternal, I don't think we're using the biological definition of "organism." Death is part of life in the biological sense. Eternal life would be supernatural.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-9039831741491698882013-05-04T09:06:44.211-04:002013-05-04T09:06:44.211-04:00Even if we're talking about our potential to c...Even if we're talking about our potential to cause another mass extinction instead of the end of all life, that could still be an environmentalist's nightmare, assuming mass extinctions happen as a result of some natural process and not just because of accidents.<br /><br />You say all that would be at stake is the environment that's good for us, but what about all the other species that we'd be killing off? How much more time would be needed for life to evolve into such a great diversity of forms again? And what if a meteor should strike the planet just when Life is "down," because of the mass extinction we cause? Just because some hardy species bounced back the last times doesn't mean some species will always survive a mass extinction event, especially when we're talking about the strange kinds of global actions only humans can take. What about a future war with nanomachines and nuclear weapons? Who's to say how our technology will affect the planet's ability to support life?Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-28267476581696860832013-05-03T05:13:17.725-04:002013-05-03T05:13:17.725-04:00(1) This one is a life-supremacist (not human-). ...(1) This one is a life-supremacist (not human-). <br /><br />(2) Cancer is not evil. <br /><br />(3) Tipping the balance in whose disfavor (or favor)? See above about normativity. <br /><br />/hugHigh Arkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14723123626955733759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-37455846330874892872013-05-03T05:10:13.169-04:002013-05-03T05:10:13.169-04:00To re-employ one of your favorite words, to call h...To re-employ one of your favorite words, to call humans "destructive" is to make a normative judgment. :) We're chaotic, and destructive, but destructive of what? The ecosystem that "we" "depend" on (note the heavy use of air quotes)? <br /><br />What we are actually destructive of is "things as they are now." But so is the Earth--before we arrived, it destroyed oodles and oodles more species than we have yet. If we're afraid of change (going to school for the first time, getting our very first apartment, getting our very first job), then that chaos is a bad thing; if we're not afraid of change, we can consider what is being destroyed, why, and what might come after. (This one will be doing more advanced hope later, and compounding on that.) <br /><br />Why isn't that "super" organism eternal? We haven't the evidence to reasonably conclude that. High Arkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14723123626955733759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-44369259514387237502013-05-02T12:53:08.808-04:002013-05-02T12:53:08.808-04:00Benjamin: Yep. At least those critics who are no...Benjamin: Yep. At least those critics who are not plugging their ears and shouting "True Veganism is the answer 11111!11".<br /><br />High Arka: "evil" is a moralistic term. The linked source (and Benjamin) are merely pointing out the reality associated with the perhaps unique species known as "man". From the perspective of a cancer cell, cancer is not evil. From the perspective of seven billion strong humanity, the fact that we are tipping the balance of the ecosystem is a fact, not (necessarily) a moral statement. <br /><br />As a human supremacist (at all costs), you might think that this is above all else making a moral "judgment," and indeed most religions and many moral systems might demand such a judgment, but it is also really just elucidating trends and stating facts. How is that "evil"? Brian Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-59894618319765768662013-05-02T10:56:01.596-04:002013-05-02T10:56:01.596-04:00Well 'executioner' implies that there is a...Well 'executioner' implies that there is an end to life in general. Also, you write "we threaten *all* food chains". I think this is an exaggeration. You might call me pedantic but if you only look at Earth (and not the whole universe) a 100% extinction rate of all life is a bit over the top. We are biased to look at it from an anthropocentric view and this is neglecting all the species that would survive anything we at the moment are capable at doing. If you look at the five big mass extinctions that happened on Earth only the biggest one, the Permian-Trassic extinction event, affected insects. So there was still bacteria, fungi, algae ect. My point is: Life will continue.<br /><br />I think what you are talking about is less about the possibility of Earth's total destruction, for this would need technology that doesn't exist now and even then it would come down to decisions of a few people and not a tendency that is inherent in human beings. So what is actually happening is that we cause a rapid climate change that will very likely cause the sixth mass extinction in a very small amount of time. <br /><br />So what's at stake here from an environmentalist's view? Not life in general, but human life and the environment *we* are use to and need, our precious societies and the tools we worked so long to develop. But if an environmentalist only cares for the environment why isn't he helping to destroy the human race. Without them Earth could go on going through the known cycles in a relatively balanced way. So shouldn't this be the environmentalist's dream instead of nightmare? Of course, the delusion is that it hasn't always been about the flourishing human beings. <br /><br />As for your questions, I think, human beings are the most successful species at the moment but I don't think that makes us that special or even a "special kind" of being. You might say we fall within a bell curve? :-)<br />We have a few traits we are better than other beings but those also have traits that we lack. There is nothing that I would really consider "unique" about us. dietlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-51615522511162962013-05-02T10:52:29.788-04:002013-05-02T10:52:29.788-04:00I just read through the comments, Brian, and I thi...I just read through the comments, Brian, and I think the author trounces his critics. His thesis is too subtle for them. They just went after strawmen.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-3840751049233851802013-05-02T10:33:25.766-04:002013-05-02T10:33:25.766-04:00Wait a minute now, High Arka, let's set the Ma...Wait a minute now, High Arka, let's set the Matrix movies aside. That article "The Vegans have landed" cites all sorts of commonsense evidence that humans are unusually destructive predators. Our success, in human terms, is harmful to other species in many ways that veganism doesn't begin to address. So do you deny that humans are unusually destructive predators, compared to say, sharks, tigers, or indeed any other predator that's ever lived? <br /><br />Even if you subscribed to the Gaia hypothesis/myth, I'd have thought you'd be open to the idea that a super predator might come along and destroy all life, since if Gaia's a superorganism that includes all species as its parts or stages, that superorganism surely isn't eternal. Maybe our species is precisely the cancer eating away at the superorganism.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-46608655707571807112013-05-01T22:07:31.145-04:002013-05-01T22:07:31.145-04:00You are correct, assuming we've already made t...You are correct, assuming we've already made the normative judgment "the planet is not alive" or "the planet does not have consciousness." <br /><br />Imagine the attention span of your life as equivalent to a gastrotich, and your sensory capabilities as limited, compared to something bigger. Impossible? Tell that to the gastrotich philosophers, who suggest that water might be part of something bigger and longer-lived. High Arkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14723123626955733759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-9158994860484444952013-05-01T22:03:50.876-04:002013-05-01T22:03:50.876-04:00See? What could be more literally evil than categ...See? What could be more literally evil than categorizing "humanity" as "dangerous disease"? <br /><br />I like Agent Smith, too, but it was just a movie. And, it was created by people who wanted to bolster the Torah's idea of original sin. Having Smith be the obvious villain was meant to lull you into complacency so you wouldn't realize that, all along, they'd wanted you to see him as the hero, and further his quest to eliminate humans--who are, in fact, wearing decaying meat and producing smells. High Arkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14723123626955733759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-27759741874897755982013-05-01T21:14:28.472-04:002013-05-01T21:14:28.472-04:00Did you catch some of the posts from the TROO KULT...Did you catch some of the posts from the TROO KULT VEGANS? My God...they are indeed a particularly farcical religious tribe. <br /><br />Even if I (theoretically, alas) agree with the veganism to a degree (although the calorie density argument in one of the comments is...interesting), the author is mostly pointing out how little Veganism really addresses the deeper issues created by the particularly prolific and pernicious primate which is crashing the planetary ecosystem! Brian Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-82286874331542527552013-05-01T19:58:11.099-04:002013-05-01T19:58:11.099-04:00Thanks for the link. That article is indeed consis...Thanks for the link. That article is indeed consistent with what I'm saying here. I like this line from it: <br /><br />"Given that humans cause animals so much suffering and death while offering them so little in return, there’s no denying that for most other animals on this planet, we might as well be a malevolent invasion."Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-4129058747634901642013-05-01T19:53:04.118-04:002013-05-01T19:53:04.118-04:00Thanks, Dietl. I agree we'd be talking only ab...Thanks, Dietl. I agree we'd be talking only about natural processes. What I'm positing is a process that accounts for super predators. Unless I misunderstand the environmentalists and the scientific consensus, your argument here might be with them rather than me. <br /><br />For example, do you know of a nonhuman species that's destroyed and threatened as many other species as humans have? Aren't we unusual for predators, since we threaten *all* food chains? I'm not saying there's anything supernatural here, but I do think humans are unusually dangerous to other species. Yes, there have always been predators, but humans are a special kind of predator, no?Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-66088924122052479062013-05-01T19:43:37.243-04:002013-05-01T19:43:37.243-04:00Hey, Benjamin. You might find this amusing. :)
...Hey, Benjamin. You might find this amusing. :)<br /><br />http://www.aeonmagazine.com/nature-and-cosmos/rhys-southan-vegan-invasion/Brian Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-35510583404252823852013-05-01T17:56:15.337-04:002013-05-01T17:56:15.337-04:00A more careful reading made me realise that I misu...A more careful reading made me realise that I misunderstood some details, which brought me to false conclusions about what you meant. For instance, 'detached from nature' I interpreted in a more ontological way, like standing outside of the causal chain of events of our universe, when obviously you meant outside the natural order of trying-to-stay-alive. <br />My little "problems" with English doesn't help either. Some words in German have slightly different meanings in English and all I have is Google to compare. <br /><br />So, I think the only point where stop is this:<br /><br />"I'm just adding an explanation of that danger, by saying that it may be based on an unsettling natural process which unfolded in parallel with the "miraculous" evolution of life in a lifeless universe."<br /><br />I don't believe in this new factor you bring to the equation. I think our tendency to destroy the environment we depend on is easily explained by the same old rules that regulate the evolution of life since the beginning. Namely that the limited resources make the successes of one species the failure of another species. Furthemore that too much success might lead to a change in the environment, which might lead to the exstinction of that species. It's all natural laws. So either we keep being dependend on the environment and might destroy ourself, which would only be starting point for new life. Or make ourself independent of our environment in some way, which would mean, if it is possible, that we do wouldn't have a reason to keep on destroying it. Either way I think a total end of life (on Earth) in my view is only thinkable by accident.<br /><br />Thanks for the links. You seem to have covered a pretty broad range of topics over the years. At the moment i couldn't imagine to write so much. I hope you keep going for a long time. I think the scientific advance shows great potential for many more rants :-)dietlnoreply@blogger.com