85 replies to this topic

[Jinxdom]

Beckys_Mom, on 10 November 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

And Man cannot possibly  catch and cage all animals..More so those in the sea..  We can only control so much, but not all

but but Noah did it in ancient times...with only his family.... on a boat!  (seriously sarcasm)

Mr Walker, on 11 November 2012 - 02:56 AM, said:

Unfortunately that is wrong We DO have power over the naturla world we are NOT subject to its laws and processes if we dont accept the consequences of them. At the moment, in large part, we are using that power to destroy it, but the power aso can be used to improve on nature and to restore the harm done.

Every place that is built under sea level and flooded proved this wrong. Every place built on a fault line and had an earthquake proved this wrong. Nature is unwavering and is patient. Sure we can cut down a few trees, level mountains, make a species extinct but that isn't anywhere near the domination and control people had over slaves. Believe me I tried screaming at the sky for it to stop snowing but for some odd reason it didn't listen. If I dig a hole and just leave it eventually without help from me it will eventually fill itself up. If I don't actively repair damage to my home nature will tear it down. Sure we use nature to our advantage but never did we have control over it.

[Beckys_Mom]

Mr Walker, on 11 November 2012 - 02:56 AM, said:

Unfortunately that is wrong We DO have power over the naturla world we are NOT subject to its laws and processes if we dont accept the consequences of them. At the moment, in large part, we are using that power to destroy it, but the power aso can be used to improve on nature and to restore the harm done.

I seriously doubt someone such as Sir David Attenbourgh and a genius like Charles Darwin  are wrong and you are right...   We are a part of nature, we evolved through nature, we do not have control over ALL.. We are shaped the way we are because of nature, like every other animal on this planet... So, YES we are subject to it's laws and processes ...always have been .. And when I say control over ALL.. that includes mother nature / natural disasters  etc ..

[Mbyte]

Mr Walker, on 11 November 2012 - 02:56 AM, said:

Unfortunately that is wrong We DO have power over the naturla world we are NOT subject to its laws and processes if we dont accept the consequences of them. At the moment, in large part, we are using that power to destroy it, but the power aso can be used to improve on nature and to restore the harm done.

Attenborough is pointing out that there are consequences for how we treat the world. But that doesnt lessen our power. It just means we should use it well and wisely. Attenborough is pointing out that we should live sustainably within the worlds ecosystem, Quite right, but we are not, because we have the power not to. The consequences of dominion or power are not always good. Dominion does not mean, for example total control, just power and authority. We HAVE the power via our technology, and only we can limit  the extent of our AUTHORITY over nature.
Slave owners once had dominion over their slaves That didnt make it right, or create positive outcomes, and sometimes the slaves rose up and bit back. Nonetheless the slave owners had dominion over the slaves via physical power and legal authority..

Actually we don't have dominion over nature. The only reason we are so "developed" is because we happened to find oil, an energy rich substance, which we used to rise above the tides of nature. There are people in New York fighting for fuel because nature is very much in control of them. Don't be fooled that we have control, a puff of oil seperates us from a cold hard reality.

[Mr Walker]

Several commentators have misread what i was saying.

Dominion does not mean total control. It means power and authority over something. Increasingly humans have power and authority over the natural world, hence the mess we find ourselves in.
There are no natural forces which, in sum, can oppose the dominion of man.  Sure they may "kick back", cause a few natural disastese etc but that does not lessen our dominion. Dominion does not bring wisdom,  only power and authority. If we use all the oil or destroy all the habitat and fresh water, that only illustrates our  power/authority over nature, and nature's weakness compared to us.

Once upon a time, nature could have destroyed humanity and indeed came close to doing so on a number of occasions in early prehistory  Now, apart from a rogue comet or a solar flare that wil not happen and in a few hundred years as we spread out among the stars nature will be no threat at al to us as a apsecies. Once nature in all its forms dominated our daily/yearly physical life, and our  most basic spiritual beliefs and understandings. That is no longer so. Rather than propitiating nature we now impose our will upon it and shape it to our wishes.

[Jinxdom]

I beg to differ. Wait how much snow do you get where you live? I find that to be a huge thing for people about control over nature.

[FlyingAngel]

Mr Walker, on 16 November 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

There are no natural forces which, in sum, can oppose the dominion of man.  Sure they may "kick back", cause a few natural disastese etc but that does not lessen our dominion. Dominion does not bring wisdom,  only power and authority. If we use all the oil or destroy all the habitat and fresh water, that only illustrates our  power/authority over nature, and nature's weakness compared to us.

Not agreed. Humans depends on the nature to survive, as do all animals, no exception. When you give the nature love, it will respond you with love, that's environment comfort. When you harm it, it seems to show you that it can't do anything or fight back, but there's always a retribution that comes after. Cause leads to effect.

In your example, I'll show you where you were wrong. Destroying all the habitat like burning and cutting down all the trees? Sure you can do that, but don't forget where the oxygen you are breathing right now come from. The same for fresh water, don't forget where it comes from. Humans don't generate these things on their own nor they didn't came from the sky. You probably don't know much how you got food or how food is created. Plants can pollinate because there are insects, especially bees because they fly from flower to flower. Plants can grow because of water. Insects can make the soil better.

Cut out fresh water, what's left to you is animals in the farm, polluted air, machines and guns. That's when you conclude who will dominate who. Oh wait, there's not enough fresh water to feed the animals, we can probably invent artificial water and food.

Humans may have the power to partially destroy the nature, but not all. While the nature has the power to wipe all humanity. It's just that the nature is passive, it will wait you to attack first to fight back. Simply visit the 3rd world, where trees and insects barely exist. You'll conclude who suffer more, the nature or men. Nature has no feeling and a destroyed nature is still a nature. It's invincible. It simply changes its form.

[Beckys_Mom]

Jinxdom, on 16 November 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

I beg to differ. Wait how much snow do you get where you live? I find that to be a huge thing for people about control over nature.

I agree.. I guess not everyone can fully understand how powerful nature can be

[Mr Walker]

FlyingAngel, on 16 November 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

Not agreed. Humans depends on the nature to survive, as do all animals, no exception. When you give the nature love, it will respond you with love, that's environment comfort. When you harm it, it seems to show you that it can't do anything or fight back, but there's always a retribution that comes after. Cause leads to effect.

In your example, I'll show you where you were wrong. Destroying all the habitat like burning and cutting down all the trees? Sure you can do that, but don't forget where the oxygen you are breathing right now come from. The same for fresh water, don't forget where it comes from. Humans don't generate these things on their own nor they didn't came from the sky. You probably don't know much how you got food or how food is created. Plants can pollinate because there are insects, especially bees because they fly from flower to flower. Plants can grow because of water. Insects can make the soil better.

Cut out fresh water, what's left to you is animals in the farm, polluted air, machines and guns. That's when you conclude who will dominate who. Oh wait, there's not enough fresh water to feed the animals, we can probably invent artificial water and food.

Humans may have the power to partially destroy the nature, but not all. While the nature has the power to wipe all humanity. It's just that the nature is passive, it will wait you to attack first to fight back. Simply visit the 3rd world, where trees and insects barely exist. You'll conclude who suffer more, the nature or men. Nature has no feeling and a destroyed nature is still a nature. It's invincible. It simply changes its form.

What you speak of here are all evidences of the dominion of man over nature. Without dominion we could not destroy, modify, or alter  nature, in the ways you describe.  Dominion does not imply common sense or good consequences. And  it does not mean we can control it, or the consequences of our interactions with it. If we have the power and "authority " to modify nature, we have dominion over it, no matter where that leads us.

In time, if we survive, we will achieve a sustainable, cooperative relationship with the natural world of which we are part. If we do not achieve this, we will not survive. But it will still mean dominion, because our minds and our technology will be maintaining that balance and sustainabilty, via our will.  
From the time we developed fire and flint tools we began to establish power/dominion over nature. The australian aboriginal people millenia ago changed the entire ecosystem, flora and fauna, of a continent, with nothing more than fire and  stone tools.

[Arbenol68]

Mr Walker, on 16 November 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

Several commentators have misread what i was saying.
in a few hundred years as we spread out among the stars nature will be no threat at al to us as a apsecies.

When this happens then you'll be correct. But until then, nature is still the boss. This dominion over nature you speak of is an illusion - albeit an effective one. Your thinking is too small here. We have been able to manipulate nature for only a short time, and only because it has been benign towards us and allowed us to.

As an analogy, you can think of us as slaves to nature, and at present we're like Spartacus rebelling, and thinking we've got it licked. That was an illusion too.

[FlyingAngel]

Mr Walker, on 16 November 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

What you speak of here are all evidences of the dominion of man over nature. Without dominion we could not destroy, modify, or alter  nature, in the ways you describe.  Dominion does not imply common sense or good consequences. And  it does not mean we can control it, or the consequences of our interactions with it. If we have the power and "authority " to modify nature, we have dominion over it, no matter where that leads us.

How is that destroying or altering have anything to do with dominion? Mosquitos can kill more people than the number of people dying in a war; does that mean mosquitos dominate over humans? I don't think so.

Not sure what kind of dominion you are talking about but the number of people killed because of the nature such as dry weather, heat, earthquake, storm, inundation in considerable.

[Mr Walker]

Arbenol68, on 17 November 2012 - 12:08 AM, said:

When this happens then you'll be correct. But until then, nature is still the boss. This dominion over nature you speak of is an illusion - albeit an effective one. Your thinking is too small here. We have been able to manipulate nature for only a short time, and only because it has been benign towards us and allowed us to.

As an analogy, you can think of us as slaves to nature, and at present we're like Spartacus rebelling, and thinking we've got it licked. That was an illusion too.

No the slave masters had dominion over their slaves. (power and authority) An occasional rebellion didnt change this. Again, i think people dont understand the term dominion. It does not mean  total control over, just power and authority. It doesnt mean we use that power sensibly or wisely, just that we have it And ceratinly some major  natural evens are, for now, beyond our control, but basically the world as it is today is a product of human manipulation of it. Very little of it remains natural, as it was  100000 or even 10000 years ago.
In biblical terms god didnt give humans the abilty to control nature, just the power and authority to do so. In humanist terms we don't have the ablity to control all of nature, but we have the power and authority (because there  is no one over us in authority) to do so, if we have the ability. And to the limits of our abilities we exercise them, and hence dominion.

I think some people like to argue the toss on this because they don,t like the biblical idea of god giving humans authority and control over nature. Fair enough. But we have established both, whether god exists or not, and need to look at the consequences of exercising that power and authority much more carefully..
When nature was the boss, no one went outside without saying a prayer to the weather gods. No one planted a crop without doing the same. No one entered a forest without offering something to the gods of the forest. Everyone was dependent on nature for life and death,  directly and personally. That began to end with the advent of agriculture and pastoralism,

Today  our dependence on nature is much less so. It is rare for  nature to affect people, or even make them stop and think, let alone offer a prayer to the spirits or gods, despite the occasional calamitous events which occur. It doesn't matter if the temp is 40 degrees C or minus 10, humans have adapted and survived and now live safely, in comfort, and insulated from those extremes.

Edited by Mr Walker, 17 November 2012 - 01:58 AM.

[Arbenol68]

Mr Walker, on 17 November 2012 - 01:55 AM, said:

No the slave masters had dominion over their slaves. (power and authority) An occasional rebellion didnt change this.

I don't think you understood me. My analogy was that humans are the slaves and nature is the slave master - and the occasional rebellion not changing this is exactly what I said. You're looking at this through the eyes of human timescales. Think bigger. Our current circumstances is merely a temporary rebellion. It remains to be seen whether this becomes a permanent one.

[Mr Walker]

Arbenol68, on 17 November 2012 - 02:03 AM, said:

I don't think you understood me. My analogy was that humans are the slaves and nature is the slave master - and the occasional rebellion not changing this is exactly what I said. You're looking at this through the eyes of human timescales. Think bigger. Our current circumstances is merely a temporary rebellion. It remains to be seen whether this becomes a permanent one.

I understood and disagreed. We are the slave masters. Nature is the slave. Its occasional rebellion doesnt mean we lack power and authority over it in general.  Ideally we should free the slave and learn to work in cooperation and harmony with it .

However humans have intelligence and self aware purpose; nature does not. It can only "react",  so this is not a ideal analogy. If nature "hurts us" when we run out of food water or arable soil, it wont be the result of nature, but of us and our interference with nature. In a way we are both the slave and the master in this situation.

[Arbenol68]

Mr Walker, on 17 November 2012 - 02:31 AM, said:

I understood and disagreed. We are the slave masters. Nature is the slave. Its occasional rebellion doesnt mean we lack power and authority over it in general.  Ideally we should free the slave and learn to work in cooperation and harmony with it .

However humans have intelligence and self aware purpose; nature does not. It can only "react",  so this is not a ideal analogy. If nature "hurts us" when we run out of food water or arable soil, it wont be the result of nature, but of us and our interference with nature. In a way we are both the slave and the master in this situation.

It's a nice idea but, unfortunately, incorrect. Human civilisation has exploited a settled period in Earth's history without major climate or geological changes. 10,000 years may seem a lot but it's a mere blink of an eye. This has provided the illusion of being masters - I suspect we'll be well and truly disabused of this notion before too long. And it really has nothing to do with our own actions. Even if we'd behaved impeccably toward our environment, it will one day eject us from it.

[Jinxdom]

Symbiosis if anything. The more we throw the balance out of whack the more damage we sustain.