6 ms·

It's also such things as nuclear weapons, genetically engineered virii, patents on life, tampering with ecosystems, plants designed to be sterile to ensure a se

It's also such things as nuclear weapons, genetically engineered virii, patents on life, tampering with ecosystems, plants designed to be sterile to ensure a seed market, lakes full of sterile fish stocked for sport. >No, if you can save billions and you choose not to, you have killed them. If you can uplift species and you choose not to, you have killed their cognition. We are gods over the Earth. We have dominion over it and the creatures that inhabit it No we're not. We're barely able to hold it together. The Earth is a giant living system we're slowly killing and replacing with human technology. It's not a naturalistic fantasy, it's the reality of the planet you live on. To think we dominate this world is laughable. The fungi will consume all of us some day and outlive us all. I mean some are among the oldest still living life on earth as it is. Like millions of years old and still going. How can you dominate something that's existed longer than you and will out live you and everyone you know? Humans have such a limited understanding of the very things that make life possible. We're not gods, we're children who wandered into gods workshop and started playing with all the shiny toys. Just because we know how to play with toys doesn't make us gods or the dominators of the Earth or life itself. That's the kind of arrogance I speak of that's going to blow up in our faces.

renewiltord 6y ago
No, no, not humans. The we that have dominion are certain genes, for which the humans are mere vehicles. These genes are just as old as the mushroom genes. And this gene cluster is aiming to master the rock that is the Earth through modifying other gene clusters. And you can't stop it. Because through modification it grows stronger and more able. And it has rallied the memome and the hologenome to its cause. This cause requires no convincing because only winners get to play the next round. Change is inevitable. Understanding is overrated. Control does not require it. Transformation Theology has subsumed this world. You live in an ether floating in it. You cannot choose the path of no change. No such path exists.
- layoutIfNeeded 6y ago
  Yeah, we’ve read The Selfish Gene, too.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Naturally, it's 50 years old and one of the most influential science books of all time. If you hadn't, then the reference wouldn't work as well.
    - ben_w 6y ago
      What it’s worth I haven’t read that book (or seen that passage before) and I still understood.
      - renewiltord 6y ago
        Richard Dawkins did do very well with the way he expressed the concept. It is quite intuitive for something of such great significance. Easy to forget, I suppose for me, how intuitive it is.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  > is aiming to master the rock that is the Earth Genes aren't goal directed towards something higher. > This cause requires no convincing because only winners get to play the next round The 'winners', us humans, are literally destroying the ecosphere which supports our life. > Understanding is overrated. That's an appeal to ignorance. > Control does not require it [understanding] We can control something without understanding it? Most of science would disagree.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    > Genes aren't goal directed towards something higher. No, but "this gene cluster" is me - and I am goal-directed. > We can control something without understanding it? Most of science would disagree. No, they wouldn't. Epistemology has progressed beyond this. Models have various levels of fidelity. And 'understanding' is a colloquial term that refers to a higher standard of fidelity than that required for control. Few drivers know how their cars work. Most drivers can drive their cars. But I do enjoy the amusing attempt at cutting out the sentence to create damning gotchas. Here, I mimicked your style and made one from your comment: > We can control something without understanding it Why, thank you for agreeing with me! Quite gratifying to receive such support.
    - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
      > and I am goal-directed. OK, straight questiom goal directed towards what? > And 'understanding' is a colloquial term that refers to a higher standard of fidelity than that required for control Don't agree - further > Few drivers know how their cars work. Most drivers can drive their cars. Understanding is about understanding of aspects. They may well not understand the engine aspect (how it works precisely) but "Most drivers can drive their cars" means they control their cars, which means they understand what happens when a steering wheel is turned, and how not to grind the gears, and not to hit accelerator and brake together. They model it. That is the embodiment of their understanding. Without that they could not control a car. > Why, thank you for... Quite clearly there was a question mark at the end it to indicate my implied doubt. Science seeks better understanding of x so it can manipulate x more precisely. Please give me a couple of examples of complex systems which we don't understand but can control, so I can understand you better.
- imtringued 6y ago
  That's a pretty stupid take because the combination of genes is unique for each life form so those genes are just as trapped in our bodies as the bodies are trapped in themselves. If you want to talk about genes as an immortalizing life form then those genes are just as prone to natural selection as the carrier. Some genes are old, some are new. New genes have an incredibly high attrition rate. Not much different from nature. Genes are suckers and losers just like their carriers.
nyolfen 6y ago
> The Earth is a giant living system we're slowly killing and replacing with human technology. "It is only due to a predominance of influences that are not only entirely morally indifferent, but indeed — from a human perspective — indescribably cruel, that nature has been capable of constructive action. Specifically, it is solely by way of the relentless, brutal culling of populations that any complex or adaptive traits have been sieved — with torturous inefficiency — from the chaos of natural existence. All health, beauty, intelligence, and social grace has been teased from a vast butcher’s yard of unbounded carnage, requiring incalculable eons of massacre to draw forth even the subtlest of advantages. This is not only a matter of the bloody grinding mills of selection, either, but also of the innumerable mutational abominations thrown up by the madness of chance, as it pursues its directionless path to some negligible preservable trait, and then — still further — of the unavowable horrors that ‘fitness’ (or sheer survival) itself predominantly entails. We are a minuscule sample of agonized matter, comprising genetic survival monsters, fished from a cosmic ocean of vile mutants, by a pitiless killing machine of infinite appetite. (This is still, perhaps, to put an irresponsibly positive spin on the story, but it should suffice for our purposes here.)"
zhrvoj 6y ago
A fool with a tool is still a fool...
- renewiltord 6y ago
  True, but a fool without a tool must make two transformations to become a genius with a tool. A fool with a tool need only make one.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
ben_w 6y ago
Curious; I not only don’t understand your world view, I don’t even have enough of a handle on it to know how to engage with it. For example: > The fungi will consume all of us some day and outlive us all. I mean some are among the oldest still living life on earth as it is. Like millions of years old and still going. How can you dominate something that's existed longer than you and will out live you and everyone you know? Yet anti-fungals are trivially available at low cost. Indeed, the very claim of yours that: > The Earth is a giant living system we're slowly killing and replacing with human technology. Is literally not something I can only even understand as agreement that we have dominion, yet I know you intend to deny that.
yeetman21 6y ago
when a beaver creates a dam, that's apart of nature and everyone sings kumbaiya, but when a human dares to start a fire because he is cold or dares to improve his food supply because he is hungry all of a sudden that "not natural" and should be condemned?
dogcomplex 6y ago
We're shitty, terrible gods, unable to control our own power properly yet, but gods nonetheless - and just as responsible for the consequences of our actions and inaction. Like it or not, we have to face the reality that we can shape the entire face of the earth in days (literally) and decide what to do with that power. (Hint to readers: leaving it up to capitalism doesn't work out well)

renewiltord 6y ago

No, no, not humans. The we that have dominion are certain genes, for which the humans are mere vehicles. These genes are just as old as the mushroom genes. And this gene cluster is aiming to master the rock that is the Earth through modifying other gene clusters. And you can't stop it. Because through modification it grows stronger and more able. And it has rallied the memome and the hologenome to its cause. This cause requires no convincing because only winners get to play the next round. Change is inevitable. Understanding is overrated. Control does not require it. Transformation Theology has subsumed this world. You live in an ether floating in it. You cannot choose the path of no change. No such path exists.

layoutIfNeeded 6y ago
Yeah, we’ve read The Selfish Gene, too.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Naturally, it's 50 years old and one of the most influential science books of all time. If you hadn't, then the reference wouldn't work as well.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    What it’s worth I haven’t read that book (or seen that passage before) and I still understood.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      Richard Dawkins did do very well with the way he expressed the concept. It is quite intuitive for something of such great significance. Easy to forget, I suppose for me, how intuitive it is.
throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
> is aiming to master the rock that is the Earth Genes aren't goal directed towards something higher. > This cause requires no convincing because only winners get to play the next round The 'winners', us humans, are literally destroying the ecosphere which supports our life. > Understanding is overrated. That's an appeal to ignorance. > Control does not require it [understanding] We can control something without understanding it? Most of science would disagree.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  > Genes aren't goal directed towards something higher. No, but "this gene cluster" is me - and I am goal-directed. > We can control something without understanding it? Most of science would disagree. No, they wouldn't. Epistemology has progressed beyond this. Models have various levels of fidelity. And 'understanding' is a colloquial term that refers to a higher standard of fidelity than that required for control. Few drivers know how their cars work. Most drivers can drive their cars. But I do enjoy the amusing attempt at cutting out the sentence to create damning gotchas. Here, I mimicked your style and made one from your comment: > We can control something without understanding it Why, thank you for agreeing with me! Quite gratifying to receive such support.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    > and I am goal-directed. OK, straight questiom goal directed towards what? > And 'understanding' is a colloquial term that refers to a higher standard of fidelity than that required for control Don't agree - further > Few drivers know how their cars work. Most drivers can drive their cars. Understanding is about understanding of aspects. They may well not understand the engine aspect (how it works precisely) but "Most drivers can drive their cars" means they control their cars, which means they understand what happens when a steering wheel is turned, and how not to grind the gears, and not to hit accelerator and brake together. They model it. That is the embodiment of their understanding. Without that they could not control a car. > Why, thank you for... Quite clearly there was a question mark at the end it to indicate my implied doubt. Science seeks better understanding of x so it can manipulate x more precisely. Please give me a couple of examples of complex systems which we don't understand but can control, so I can understand you better.
imtringued 6y ago
That's a pretty stupid take because the combination of genes is unique for each life form so those genes are just as trapped in our bodies as the bodies are trapped in themselves. If you want to talk about genes as an immortalizing life form then those genes are just as prone to natural selection as the carrier. Some genes are old, some are new. New genes have an incredibly high attrition rate. Not much different from nature. Genes are suckers and losers just like their carriers.

nyolfen 6y ago

> The Earth is a giant living system we're slowly killing and replacing with human technology. "It is only due to a predominance of influences that are not only entirely morally indifferent, but indeed — from a human perspective — indescribably cruel, that nature has been capable of constructive action. Specifically, it is solely by way of the relentless, brutal culling of populations that any complex or adaptive traits have been sieved — with torturous inefficiency — from the chaos of natural existence. All health, beauty, intelligence, and social grace has been teased from a vast butcher’s yard of unbounded carnage, requiring incalculable eons of massacre to draw forth even the subtlest of advantages. This is not only a matter of the bloody grinding mills of selection, either, but also of the innumerable mutational abominations thrown up by the madness of chance, as it pursues its directionless path to some negligible preservable trait, and then — still further — of the unavowable horrors that ‘fitness’ (or sheer survival) itself predominantly entails. We are a minuscule sample of agonized matter, comprising genetic survival monsters, fished from a cosmic ocean of vile mutants, by a pitiless killing machine of infinite appetite. (This is still, perhaps, to put an irresponsibly positive spin on the story, but it should suffice for our purposes here.)"

zhrvoj 6y ago

A fool with a tool is still a fool...

renewiltord 6y ago
True, but a fool without a tool must make two transformations to become a genius with a tool. A fool with a tool need only make one.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

ben_w 6y ago

Curious; I not only don’t understand your world view, I don’t even have enough of a handle on it to know how to engage with it. For example: > The fungi will consume all of us some day and outlive us all. I mean some are among the oldest still living life on earth as it is. Like millions of years old and still going. How can you dominate something that's existed longer than you and will out live you and everyone you know? Yet anti-fungals are trivially available at low cost. Indeed, the very claim of yours that: > The Earth is a giant living system we're slowly killing and replacing with human technology. Is literally not something I can only even understand as agreement that we have dominion, yet I know you intend to deny that.

yeetman21 6y ago

when a beaver creates a dam, that's apart of nature and everyone sings kumbaiya, but when a human dares to start a fire because he is cold or dares to improve his food supply because he is hungry all of a sudden that "not natural" and should be condemned?

dogcomplex 6y ago

We're shitty, terrible gods, unable to control our own power properly yet, but gods nonetheless - and just as responsible for the consequences of our actions and inaction. Like it or not, we have to face the reality that we can shape the entire face of the earth in days (literally) and decide what to do with that power. (Hint to readers: leaving it up to capitalism doesn't work out well)