3 ms·

Trees giving you the very thing you need to live every minute wasn’t enough of a compromise for you? They’ve quite negotiable with us. Gotta watch The Happenin

Trees giving you the very thing you need to live every minute wasn’t enough of a compromise for you? They’ve quite negotiable with us. Gotta watch The Happening again.

giorgioz 2y ago
To be clear, trees did not "give" us oxygen. Trees evolved from bushes which evolved from algaes, which evolved from some mono-cell life forms which are a common ancestors to us as well. They were shaped by natural selection, it was indeed awesome for them to get out of the water and start consuming carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. They did not give us oxygen though, there was no high level consciousness of gifting life to others as your sentence is implying. This said, trees are awesome and we should definitely not cut them or burn them for no reason or pure sadism. We should though also consider them as a parte of the environment where live. If we need them and there is plenty and there aren't other constraints we can use them to build things. Having too much carbon dioxide built up in the atmosphere is a constraint very important to value. We don't want to literally destroy our home. I can keep this thoughts rationally in my brain without having to come up with metaphors where the giant rock we happened to be on is a "mother" nurturing us. The earth is not our "mother", we evolved here because simply all other rocks did not have the right conditions to sustain life. The universe is mostly a harsh and cold place, we should save/improve/increase the places that can be home. I feel though the people that start to lean into Animism are just not very scientific, they mean well, but they won't learn all the technology tools that could help me preserve our home planet more effectively. Ending on a positive note, many scientists both love nature and are rationally scientific (rather than romantic). All the awesome work being done with using LLM to speak with whales and recognize better dogs emotions and pain levels is very inspiring.
- bloomingkales 2y ago
  It’s not that we’re unscientific, it’s just that we’re putting science aside unless it corroborates things. It’s totally a terrible process, there’s no evidence. Some people over time cannot put down the fact that there’s just way too many coincidences. If you just pile up what it took for you to be here (let’s include your one in a million chance of out swimming the other sperm along with a perfect planet, possibly perfect parents, list goes on), I think you’d at least agree it’s one miracle after another. I can sit here and measure the anger on your face based on the metric of how red your face is but I’ll never know why you are angry. You can tell me, but even then, is it true? That’s the issue with science, that measuring and collecting observations won’t reveal the true nature. So it must be put aside, at least to investigate the other possibility. I don’t see how people aren’t open minded about there being more than a clinical understanding of this experience. From my other comment: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167691115002431 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01676... Is it so hard to believe there is a global frequency?

Trees giving you the very thing you need to live every minute wasn’t enough of a compromise for you? They’ve quite negotiable with us. Gotta watch The Happening again.

giorgioz 2y ago

To be clear, trees did not "give" us oxygen. Trees evolved from bushes which evolved from algaes, which evolved from some mono-cell life forms which are a common ancestors to us as well. They were shaped by natural selection, it was indeed awesome for them to get out of the water and start consuming carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. They did not give us oxygen though, there was no high level consciousness of gifting life to others as your sentence is implying. This said, trees are awesome and we should definitely not cut them or burn them for no reason or pure sadism. We should though also consider them as a parte of the environment where live. If we need them and there is plenty and there aren't other constraints we can use them to build things. Having too much carbon dioxide built up in the atmosphere is a constraint very important to value. We don't want to literally destroy our home. I can keep this thoughts rationally in my brain without having to come up with metaphors where the giant rock we happened to be on is a "mother" nurturing us. The earth is not our "mother", we evolved here because simply all other rocks did not have the right conditions to sustain life. The universe is mostly a harsh and cold place, we should save/improve/increase the places that can be home. I feel though the people that start to lean into Animism are just not very scientific, they mean well, but they won't learn all the technology tools that could help me preserve our home planet more effectively. Ending on a positive note, many scientists both love nature and are rationally scientific (rather than romantic). All the awesome work being done with using LLM to speak with whales and recognize better dogs emotions and pain levels is very inspiring.

bloomingkales 2y ago
It’s not that we’re unscientific, it’s just that we’re putting science aside unless it corroborates things. It’s totally a terrible process, there’s no evidence. Some people over time cannot put down the fact that there’s just way too many coincidences. If you just pile up what it took for you to be here (let’s include your one in a million chance of out swimming the other sperm along with a perfect planet, possibly perfect parents, list goes on), I think you’d at least agree it’s one miracle after another. I can sit here and measure the anger on your face based on the metric of how red your face is but I’ll never know why you are angry. You can tell me, but even then, is it true? That’s the issue with science, that measuring and collecting observations won’t reveal the true nature. So it must be put aside, at least to investigate the other possibility. I don’t see how people aren’t open minded about there being more than a clinical understanding of this experience. From my other comment: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167691115002431 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01676... Is it so hard to believe there is a global frequency?