4 ms·
But the algae didn't intend to alter it. That's the difference. We don't respond to environmental pressure, we just apply equal and opposite pressure (for the m
by glesica 12y ago
But the algae didn't intend to alter it. That's the difference. We don't respond to environmental pressure, we just apply equal and opposite pressure (for the most part, obviously everything has a cost). It's like a psychology experiment. If one of the subjects figures out the parameters of the experiment the experiment is ruined because that individual will likely mess up the whole system by acting intelligently instead of naturally.
We are the only ones that significantly alter our environment. If there was a continuum of intelligence, with a fairly smooth and not-to-concave curve, I would be inclined to agree with you. But there isn't, it's a bunch of animals that have no appreciable ability to alter their environments purposefully, and then us. Therefore anything we do falls in the "contaminated experiment" category.
- jheriko 12y agodefine intent and intelligence? i'm yet to see evidence of free will, i'm not convinced i am not just a machine doing its thing like everything else is... also, this feels like a religious argument from both sides.
- glesica 12y agoI agree that this borders on philosophy. The reason I hold the opinion I hold is that I feel it results in greater sustainability. The Earth regulates itself pretty effectively and did so for a long time before we got smart. Therefore, I think we're better off messing around with it as little as possible and allowing that self-regulation to continue to the greatest extent possible since we don't actually know if we can do better, or even as well, (and if we bet that we can and can't, we're in trouble).