Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Although "fish kills" are apparently common place, I find this disturbing.
Could it be linked to the oil leak?

News Link

Think this is a road?

http://mit.zenfs.com/5/2010/09/Fish+Kill+9-10-10+2.jpg

...Think again.!!

http://mit.zenfs.com/5/2010/09/Fish+Kill+9-10-10+1.jpg

You should have just put these photos in the oil spill thread.

Or in the Religion Forum (as one of the plagues).

Link doesn't work anyway.

I don't get it. Maybe I should read the links?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't get it. Maybe I should read the links?

They suspect/fear that oil-eating microbes introduced to combat BP's massive ****-up lowered the oxygen levels in the waters (they consume oxygen too while they do their thing) and this could cause massive kill-offs of sea life. ie, mother-****ing fish suffocated. Not sure where the whale fits in though.

****ed up, as it says dead-zones in the oceans are increasing. Though this particular case can be turned around for the better, Louisiana needs to scoop up all those dead fishes, crabs and whale, and sell it to China, they'll eat anything.

Get your mind out of the gutter!

Originally posted by Robtard
They suspect/fear that oil-eating microbes introduced to combat BP's massive ****-up lowered the oxygen levels in the waters (they consume oxygen too while they do their thing) and this could cause massive kill-offs of sea life. ie, mother-****ing fish suffocated. Not sure where the whale fits in though.

****ed up, as it says dead-zones in the oceans are increasing. Though this particular case can be turned around for the better, Louisiana needs to scoop up all those dead fishes, crabs and whale, and sell it to China, they'll eat anything. at worse for them they get mild headaches and reproduction issues or sporadic death...


upside we finally put a ting in the overpopulation of china and asians in general

also maybe the whale had a few fish fall into his blow hole and die when it tried to surface to breath.

Originally posted by King Castle
upside we finally put a ting in the overpopulation of china and asians in general

asia isn't over populated, it is under-developed

one problem requires removing people, the other requires making their lives worth living

Originally posted by Bicnarok

http://mit.zenfs.com/5/2010/09/Fish+Kill+9-10-10+1.jpg
Praise the Lord!

Now we have more than enough fish to feed the less fortunate!

i say we just remove 4 billion out of the six billion ppl on the planet and i am lookin toward a general direction where we can start.



@asbestos

O Lord, you have blessed us indeed

Originally posted by King Castle
i say we just remove 4 billion out of the six billion ppl on the planet and i am lookin toward a general direction where we can start.

why though?

insdead of death, why not promote life? the world isn't overpopulated, we just use resources in a remarkable unequal and wasteful manner.

Shit, if you really think you need less people physically in Asia, send them to Canada. Our population density is less than 4 people per sq KM

let's focus on one problem at a time. how can we lower the asian population..

now as racist as some might find this i dont want anymore foreign ppl from other continents coming to my continent in droves of millions whether its mexico/US/Canada or further south..

we should help each other 1st b4 worrying about some one else on another continent.


it was bad enough when the spaniards, english and french came and they started splitting up my ancestors land giving us ethnicities based are arbitrary definitions...

you're: native american, your indian, your mexican your salvadorian your peublo indeo your indejena/indio.. this is south and that is north america.. you belong there you belong here since we couldnt herd you toward mexico or canada.. here is your reservation be happy.
red_indiansombrero2
once we lower the population we can worry about how to not waste resources and land.. it will buy us time and resources.

THERE IS NO REASON TO REDUCE THE ASIAN POPULATION

Originally posted by King Castle
let's focus on one problem at a time. how can we lower the asian population..
...

I think, if we did anything to try and lower the Asian population, they would lower our population.

the only problem i see with humanity in general and it goes from from third to 1st world nations is the impact to the enviroment whether its in the Sea or on land.. how many animals have gone extinct b/c of human greed and interference, beuracracy/politician and corruption?

how many plants have bn destroyed without us ever knowing them for farm land and logging?

this is the problem with our population and yes. killing the large majority would help the planet and its animals..

there are ppl on the planet who are smug about the impact they cause mother nature.. "so what? its just a dumb animal, attitude.

they dont care b/c they are on the top and could care less that fishing here or creating dead zones doesnt just effect the area and animals where they live but also ppl all over the world?

you have food and land but what about ppl who depend on the fish that you just decimated on the otherside of the world?

there has to be a balance some ppl and nations dont even care about giving certain plants or animal life a chance to recuperate.. other countries says we have to stop hunting this type of animals for a couple of yrs and the other one says f#$$ you and send out whaling or fishing ships knowing that they will extinguish an entire
species..

ppl should be killed and it should be a large percentage to guarantee the existence of a complex ecosystem.

where better to start or take a large chunk then from the one place that makes up the majority of the worlds population... not saying we single them out but lvl the playing field for every race/culture and nation.. reduce everyone down to manageable numbers asia would just be the most obvious place where we would notice the difference

Ok King Castle, please volunteer first.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ok King Castle, please volunteer first. i would but, i dont believe in suicide...

war is good though...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3317461/Apes-of-war...-is-it-in-our-genes.html

also necessary to protect the species and insure only the fit survive.

also i respect nature always have i tend to think i am less wastefull then your average american..

Originally posted by King Castle
where better to start or take a large chunk then from the one place that makes up the majority of the worlds population... not saying we single them out but lvl the playing field for every race/culture and nation.. reduce everyone down to manageable numbers asia would just be the most obvious place where we would notice the difference

currently: more food goes to waste rotting in store houses and thrown out in fast food resturaunts than would be necessary to feed the world. We don't need GMOs, we don't need to cull the population, we just need some organization with the oversight, mandate, and power to deliver it to those who are in need.

and that food should go to the 1st immediate place like south and central america... instead of being stored.. i know that food rots away in silos when it could feed the hungry and it pisses me off...

its done for nothing more then political and economic leverage when it could help those who really need it in our own country and next door..

ppl are fast to scream socialism/communism if we even think about doing the right thing.. i think corporate greed and capitalism has done worse to the world then the boogy man of socialism/communism.. i think we need a lil of all three. not one extreme nor the other to help this world and the future children..

give free aid(communism) when its possible not for political/economic gain b/c its the right thing to do and its going to waste anyways...

let ppl pay a certain set tax for certain opportunities like education or health care.(socialism). i mean wher the f#$$ does my taxes go? a $ 300 dollar toilet seat and lamp shades bought in bulk of millions? a billion dollar grant for the study of odor and its effects on humans?
paying a merc and his company 100 millions when my countries soldiers not only have the weapons/training and they do it for a quarter less?

let ppl open up their own companies if they can succeed and compete good for them..(capitalism w/ethics)

our overall goal should be to help each other not just human but the planet and all its life if possible..

Originally posted by inimalist
the world isn't overpopulated, we just use resources in a remarkable unequal and wasteful manner. Maybe not at the moment but in a few years it definately will.

EDIT: China is already decreasing it's population and if people like it or not the whole world will sooner or later reach the same point of birth control it will be a necessary evil.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
Maybe not at the moment but in a few years it definately will. so lets take a pre-emptive strike and handle it now rather then later...

i mean we arent bush now are we? lets be smart and do the right thing....

Overpopulation isn't happening anytime soon, at least from a 'can't fit' point of view.

As inimilist said, it's the way the world uses resources, in a perfect world the resources we use today could feed, shelter, cloth and power billions more.

But if people insist on the 'cull the population as a means', I vote that we start with the Chinese and Indians (dot; not feather).

Originally posted by King Castle
so lets take a pre-emptive strike and handle it now rather then later...

i mean we arent bush now are we? lets be smart and do the right thing....


Don't be a war monger.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Don't be a war monger.

Bush and Cheney were war-mongers; you voted for them. /in-yo-face

i want star trek society now it isnt impossible.

Originally posted by Robtard
Bush and Cheney were war-mongers; you voted for them. /in-yo-face

Shut your pie-hole, I voted for Gore. Plus, King Castle is making Bush and Cheney look like flower children, right now.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
Maybe not at the moment but in a few years it definately will.

EDIT: China is already decreasing it's population and if people like it or not the whole world will sooner or later reach the same point of birth control it will be a necessary evil.

ok, but what is the problem in India and China...

is it that there are just too many people there, or is it that there is not enough infrastructure to support that many people

the best example of this is from the Green Revolution in India or the Great Leap Forward in China. In both situations, domestic food production created a surpluss in terms of what the nation needed to feed their people, but because of corporate greed in India and state planning in China, there were millions starving in their communities at the same time.

it is proposterous to say we are overpopulated. its just ****ing lazy

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but what is the problem in India and China...

is it that there are just too many people there, or is it that there is not enough infrastructure to support that many people

the best example of this is from the Green Revolution in India or the Great Leap Forward in China. In both situations, domestic food production created a surpluss in terms of what the nation needed to feed their people, but because of corporate greed in India and state planning in China, there were millions starving in their communities at the same time.

it is proposterous to say we are overpopulated. its just ****ing lazy Ok first off I want to know, at which point would you say that this planet is overpopulated?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Shut your pie-hole, I voted for Gore. Plus, King Castle is making Bush and Cheney look like flower children, right now. you should have voted for john kerry..

here's what bush thinks about that.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_rRb-j3bbEEo/S9ENzUSnZqI/AAAAAAAAAIE/DQGgoc6jsh4/s1600/george-bush-middle-finger.jpg

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Shut your pie-hole, I voted for Gore. Plus, King Castle is making Bush and Cheney look like flower children, right now.

IIRC, you voted for Bush in 2004. Correct?

Originally posted by Robtard
IIRC, you voted for Bush in 2004. Correct? i think you are right. i seem to recall a rant where he said the bases of his reason being the bush snorted coke so he felt he could relate to him.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
Ok first off I want to know at which point would you call that this planet is overpopulated?

I probably wouldnt

overpopulation is a "framing problem". Something can only have too many people relative to how much infrastructure there is to support them.

So, if I have 7 people in one house, but only enough resources to feed and support 5, then that house is overpopulated. However, if I have an inner city with over 50 000 people per square KM, and the resources for 60 000, there is no overpopulation.

so, for something to ever be overpopulated, you would need to show that their population density not only is greater than the current infrastructure of the location they inhabit, but greater than that location could EVER support.

overpopulation is a relic of social-darwinist world views, plain and simple. it locates the problem in the people of a location, rather than in the resources, which are so much more relevant than population density. hell, so long as it is framed as overpopulation, the only solutions are a cull or forced relocation.

i prefer the Cull...


the forced relocation would just impact the environment more and doesnt stop the problem of harming the other animals and their niches...

or, humans can build infrastructure

infra structures would require material which would be found in mountains which we would mine and create toxic run off and the woods would be cut in order to harvest raw material taking homes from the smallest creatures to the largest one like elephants, Big Cats...

i prefer a sudden death outbreak for humans.

even if that were true, any cost-benefit analysis is going to favor long term infrastructure

Originally posted by inimalist
or, humans can build infrastructure

Sounds like Commi-Social speak to me; I don't trust it.

again this isnt about cost its about preserving life of animals that can be wiped out by these projects...

i dont give two sh#$s about the life of humans when the cost is the extinctions of creatures that cannot defend themselves and would be driven extinct just so ppl can be more comfortable and taken care of.

Originally posted by Robtard
Sounds like Commi-Social speak to me; I don't trust it.

you might be right... ok, back to culling! I suggest we do it based on race!

Originally posted by King Castle
again this isnt about cost its about preserving life of animals that can be wiped out by these projects...

i dont give two sh#$s about the life of humans when the cost is the extinctions of creatures that cannot defend themselves and would be driven extinct just so ppl can be more comfortable and taken care of.

bio-diversity is an human aesthetic.

I would personally destroy every endangered organism if it meant that humans would live.

Originally posted by King Castle
infra structures would require material which would be found in mountains which we would mine and create toxic run off and the woods would be cut in order to harvest raw material taking homes from the smallest creatures to the largest one like elephants, Big Cats...

i prefer a sudden death outbreak for humans.

You would have to keep killing people in order to make that work. Terribly anti-utilitarian.

Originally posted by inimalist
I probably wouldnt

overpopulation is a "framing problem". Something can only have too many people relative to how much infrastructure there is to support them.
so you think we can deliver industrial country level lifestyle to the whole globe? Going by the current number of people living here. And we don't need any kind of regulation?

Just answer short please I'm going to reply tomorrow (late here) in detail then and it's important for the reply.

i would kill every human if it ensured the life of all creatures on the planet and kept them from being wiped out by human indifference..

human life has no more greater value then the life of the smallest creature let alone when they number in the hundreds of thousands.

so again a culling and war is good when it serves to thin down the herd which is humanity.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
so you think we can deliver industrial country level lifestyle to the whole globe?

no... Ive not insinutated that

Originally posted by Parmaniac
Going by the current number of people living here. And we don't need any kind of regulation?

no... Ive not insinuated that

Originally posted by Parmaniac
Just answer short please I'm going to reply tomorrow (late here) in detail then and it's important for the reply.

I must have done a poor job explaining my point. FACT: there is enough grain grown in the praries of Canada and America to feed the world. FACT: we waste over 40% of it.

that is my point.

Originally posted by King Castle
i would kill every human if it ensured the life of all creatures on the planet and kept them from being wiped out by human indifference..

human life has no more greater value then the life of the smallest creature let alone when they number in the hundreds of thousands.

so again a culling and war is good when it serves to thin down the herd which is humanity.

then you are in direct violation of your own ideals.

Using a computer requires electricity. Current methods of generating power are hugely damaging to the ecosystem.

ARGH!!!

didnt beat the time limit for the edit:

Originally posted by King Castle
i would kill every human if it ensured the life of all creatures on the planet and kept them from being wiped out by human indifference..

actually, animals being wiped out by human indifferance would certainly stop if you killed all the humans... I dont want to be the person to finally set you loose on society, but that is an achievable goal!

lol, and then animals would go back to being wiped out pretty effectively by nature anyways.

Originally posted by inimalist
then you are in direct violation of your own ideals.

Using a computer requires electricity. Current methods of generating power are hugely damaging to the ecosystem. that is not an ideal showing desire to kill humanity to protect the rest of earth life is a hypothetical scenario and just a want/desire.

would i be willing to kill humanity if i had pandoras box and could wipe humans off including myself? yes. but, there is no situation where such power would be given to one person let alone me.

me using electricity does harm the environment i am fully aware, i also fight my battles where i can...

i be just as happy living off the land and having no modern resources and it wouldnt bother me b/c i have in the past..

my real ideals are to do no harm and take no pleasure when i do harm other living creatures... i tend to except ppl on average at least certain ppl.. but, i do not take pleasure of harming animals...

i can go on living so long as i do my best to live by these ideals... it reminds me of the Buddhist monk story when someone tried to point out the monk hypocrisy about no killing... asked that when he scratches himself or shoes away a fly or showers that he is killing small living creatures.. the response is we take no pleasure in these act and their is no malice. the thing is finding a balance. i balance things by donating when i can to animals shelters, animal charities as well as for children hospitals...

that doesnt mean i cant go about my daily life without using water or electricity.


all that means is that i am careful when i trim my garden keeping in mind that animals live in my yard and try not to harm them.. sometimes its by adding a bush or a bird house.. etc etc..

you cant label or expect some one to fall in line to whatever assumption you have of a person.. i mean if i see some one mobing around in blk finger nail polish.. i am not goin to scratch my head and be you are a emo and b/c of this you must love vampires... well he doesnt that doesnt mean he is a hypocrite or violating his beliefs its just the assumption you had.

again if i had the power i would kill humanity or a large portion of it to protect nature/planet.

Originally posted by Robtard
IIRC, you voted for Bush in 2004. Correct?

how much can you blame him though, machismo beats out d-bag any day. I remember watching the debates, I wanted Bush to just come on stage and tackle Kerry, or hit him in the face or something.

Originally posted by King Castle
that is not an ideal showing desire to kill humanity to protect the rest of earth life is a hypothetical scenario and just a want.

would i be willing to kill humanity if i had pandoras box and could wipe humans off including myself? yes. but, there is no situation where such power would be given to one person let alone me.

me using electricity does harm the environment i am fully aware, i also fight my battles where i can...

i be just as happy living off the land and having no modern resources and it wouldnt bother me b/c i have in the past..

my real ideals are to do no harm and take no pleasure when i do harm other living creatures... i tend to except ppl on average at least certain ppl.. but, i do not take pleasure of harming animals...

i can go on living so long as i do my best to live by these ideals... it reminds me of the Buddhist monk story when someone tried to point out the monk hypocrisy about no killing... asked that when he scratches himself or shoes away a fly or showers that he is killing small living creatures.. the response is we take no pleasure in these act and their is no malice. the thing is finding a balance. i balance things by donating when i can to animals shelters, animal charities as well as for children hospitals...

that doesnt mean i cant go about my daily life without using water or electricity.


all that means is that i am careful when i trim my garden keeping in mind that animals live in my yard and try not to harm them.. sometimes its by adding a bush or a bird house.. etc etc..

you cant label or expect some one to fall in line to whatever assumption you have of a person.. i mean if i see some one moping around in blk finger nail polish.. i am not goin to scratch my head and be you are a emo and b/c of this you must love vampires... well he doesnt that doesnt mean he is a hypocrite or violating his beliefs its just the assumption you had.

again if i had the power i would kill humanity or a large portion of it to protect nature/planet.

lol, I was just having a little fun

I get your hyperbole, I just dont agree. I mean, I love nature, personally, and I really value the fact that, given my geography, there are still lots of parks around, Im at the crossroads of 2 rivers, and if I were to take like a canoe trip even just like a couple hours north, there is a huge variety of wildlife I could see. Even as a citizen of my country, the government trying to do something to destroy that needlessly would be something that got me politically involved.

However, I dont value any of that over human life. I dont mean material comfort, I dont mean luxury, I mean life. If people were dying because there isnt a road from their house to a hosptial, or there isnt a hospital in their town, **** the animals. literally if you want, before shooting them.

lol, ok, that is hyperbole too. Optimally we, as intelligent rational humans, can probably come to solutions that both satisfy the fact that humans need to live with the fact we think nature is pretty. Come to Canada for a week, we do it extremely well. But, if the situation is mutually exclusive, whatever, the fuzzy feeling I get from nature is not worth people suffering.

hmmm..mhmm

something just exploded in my city... i felt and heard the explosion.

anyways....

its about balance building a road is not the same as wiping a forest kicking indigenous ppl off their land as well as game just so some one can leech the soil of its nutrients and water table for a coca cola company that will only remain open for half a decade and closed down once they have exhausted the regional resources.

these are the things i am talking about some things have value others do not. one human life is not worth deforestation and relocation of others whether animals or humans.

like i said war is good and asian continet is a good place to start.

but it is totally unnecessary. It would be a waste of life, human and animal (war is terrible for the environment). Nations can develop such that they are at harmony with the environment and not have to reduce their populations.

hmm.. ambulances were just heard heading toward the city.
i guess i'll watch the news today to see what happen.

it be great if we could but lets be honest how would we accomplish it keep in mind that we are also tryin to not impact the environment any further.

what city are you in?

i rather not say... it could have easily just bn something mundane its the stupid mountain ring we live in that might have caused it to sound worse then it is..

Originally posted by King Castle
i rather not say... it could have easily just bn something mundane its the stupid mountain ring we live in that might have caused it to sound worse then it is..

Probably an angel arriving.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Probably an angel arriving. well he might not make it. the citizens here are all mostly redneck (blk/hispanic/white)idiots, rough necks and handful of katrina refugees that still havent found their way back to new orleans(blk).

probably only ones that care be the hispanic catholics... dios mio!! es un angel..

or the italian wannabe mafioso who run the casino and be wanting to round him up and put him in a show after intimidating the rednecks and hispanics which wouldnt really work out that well for the italians and more then likely the city would let them get away with shooting ppl in public if it was self defense... its how my city rolls .

Cop/sheriff: okay.. sir let me take your statement on why you shot the italian pit boss.. hmm.. okay you are free to go we'll call you if we have anymore questions.cowboy

Originally posted by inimalist
no... Ive not insinutated that

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but what is the problem in India and China...

is it that there are just too many people there, or is it that there is not enough infrastructure to support that many people

Then define how much infrastructure you wanna have spread around the globe... cause if you take china as an example they more or less reached industrial country status.

Originally posted by inimalist
I must have done a poor job explaining my point. FACT: there is enough grain grown in the praries of Canada and America to feed the world. FACT: we waste over 40% of it.

that is my point. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10977955
Do you have a source for the 40%? The article mentions "a bumper" but not how much but this is still a good example now imagine that they need to feed several billion people more world wide, it's just not working.
Maybe you're right about the current population but if it increases, which is definately happing and exponentially, we need birthcontrol and I'm not saying "let's walk around killing people" I'm talking about regulating the offsprings of the current generation.

Some will see this as a sign to the end of times. First this, then the tornadoes in NY.

Originally posted by King Castle
i think you are right. i seem to recall a rant where he said the bases of his reason being the bush snorted coke so he felt he could relate to him.

I would like to see that post, until you can produce it, you are just full of shit.

Originally posted by Robtard
IIRC, you voted for Bush in 2004. Correct?

In 2004 I voted against the pussy candidate. You figure it out.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
Then define how much infrastructure you wanna have spread around the globe... cause if you take china as an example they more or less reached industrial country status.

maybe in urban areas...

what, you want my utopian ideas? or do you think merely feeding everyone poses too much infrastructure?

Originally posted by Parmaniac
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10977955
Do you have a source for the 40%? The article mentions "a bumper" but not how much but this is still a good example now imagine that they need to feed several billion people more world wide, it's just not working.

http://www.livescience.com/culture/091126-food-waste.html

and like I've said before, we already produce enough food to feed the world. This is without applying technology that exists today to increase yeilds. We could do nothing but reorganize the system of distribution and everyone on the planet could eat.

The work by Norman Borlogue, and especially that of his critics, very plainly deal with this (though Borlogue does think GMOs will be necessary)

Originally posted by Parmaniac
Maybe you're right about the current population but if it increases, which is definately happing and exponentially, we need birthcontrol and I'm not saying "let's walk around killing people" I'm talking about regulating the offsprings of the current generation.

do you have anything to support your hyperbole?

Originally posted by inimalist
do you have anything to support your hyperbole? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Poulation-since-1000AD.jpg

ok...

now where is the part about us not being able to feed them?

Originally posted by inimalist
ok...

now where is the part about us not being able to feed them? You said they produce 40% more than needed, 40% will be fast surpassed by this rate of birth increases plus they must ship it to afrika from canada/america, by increasing people on the globe the oil demand also increases, oil is not infinite as soon as it runs out how are you getting the ships to afrika? Now you could argue that bio fuels will drive them but you need fields for these aswell. We live on a planet with physical limitations and limited resources it's just not possible to keep up like that for let's say the next 40-50 years (<- No prove, my own estimation).

Seriously this shit can't go on like this for long.

We already getting these scenarios in mexico where farmers start growing bio fuels cause it's making more money and people living there start starving cause of the lack of fuel. It's not just a question of how much we have at this point and how much is needed at this point.

http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=5518

Originally posted by Parmaniac
You said they produce 40% more than needed,

no, I didn't. I said we waste 40% of our food. There is a different statistic, that talks about the tonnage of food produced in the praries, that says there is enough food grown in North America to feed the planet.

Anybody who jumps from that to "we need to start shipping our extra food around the world with little American flags stuck to them" is not actually reading what I am saying.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
40% will be fast surpassed by this rate of birth increases plus they must ship it to afrika from canada/america, by increasing people on the globe the oil demand also increases, oil is not infinite as soon as it runs out how are you getting the ships to afrika? Now you could argue that bio fuels will drive them but you need fields for these aswell. We live on a planet with physical limitations and limited resources it's just not possible to keep up like that for let's say the next 40-50 years (<- No prove, my own estimation).

Seriously this shit can't go on like this for long.

all of that is only relevant if we ignore how quickly agricultural science is progressing.

Ok, so yes, maybe the system we have now wont be applicable in 50 years, that is moot in the extreme.

BTW, I've never said anything about shipping it to them. That is a stat that attempts to show that people, like you, who claim there "just isnt going to be enough food" are painfully mistaken, because we grow more than enough domestically, let alone on the world stage. I'd prefer we help them develop their own local agriculture without export/import conditions imposed by the world bank or IMF.

like, you seem really keen to have an argument with someone whose points are only tangentally related to mine.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
We already getting these scenarios in mexico where farmers start growing bio fuels cause it's making more money and people living there start starving cause of the lack of fuel. It's not just a question of how much we have at this point and how much is needed at this point.

http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=5518

...

so? and the world drug market causes starvation in Nepal, where people grow pot instead of food...

this dones't change the simple fact that it is not scarcity that causes hunger. Or rather, it is either local or artificial scarcity that causes hunger. That Mexican farmers are growing cash crops does pose a problem for their local food sources, it doesn't mean that we, as the planet, have no other options in terms of feeding them...

Is this like one of those 3-d posters where you're supposed to cross your eyes to see the picture? Because i don't see it. I still see a gravel road.

End of times, bitches.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, I didn't. I said we waste 40% of our food. There is a different statistic, that talks about the tonnage of food produced in the praries, that says there is enough food grown in North America to feed the planet.

Anybody who jumps from that to "we need to start shipping our extra food around the world with little American flags stuck to them" is not actually reading what I am saying.



all of that is only relevant if we ignore how quickly agricultural science is progressing.

Ok, so yes, maybe the system we have now wont be applicable in 50 years, that is moot in the extreme.

BTW, I've never said anything about shipping it to them. That is a stat that attempts to show that people, like you, who claim there "just isnt going to be enough food" are painfully mistaken, because we grow more than enough domestically, let alone on the world stage. I'd prefer we help them develop their own local agriculture without export/import conditions imposed by the world bank or IMF.

like, you seem really keen to have an argument with someone whose points are only tangentally related to mine.



...

so? and the world drug market causes starvation in Nepal, where people grow pot instead of food...

this dones't change the simple fact that it is not scarcity that causes hunger. Or rather, it is either local or artificial scarcity that causes hunger. That Mexican farmers are growing cash crops does pose a problem for their local food sources, it doesn't mean that we, as the planet, have no other options in terms of feeding them...

The Optimum Population trust (think tank) conducted a study that concluded that a sustainable population for Earth should be between 2.7 and 5.1 billion people. Although I'm not sure how much they took into consideration future technology for food production such as genetic engineering (once people get over this media perpetuated lie of "frankenstein food" as well as things such as vertical farming.

It did also take into consideration other resources though.

Originally posted by jaden101
The Optimum Population trust (think tank) conducted a study that concluded that a sustainable population for Earth should be between 2.7 and 5.1 billion people. Although I'm not sure how much they took into consideration future technology for food production such as genetic engineering (once people get over this media perpetuated lie of "frankenstein food" as well as things such as vertical farming.

It did also take into consideration other resources though.

weird... I've seen that number as high as 12-15 bil.

Originally posted by King Castle
i say we just remove 4 billion out of the six billion ppl on the planet and i am lookin toward a general direction where we can start.

you're right, we should start with north americans that consume resources adn produce more waste than anyone else on the planet

Originally posted by inimalist
bio-diversity is an human aesthetic.

I would personally destroy every endangered organism if it meant that humans would live.

True, but so is the value you place in human lives. Objectivelly, there is nothing different between your argument and "I would personally destroy every human if it meant the remainder of the extant bio-diversity would live".

Originally posted by 753
you're right, we should start with north americans that consume resources adn produce more waste than anyone else on the planet

No, we should start with poor people especially in Africa their population growth rate is higher than anyone else. They can't fight back as hard either.

Originally posted by inimalist
Optimally we, as intelligent rational humans, can probably come to solutions that both satisfy the fact that humans need to live with the fact we think nature is pretty. Well, bacteria, plants and bugs 'need' to live just the same. The reasons not to destroy any other species or populations for the sake of your own are the same as the reasons not to destroy any other human culture or population for the sake of your own, and they are not because they are pretty. Besides, even this feeling of pertinence to a 'humanity' is a cultural construct.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, we should start with poor people especially in Africa their population growth rate is higher than anyone else. They can't fight back as hard either. You wanna do things the easy way or the right way?

Originally posted by inimalist
weird... I've seen that number as high as 12-15 bil.

How about a trillion? Or maybe a few hundred million?

A study by the UN concluded that there is no consensus at all about the planet's carrying capacity.
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpm/wpm2001.pdf (page 39)

Originally posted by 753
You wanna do things the easy way or the right way?

If you're culling a population that is the right way. You need to slash the rate of increase or the exercise if futile.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you're culling a population that is the right way. You need to slash the rate of increase or the exercise if futile. Not if you're doing it out of concern for scarcity of resources or environmental damage. Over-consumption is a much bigger problem than over-population from a resource depletion and ecological perspective.

Originally posted by 753
True, but so is the value you place in human lives. Objectivelly, there is nothing different between your argument and "I would personally destroy every human if it meant the remainder of the extant bio-diversity would live". Humans are the only species on Earth that can stop Asteroid Dotty from killing us all. ahah

Originally posted by 753
True, but so is the value you place in human lives. Objectivelly, there is nothing different between your argument and "I would personally destroy every human if it meant the remainder of the extant bio-diversity would live".

objectively: sure there is, I can give you objective, measureable reasons why I place human life above that of animals

absolutely, in terms of universal morals: no, of course not, but that is moot.

The statement was hyperbole, for one, and fairly clearly an opinion.

Originally posted by 753
Well, bacteria, plants and bugs 'need' to live just the same. The reasons not to destroy any other species or populations for the sake of your own are the same as the reasons not to destroy any other human culture or population for the sake of your own, and they are not because they are pretty.

well, yes, but that is nearly as poor of an interpretation of what I said as Parmaniac made. Its probably my fault if more than one person can't understand me, but still, I would never say "gee, corn is pretty, therefore we should destroy one of the most needed staple food sources on the planet".

The reason to save plants and animals that can objectively be shown as necessary to human survival, is well, tautological if I put it like that.

Its like polar bears. I'm really not bothered that they will be extinct in my life, nor do I think our government should go about saving them for the specific reasons that saving them adds to 'bio-diversity'. Tax dollars would be much better spent on infrastructure in our poor and native communities. However, if we can find a way to save polar bears that also accomidates the human issues, perfect, that is the optimal path.

Originally posted by 753
Besides, even this feeling of pertinence to a 'humanity' is a cultural construct.

even if I agreed with this, and I do to an extent, it is moot. Yes, my opinion, as part of the culture I have come from or whatever, is that human life is far more important than that of animals.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How about a trillion? Or maybe a few hundred million?

A study by the UN concluded that there is no consensus at all about the planet's carrying capacity.
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpm/wpm2001.pdf (page 39)

Not only is there an enormous range of values, but there is no tendency of the values to converge over time; indeed, the estimates made since 1950 exhibit greater variability than those made earlier.

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeird...

so basically we have no idea...

EDIT: this line too:

Around two thirds of the estimates fall in the range of 4 billion to 16 billion persons

a range of predictions in which the lower bound is the root of the higher bound is probably not very helpful. You could fly a jet through that range... This gives us a std dev = 6 billion people, pretty non-trivial...

It would be close to saying that 2/3 of people fall between 5' and 25'.

Originally posted by inimalist
This gives us a std dev = 6 billion people, pretty non-trivial...


lol, and just to geek out on these stats for another second, this would mean, that if we plotted the probability of different population estimates, a little more than 7% of the possible values would indicate that the Earth could only support negative human populations

EDIT: sorry about the spree posting

Originally posted by inimalist
objectively: sure there is, I can give you objective, measureable reasons why I place human life above that of animals

absolutely, in terms of universal morals: no, of course not, but that is moot.
You can list objective characteristics on which you place value, but the placement of value itself - judging that somethings have value and others don't - is inherently subjective.

It was indeed clearly hyperbole, but that isn't what I was geting at. When you said biodiversity only has aesthetical value that is atributed by humans, I took it you implied human life has objective value that isn't just affective or aesthetic value atributed by someone.

Of course, you could claim every human values his/her own life, but so do algae for that matter and both are manifest through self-preservation behaviors.



Right, I get it, and it makes perfect sense from the moral perspective you've described. What I meant is that just like the reasons you take the survival and needs of humans that aren't usefull for your own survival into consideration are moral, so are the ones for taking non-human life forms into consideration (for those who do so).



No doubt there, I was simply pointing out the 'artificial' nature of any comunity of beings worth of moral consideration for any given system of morality and taking a jab at the idea that we share a sense of pertinence to humanity - or even a common ontology of what 'humanity' is - by default. One can feel such a sense of belonging to a 'race', the whole ecossystem or a group composed of his immediate family and seahorses.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Humans are the only species on Earth that can stop Asteroid Dotty from killing us all. ahah You, sir, have no idea what dung beetles are capable of.

Originally posted by 753
Of course, you could claim every human values his/her own life, but so do algae for that matter and both are manifest through self-preservation behaviors.

...

One can feel such a sense of belonging to a 'race', the whole ecossystem or a group composed of his immediate family and seahorses.

we don't really disagree on anything significant, but there is a pile of psych on both of these issues that sort of call what you are saying into question.

Least of all, few people would confuse the nearly "domino" like growth of plants given the proper nutrients to behaviours exibited by organisms with a developed CNS. Further, humans exibit many behaviours that are directly opposed to self-preservation in many instances, altruism and substance abuse being the first 2 that pop into my head. But no, unless I totally don't understand algae, it wouldn't be said to demonstrate any behaviour, at all. errr, idk, unless biologists define cellular division as a "behaviour", but that is of a markedly different type than is behaviour generated through sensory organs, which is again, of a nature entirely different from behaviour displayed by humans.

The last part is way tougher to explain, but involves cognitive schemas and the fact that the nature/nurture dichotomy is 100% false. Simply, while it might be true that, were I raised specifically by seahorses, I could come to identify with that, schematic similarity between humans exploits what are biological mechanisms that work toward species stabalization and survival.

Originally posted by inimalist
errr, idk, unless biologists define cellular division as a "behaviour", but that is of a markedly different type than is behaviour generated through sensory organs, which is again, of a nature entirely different from behaviour displayed by humans.

I'm taking bio right now, the behaviors they have are probably at the cellular level. Some of them react to environmental stimuli as well, definitely a behavior.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm taking bio right now, the behaviors they have are probably at the cellular level. Some of them react to environmental stimuli as well, definitely a behavior.

what do you mean by react?

Originally posted by inimalist
we don't really disagree on anything significant, but there is a pile of psych on both of these issues that sort of call what you are saying into question.

Least of all, few people would confuse the nearly "domino" like growth of plants given the proper nutrients to behaviours exibited by organisms with a developed CNS. Further, humans exibit many behaviours that are directly opposed to self-preservation in many instances, altruism and substance abuse being the first 2 that pop into my head. But no, unless I totally don't understand algae, it wouldn't be said to demonstrate any behaviour, at all. errr, idk, unless biologists define cellular division as a "behaviour", but that is of a markedly different type than is behaviour generated through sensory organs, which is again, of a nature entirely different from behaviour displayed by humans.

The last part is way tougher to explain, but involves cognitive schemas and the fact that the nature/nurture dichotomy is 100% false. Simply, while it might be true that, were I raised specifically by seahorses, I could come to identify with that, schematic similarity between humans exploits what are biological mechanisms that work toward species stabalization and survival.

We do speak of behavior when referring to the responses of all organisms to stimuli even those that don't have CNSs like plants. While each kind of perception interpretation and response to sitimulus is different, I don't think it takes anything away from the aplicability of the term. Words like behavior, cognition, memory, learning and sometimes even inteligence (although this one is far more controversial) are used to describe even cell level biological processes as well as much more complex behaviors manifested by multicellulars like plants. There are qualitative differences between this and what vertebrates humans do at the neurological level of course, but the functional analogies (sometimes even developmental homologies) are solid enough to justify the use of the terms. I personally think biosemiotics and related fields should be even more bold in the use of such terms.

I would, however, point out that the level of complexity of plant behavior (growth included) and response to stimulus is far above what lay people usually assume. There is even a self-proclaimed plant neurobiology field emerging in botany (actual serious science concerned with plant physiology, signaling and communication, no hollistic mambojambo). If tou're interested, this page from the university of firenze has neatly compiled selection of articles (click on 'papers') some of them are too high end botany but some simpler ones giving general notions of the field are also available: http://www.linv.org/


Sure humans can suffer from depression, self-harming addiction and commit suicide, but you got the point. Self-preservation drive is basic and universal enough to warrant the generalization. Bacteria can go into their own kinds of systemic failure and self-destructive behavior like apoptosis, but it's safe to say bacteria and living systems in general seek self-preservation.

Agreed the dicotomy is false and that identification and emotional bonding with kin carries survival advantages and these is tied to the evolutive roots of social behavior, but the potentiality for bonding and identifying with almost anything (even if they weren't your primary cargivers) exists in humans, regardless of whether or not its fixation in primates is the product of kin selection. Feeling pertinence to the whole human species, for instance, isn't exactly identification with kin.

I could add that the argument that biofilia and the emotional apreciation of non-human life carries survival advantages also has a solid biological backing. Survival benefits of such relations include: better resource management and preservation, maintenance of diversity of foodstuff, greater efficiency in hunting and gathering, etc.

Bands of humans who domesticated or almost domesticated animals that help them hunt and later developed into pet ownership, for instance, are usually extremely attached to them and this is different from the possesive attachment a shepard might have for his cattle. Likewise, a sense of belonging and deep emotional connection, sometimes in the form of religious worship, with other non-human nature, like plants, forests and even the landscape can also be found across a variety of cultures.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm taking bio right now, the behaviors they have are probably at the cellular level. Some of them react to environmental stimuli as well, definitely a behavior. They have tissue level, organ level and organism level as well.

Originally posted by inimalist
what do you mean by react?

They produce spores when things become harsh and can group up into protective macroscopic balls (slightly icky). When starved of nitrogen a few types will form specialized cells called heterocysts.

Obviously they don't react psychologically but biologists are super concerned with that.

Originally posted by inimalist
what do you mean by react? They perceive stimulus with sensorial apparatus (chemical receptors, fotorecpetors, etc.), that triggers cascades of events in the cell level and the affetced cells respond to it, as in, they manifest physiological or morphological changes. These changes can include signaling to other cells spreading the information to a different part of the plant's body that can manifest some other response.

Plants can even be said to communicate with each other through secretion of chemically active molecules on the air and ground. One example is that some plants can identify kin by "smelling" molecules secreted by them in the ground - these molecules are sort of unique to the individual and similar among kin, this allows lineage identification and differentiation from others - and actually curb their own root growth because of it, effectively protecting their offspring from competition over resources. They grow more agressively when in the company of non-related or different species.

Another examples is that trees attacked by herbivores will increase the secretion rate of chemicals (kinda like pheromones) that are picked up by their neighboors and trigger hyperexpression of defensive mechanisms like toxins, adhesive secretions, thorns, etc.

ok, regardless of how terms are used, we can all agree that there is a fundamental difference between "behaviour" as describing single celled, primitive or simple organisms, versus the way "behaviour" is used when describing the actions of complex mammals, specifically humans?

Like, if you want, we can talk about the difference between algae sensory apparatuses versus the human occipital cortex/optic tactum, but you would agree that the difference is not only one of complexity (ie - Why Skinnerian behaviourism isn't an adequate description of human behaviour, though it does explain much of animal behaviour). Similarily, the presence of a motor cortex and efference copy would, almost alone, indicate that the nature of human behaviour is much different than the "behaviour" of simpler organisms (and though this might be pedantic, as a psychologist, I wouldn't consider most of what was described as "behaviour".

(don't get me wrong, as with all things in biology, there will be a gradation rather than strict demarcation of what would be "behaviour". I personally just don't consider the stress response of a plant to be such)

Originally posted by 753
There is even a self-proclaimed plant neurobiology field emerging in botany (actual serious science concerned with plant physiology, signaling and communication, no hollistic mambojambo). If tou're interested, this page from the university of firenze has neatly compiled selection of articles (click on 'papers') some of them are too high end botany but some simpler ones giving general notions of the field are also available: http://www.linv.org/

well, here would be the big question:

do plants have neurons, or do they just have cells that sort of do things analogous to neurons? (I guess, even then, if they are close enough there would be no reason not to call them neurons)

neurobiology is strictly studying the biological properties of neurons, if plants have them, awesome. I don't personally think neurons = behaviour, and it is certainly possible that a system could be built that is said to "behave" with no need of them. I'd just be concerned there may be too much zeal behind trying to say something "profound" like "omfg, plant neurobiology, zomg!", rather than anything solid, but I will check it out.

Originally posted by 753
Agreed the dicotomy is false and that identification and emotional bonding with kin carries survival advantages and these is tied to the evolutive roots of social behavior, but the potentiality for bonding and identifying with almost anything (even if they weren't your primary cargivers) exists in humans, regardless of whether or not its fixation in primates is the product of kin selection. Feeling pertinence to the whole human species, for instance, isn't exactly identification with kin.

It is a little deeper than that even. Including things as low level and fundamental to our perception as "horizontal lines", our brain develops through use. Stimuli comes in, activates genes which them express themselves and form connections to other neurons.

Nature develops based on nurture based on what parameters nature put in depending on what nurture was applied.... etc. It is easier to see nature and genes as a single system that interact to produce your brain.

Its called "neuroplasticity", probably one of the most interesting topics in psych

Originally posted by 753
I could add that the argument that biofilia and the emotional apreciation of non-human life carries survival advantages also has a solid biological backing. Survival benefits of such relations include: better resource management and preservation, maintenance of diversity of foodstuff, greater efficiency in hunting and gathering, etc.

Bands of humans who domesticated or almost domesticated animals that help them hunt and later developed into pet ownership, for instance, are usually extremely attached to them and this is different from the possesive attachment a shepard might have for his cattle. Likewise, a sense of belonging and deep emotional connection, sometimes in the form of religious worship, with other non-human nature, like plants, forests and even the landscape can also be found across a variety of cultures.

I wrote a paper that suggested that urbanization and the removal of people from their food sources has driven the rise in vegetarianism, because the only exemplars of animals that people get are from Disney cartoons. LOL, it was for a lab, so I'm sure it doesn't hold.

All I am saying is that there are biological "parameters" that are most easily exploited by humans, that give us a sense of belonging to the species. Not that other things can't trigger this, but that the physical properties of humans make them most likey to.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, regardless of how terms are used, we can all agree that there is a fundamental difference between "behaviour" as describing single celled, primitive or simple organisms, versus the way "behaviour" is used when describing the actions of complex mammals, specifically humans? Vertebrate and human behavior and its underlying physiological mechanisms have evolutive properties that are exclusive to them , of course. This is true of the behavior of anything really. all groups have their exclusive properties.

Actually I think it might be exactly a matter of complexity, organization and tissue specialization, of course this does entail the emergent properties unique to the mammal brain you are refering to. Never did think much of skinner's crap though, not even for describing non-human behavior. He ignores too much stuff.

Hum... This I'm not too sure about, we'd have to go into more detail over it. If we take a very simple unconscious reflex arc, is it fundamentally different from a much slower cell by cell signaling within algae that leads to a physiological reaction to stimulus? Also, would you say an immune or endocrine response ammounts to behavior? My main concern is that behavior is often defined in terms of a response triggered by a stimulus envolving movement which ignores the responses sessile organisms display. Would you say these single-celled little guys are behaving? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c_Vhb0vBVw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGAm6hMysTA&feature=related
Some are algae by the way.


Sure. But still, I actually do think it's behavior. Maybe it's the way we're used to looking at things through different lenses because of our fields of expertise.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, here would be the big question:

do plants have neurons, or do they just have cells that sort of do things analogous to neurons? (I guess, even then, if they are close enough there would be no reason not to call them neurons)

neurobiology is strictly studying the biological properties of neurons, if plants have them, awesome. I don't personally think neurons = behaviour, and it is certainly possible that a system could be built that is said to "behave" with no need of them. I'd just be concerned there may be too much zeal behind trying to say something "profound" like "omfg, plant neurobiology, zomg!", rather than anything solid, but I will check it out.


They don't have neurons. They do have, cells, tissues and organs fulfilling analogous roles and this is one of the why the term was adopted - similarity in mechanisms. Just how close these cells are to neurons to justify employing the term is still a matter of some controversy. The second reason is an analogy of function, not mechanism: how do plants receive, process, interpret and react to stimuli and how do they coordinate responses and integrate the functioning of the whole organism? How do they communicate?
I personally don't really care much about the use the neuro prefix either way as I am more concerned with the second reason and not with whether or not plants can be said to have neurons.

We agree that neurons do not equate behavior then.



People's sensitivities are indeed molded by what they are exposed to.(although, vegetarianism has been arround for a really long time among forest dwellers as well). I've actually made a similar claim in a paper that because urban dwellers aren't in contact with wild nature they don't develop emotional bonds with it.

You mean recognition of the basic plan of the human face and things like that? Sure, but we're also pre-programmed to find puppies cute. The thing is that I don't think recognition of potential mates, offspring, parents and kin are the cornerstone of this sense of belonging to a collective entity of humanity and this affection towards it - which is too recent an emergency - although they might contribute to the identification process.

Originally posted by 753
Actually I think it might be exactly a matter of complexity, organization and tissue specialization, of course this does entail the emergent properties unique to the mammal brain you are refering to. Never did think much of skinner's crap though, not even for describing non-human behavior. He ignores too much stuff.

I'm not just refering to the emergent properties though.

Like, explain to me the process of a photoreceptive protein signaling a behaviour in a single celled organism. I don't mean to be presumptive, but I think that would be analogous to protein chains in rods and cones in the retina signaling a response from the ganglion cells immediatly in the eye and even to the optic nerve (where it might be a matter of complexity), but as soon as you get to the LGN (lateral geniculate nucleus), vision has nothing to do with single cell information transmition. Even here, vision is based upon the contextual pattern of neuronal firing, in such a way that (while a single neuron does carry some "information" no single action potential will give "vision" any real information, and certainly will NOT produce behaviour.

This would be true of most visual animals (I don't know how far back the LGN goes, but there are analogs in mice and cats), but in humans there are even greater complexities. Maybe not for low level vision that I just described, but certainly when that information is split into the dorsal and ventral streams. At that point, social-contextual issues will come up, which would probably be, if not unique, only present in humans, primates and maybe a handful of other highly social animals.

I wont even bring up language... (for my own sanity as well)

(also, while Skinner was way off on some things, he wasn't on others, especially when it comes to reinforcement, even in humans. His work on the futility of prisons is still relevant, imho. LOL, I guess I was called a "Behaviorist" in class once, because I said that "top-down" behaviour might just be the second stage of "bottom-up", but I don't think I am)

Originally posted by 753
Hum... This I'm not too sure about, we'd have to go into more detail over it. If we take a very simple unconscious reflex arc, is it fundamentally different from a much slower cell by cell signaling within algae that leads to a physiological reaction to stimulus? Also, would you say an immune or endocrine response ammounts to behavior? My main concern is that behavior is often defined in terms of a response triggered by a stimulus envolving movement which ignores the responses sessile organisms display.

In terms of psychology, those aren't generally considered "overt" behaviours. Stuff like the reflex of moving your hand away from pain, or orienting to a sound, while I suppose they are studied under "psychology", I suspect even people doing that research (from a psych perspective) would draw a very clear distinction between a reflex-arc and motor commands which go through the pre-motor areas, are simulated, predicted, have continuous feedback from other sensory modalities.. etc.

iirc, many reflexes don't even require any information processing. Like, with removing your hand from a hot stove, I don't think it requires your somatosensory cortex to process the "hot" stimuli before you move... That is done in the spinal cord is it not?

Originally posted by 753
Would you say these single-celled little guys are behaving? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c_Vhb0vBVw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGAm6hMysTA&feature=related
Some are algae by the way.

lol, that is awesome. I didn't realize algae were so mobile

I suppose that is behaviour

Originally posted by 753
Sure. But still, I actually do think it's behavior. Maybe it's the way we're used to looking at things through different lenses because of our fields of expertise.

that is probably exactly the case. It is strange, because I can totally see where you are coming from, and at that level, hell, any time a neuron fires a person is "behaving". They are "behaving" as they age, or whatever.

But man, from where I'm coming from, that is so weird. LOL! way to go man, this is a crazy discussion

Originally posted by 753
They don't have neurons. They do have, cells, tissues and organs fulfilling analogous roles and this is one of the why the term was adopted - similarity in mechanisms. Just how close these cells are to neurons to justify employing the term is still a matter of some controversy. The second reason is an analogy of function, not mechanism: how do plants receive, process, interpret and react to stimuli and how do they coordinate responses and integrate the functioning of the whole organism? How do they communicate?
I personally don't really care much about the use the neuro prefix either way as I am more concerned with the second reason and not with whether or not plants can be said to have neurons.

being pedantic, I'd probably compare that more to plants having a CNS (central nervous system) as opposed to them having a "neurobiology", but I don't see a huge problem with that.

Originally posted by 753
We agree that neurons do not equate behavior then.

I think you might be getting the wrong impression. I'm not saying humans are better because they have "behviour" or anything like that, all I'm saying is that, from the psychological point of view, plants don't really "behave", any more than individual neurons "behave" (meaning that they probably do in some sense that is trivial in my field)

Originally posted by 753
People's sensitivities are indeed molded by what they are exposed to.(although, vegetarianism has been arround for a really long time among forest dwellers as well). I've actually made a similar claim in a paper that because urban dwellers aren't in contact with wild nature they don't develop emotional bonds with it.

interesting. Its probably different in other parts of the world, as sort of fundamental to my argument was the Christian distinction of the world of man and the world of animals. Because Christians defined animals as different, they could be killed and eaten with little need to justify it, as the animal is not the same as the person doing the killing.

However, once removed from the need to kill one's own food, or really develop any opinion about animals, people are subjected more to images of highly anthropized animals, making any representation they develop of them much more like humans than they really are.

You are probably right though, I could see opposite effects coming from cultures that origionally saw themselves as part of nature moving away from it.

Originally posted by 753
You mean recognition of the basic plan of the human face and things like that? Sure, but we're also pre-programmed to find puppies cute. The thing is that I don't think recognition of potential mates, offspring, parents and kin are the cornerstone of this sense of belonging to a collective entity of humanity and this affection towards it - which is too recent an emergency - although they might contribute to the identification process.

it goes way deeper, but yes, think the human face recognition (which, to be fair, is actually "familiarity" recognition ) only applied to anything that could possibly be exploited. Again, language being the biggest and probably most complex example.

Though, my point about species survival was more of a nod to Gould... which actually makes your point a weird critique of punctuated equilibrium. It might be better termed as "in-group" survival.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u55/WatchOut_02/OilSpill.gif