ChatterBank3 mins ago
The power of nature
25 Answers
After witnessing the earthquake in Japan on TV it makes you realise the awsome power of nature and how it can ride roughshod over our best laid plans. We are tiny insignificant, unimportant little creatures on a tiny insignificant little planet in a vast infinite universe. How petty our little lives and squables are. It certainly puts things into perspective. Why do people take life so seriously? We are born, we live, we die, the end. We are nothing in the great scheme of things.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by david51058. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Nature can show us how small we are in beautiful ways too
http://farm3.static.f...6152_a51feb1508_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.f...6152_a51feb1508_o.jpg
"We are tiny insignificant, unimportant little creatures on a tiny insignificant little planet in a vast infinite universe."
I disagree.
Mankind has taught itself (!) to heal the sick. We have learned how to make ourselves live longer than our ancestors could ever have hoped to. New biotechnologies are raising the possibility of feeding the hungry worldwide, and in the West, at least, we've virtually conquered famine. Until about 600 years ago, nature was a true object of fear - the forest surrounding the village was a place you didn't go at night, and if you went there in the day you'd never stray from the path without due preparation. Except in extreme climates, that can't truly be said to apply anymore.
Further to that, we've built vast civilizations which so far we've no evidence that anywhere else has been able to achieve. If the fact of Japan's earthquake is a testament to nature's power, then the fact that the casualties haven't been catastrophically higher - and the fact that you even know it has happened - is a testament to mankind's abilities.
Mankind is flawed, yes, but it's only flawed next to the standards that humanity itself has learned to hold itself to. Dismissing us as a feeble and insignificant is cynicism of the laziest kind.
I disagree.
Mankind has taught itself (!) to heal the sick. We have learned how to make ourselves live longer than our ancestors could ever have hoped to. New biotechnologies are raising the possibility of feeding the hungry worldwide, and in the West, at least, we've virtually conquered famine. Until about 600 years ago, nature was a true object of fear - the forest surrounding the village was a place you didn't go at night, and if you went there in the day you'd never stray from the path without due preparation. Except in extreme climates, that can't truly be said to apply anymore.
Further to that, we've built vast civilizations which so far we've no evidence that anywhere else has been able to achieve. If the fact of Japan's earthquake is a testament to nature's power, then the fact that the casualties haven't been catastrophically higher - and the fact that you even know it has happened - is a testament to mankind's abilities.
Mankind is flawed, yes, but it's only flawed next to the standards that humanity itself has learned to hold itself to. Dismissing us as a feeble and insignificant is cynicism of the laziest kind.
furthermore why should we give a monkeys what has gone before and what is to follow....we are here during a relative blink of the eye,
the two certainties that exist remain the same since the first days of life in the universe....
you are born and you die in quick order
cynicism ,realism, label it how you will
the two certainties that exist remain the same since the first days of life in the universe....
you are born and you die in quick order
cynicism ,realism, label it how you will
According to that philosophy kinell it doesn't matter a monkeys what we leave behind for our kids.
Life may be short for individuals but the race goes on and most societies have some regard for what they are handing on to future generations.
I think the planet can absorb the results of climatic fluctuation but humans may not be able to so it may be naive to discount our effect on the climate
Life may be short for individuals but the race goes on and most societies have some regard for what they are handing on to future generations.
I think the planet can absorb the results of climatic fluctuation but humans may not be able to so it may be naive to discount our effect on the climate
"furthermore why should we give a monkeys what has gone before and what is to follow....we are here during a relative blink of the eye"
A blink which we've more than doubled. I happen to think that's a phenomenal achievement. And being a history student, I also happen to think that studying the past is a rewarding and fulfilling activity - it's worth spending a blink on, if you like.
"the two certainties that exist remain the same since the first days of life in the universe....
you are born and you die in quick order"
And these are the only two certainties you live by, are they? Forgive me if I'm a little unconvinced. So what if nothing else is certain? Nobody lives by total certainties all the time - if we did, then life would be pretty dull.
"When we can command the waves better than Canute ever did then you can say that kromo. "
Personally, I think it lacks an enormous amount of perspective to dismiss mankind's incredible achievements by essentially saying 'well, we can't control the sea. So it all amounts to nothing really', which is what your argument sounds like.
A blink which we've more than doubled. I happen to think that's a phenomenal achievement. And being a history student, I also happen to think that studying the past is a rewarding and fulfilling activity - it's worth spending a blink on, if you like.
"the two certainties that exist remain the same since the first days of life in the universe....
you are born and you die in quick order"
And these are the only two certainties you live by, are they? Forgive me if I'm a little unconvinced. So what if nothing else is certain? Nobody lives by total certainties all the time - if we did, then life would be pretty dull.
"When we can command the waves better than Canute ever did then you can say that kromo. "
Personally, I think it lacks an enormous amount of perspective to dismiss mankind's incredible achievements by essentially saying 'well, we can't control the sea. So it all amounts to nothing really', which is what your argument sounds like.
There's a programme about Armageddon tonight,
The End Of The World? A Horizon Guide To Armageddon
9pm, BBC4 ★ ★ ★
Concerned that the Japanese nuclear disaster could bring about the end of the world? It’s not the first time people have worried about apocalypse. Even a serious-minded science documentary strand like Horizon has been known to get hot under the collar, as this entertaining “best of” compilation demonstrates. Over the years, the programme has suggested the end of the world could be brought about by various events: influenza, nuclear war, a super-volcano, the destruction of the Gulf Stream or an asteroid collision.
Of course, none of them have happened. Yet…
The End Of The World? A Horizon Guide To Armageddon
9pm, BBC4 ★ ★ ★
Concerned that the Japanese nuclear disaster could bring about the end of the world? It’s not the first time people have worried about apocalypse. Even a serious-minded science documentary strand like Horizon has been known to get hot under the collar, as this entertaining “best of” compilation demonstrates. Over the years, the programme has suggested the end of the world could be brought about by various events: influenza, nuclear war, a super-volcano, the destruction of the Gulf Stream or an asteroid collision.
Of course, none of them have happened. Yet…
We all have our memories and our moments of triumph. We have advanced in all walks of life, and will continue to do so, it is quite ridiculous to think that we will sit back and do nothing "just in case" we get wiped out tomorrow. What this is about is that we will never be able to control nature, the power of natural disasters is phenominal and we couldn't hope to stop the earthquakes and tsunamis and volcanic eruptions. I repeat..... for all the efforts and advancement we have made, like ants in a colony until someone steps on them all, we could be victims of disasters such as Japan. Our efforts will mean nothing at all in the face of Nature at its most powerful. I would like to have seen you wading through the tsunami last Tuesday kromo.
"What this is about is that we will never be able to control nature, the power of natural disasters is phenominal and we couldn't hope to stop the earthquakes and tsunamis and volcanic eruptions."
Of course we can't! It's physically impossible! But what I'm saying is that most people on this thread appear to interpret that to mean that man is impotent, or, to quote, that "we are tiny insignificant, unimportant little creatures" with "petty little lives". My point is that this is absolutely false and that I believe that argument to be lazy and badly thought-out.
Of course we can't! It's physically impossible! But what I'm saying is that most people on this thread appear to interpret that to mean that man is impotent, or, to quote, that "we are tiny insignificant, unimportant little creatures" with "petty little lives". My point is that this is absolutely false and that I believe that argument to be lazy and badly thought-out.
We have strived to understand these natural phenomena and one thing that has emerged is that in spite of the disasters which overtake some areas we are dead lucky in the chunk of time we are living in. The world at present is most amenable to the existence of human life. Humans can adapt to gradual changes too.
What could put the cat among the pigeons is an accelerated rate of change such as could be brought about by man induced climate change.
What could put the cat among the pigeons is an accelerated rate of change such as could be brought about by man induced climate change.
One of the core tenets of the philospophy of geography is Determinism versus Probabilism and I see that being debated out here. What this basically translates to is Does the Earth control the actions of Man, or does Man control the actions of the Earth. There are, of course, viewpoints on either side - from the Probabilist angle, look how Man has shaped the environment in terms of the landscape for his needs and wants. My first two degrees were in Physical Geography and Glaciology and I come as a determinist - in that ultimately the Earth does control Man as through volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes and all the rest, the Earth can seize back 'control' and push Man back.
Now I am not a doom and gloom Armegeddon merchant. Yes, there are potential major catastrophes out there but let's be at least rational here. The worlds biggest supervolcano crater caldera is indeed 2/3rds full - however, it will take another 250k years for that to fill and go bingo. Secondly, an ice age is not going to occur in our or our children's lifetime. Thirdly, there is no evidence of global catastrophic plate tectonics destroying the globe - yes, major events and tsunamis on a regional basis )like the 1755 Lisbon earthquake which had some impact on us. Fourthly, switching of the magnetic poles - no evidence here in the past that it has affected flora, fauna and our early neanderthal ancestors (could be interesting for communications though). Fifthly, meteorites/asteroids - we would have a pretty good idea of something impending a few years out.........
I could go on. Perhaps the biggest risk is indeed Man himself - through a nuclear war......The Japanese nucear plant is not yet a Cherbonyl and not likely to be as it does appear the main reactors are holding, Yes it would be a major tragedy if it did advance another stage (but the Japanese are hoping to have electricity back into their cooling systems tomorrow), but it would not close down the world and kill us all
Now I am not a doom and gloom Armegeddon merchant. Yes, there are potential major catastrophes out there but let's be at least rational here. The worlds biggest supervolcano crater caldera is indeed 2/3rds full - however, it will take another 250k years for that to fill and go bingo. Secondly, an ice age is not going to occur in our or our children's lifetime. Thirdly, there is no evidence of global catastrophic plate tectonics destroying the globe - yes, major events and tsunamis on a regional basis )like the 1755 Lisbon earthquake which had some impact on us. Fourthly, switching of the magnetic poles - no evidence here in the past that it has affected flora, fauna and our early neanderthal ancestors (could be interesting for communications though). Fifthly, meteorites/asteroids - we would have a pretty good idea of something impending a few years out.........
I could go on. Perhaps the biggest risk is indeed Man himself - through a nuclear war......The Japanese nucear plant is not yet a Cherbonyl and not likely to be as it does appear the main reactors are holding, Yes it would be a major tragedy if it did advance another stage (but the Japanese are hoping to have electricity back into their cooling systems tomorrow), but it would not close down the world and kill us all
