http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/01/04/anthropocene-today-the-fate-of-the-ice-crawler Comments On: Anthropocene Today: The Fate of the Ice Crawler by Charles Mudede en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Sat, 25 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Sat, 25 May 2013 10:00:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by DisorganizedReligion]]> Fri, 04 Jan 2013 13:37:32 -0800 The Stranger Posted by venomlash]]> Fri, 04 Jan 2013 13:35:17 -0800 The Stranger
Regardless, even if we survive, we're still currently going through the most massive extinction event since the K-T... and it takes millions of years to recover from that sort of thing, the fossil record suggests.

@1 - Why is "god" "'outside' the physical world" for you? Why isn't god in --an intimate part of-- every square millimeter of the entire universe?
Posted by treacle]]> Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:42:30 -0800 The Stranger Posted by nwcitizen]]> Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:20:00 -0800 The Stranger
Also, while crushing an ant extinguishes its life, it doesn't destroy it any more than crushing a rock destroys the rock. It's the loss of that spark of life that we mourn, because it's special. Crushing a rock no more destroys it than sprinkling water on the ground destroys the water; it merely renders it into smaller measurements.

The potential for humans to wipe out all life on this planet is, at least for myself, a terrifying prospect in that we might do so and result in leaving no trace that we ever existed. This is like not leaving our technological and informational "genes" behind for other civilizations to find, and know that we were here, proof that this planet was special because it nurtured life, an anomaly in infinitely short supply in this universe. We lose that legacy entirely, for all time.
Posted by Knat]]> Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:41:51 -0800 The Stranger Posted by thatsnotright]]> Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:20:39 -0800 The Stranger Can a non-sentient species have a "world" if it can't recognize that it exists? Or are you talking about aliens on ssome planet you recall from a sci-fi thriller?
Not to pop your self-loathing button, but the majority of species that have gone extinct did so before humans came on the scene. did you make that 99% up because it sounded good?

Human impact on the environment is indeed a serious problem but it will not be solved by emo musings and pop-philosophy and psuedo-science.
Posted by thatsnotright]]> Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:19:16 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Pope Peabrain]]> Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:09:47 -0800 The Stranger Posted by gloomy gus]]> Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:02:51 -0800 The Stranger Posted by dnt trust me]]> Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:00:43 -0800 The Stranger
why is the environment with us and animals better than a rocky wasteland environment after we pollute the globe or after say massive nuclear exchanges? what value system tells us killing every living thing is "bad"?

seems like to have that value you are adopting a value stance "outside" the physical world. iow, you believe in god on some level. perhaps not an old dude with a beard, but some kind of thing or stance outside our physical world that whispers in our ears things like don't kill. don't destroy the earth.

why is destorying the earth any different than me stepping on an ant iow? or crushing up a rock I find, destroying it!?
Posted by deep spacey questions]]> Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:00:37 -0800 The Stranger