Fashionable, but unable to tell fact from fiction (testing4l) wrote,
Fashionable, but unable to tell fact from fiction
testing4l

First, a meme:

You scored as Existentialist. Existentialism emphasizes human capability. There is no greater power interfering with life and thus it is up to us to make things happen. Sometimes considered a negative and depressing world view, your optimism towards human accomplishment is immense. Mankind is condemned to be free and must accept the responsibility.

</td>

Existentialist

94%

Materialist

75%

Modernist

63%

Postmodernist

50%

Cultural Creative

38%

Romanticist

31%

Fundamentalist

25%

Idealist

6%

What is Your World View? (updated)
created with QuizFarm.com


It's complete bunk IMHO. They merely believe that Romanticism and Idealism are necessarily tied up with spirituality.


In other news, I was moved to comment by a response to Deep Impact in spacexploration:

Does anyone ever think that, just perhaps, we have no divine imperative to claw our way to the stars to spread our problems and filth to the rest of the universe? Eh. I'm a big fan of benign observation missions like Cassini or the Voyagers, but I always have a subtle ill feeling when I think about missions which actually deface the pristine environments of the solar system, like impacters, landers, and rovers.

These sorts of things are very clearly born from the environmental movement in which there's a strong tendency to preserve things as they are and not interfere. It's always amused me that it's usually liberals who conservate. Indeed, I think the parallel is strong enough to question those who are rather far over on the green side of things. Is the interest in comets enough to warrant punching a hole in one?

What if we take a page from Heart of the Comet and assume that there is in fact some life on the comet in question. Plant spores, for example, aren't horribly farfetched. Consider ALH84001. In this act, haven't we disrupted a potential ecosystem? Is it worth it?

My stance: Do we care? Why do we incessantly separate our actions from those of animals? Aren't we animals? Is it because we construct cities? Why is that unnatural? Why aren't the dwellings of ants, beavers, and other creatures unnatural? Why is it that Deep Impact (assuming that we did disrupt potential life on it) would be any more criminal than, say, a lion hunting down the last quagga in the wild? Why is it that hunting quaggas into extinction is considered criminal?

Well, that has a simple answer. Removing a species from a food chain usually causes larger problems (cf. the natives of Easter Island). Of course, we're a bit more advanced than they were. Why assume we wouldn't avoid that very trap?

I'll have more on this later. I gotta get home for SMAUG tonight. 8)

(EDIT: I'll get the name of the community right eventually ; ) )
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 10 comments