To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 6272
6271  |  6273
Subject: 
Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?")
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Sat, 5 Aug 2000 20:10:07 GMT
Viewed: 
2596 times
  
Christopher Weeks wrote:

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
Christopher Weeks wrote:

In this light they do not choose to copulate; they are driven to it.

Do you think that this is different with humans?

Do you HONESTLY think human sex drive is the same as deer?

Well, that's not what I said, is it?  At least not that it's exactly the same.
I think that more paralells can be drawn between human and deer motivation than
many people seem to think are valid.

Come on, now, really.
Deer don't have recreational sex,

Cite.

Show me a deer copulating outside of the hormone driven mating season.  You won't
find one, unless some researcher is playing with deer hormones (which points back
to deer not having the control humans do).



humans do.  While hormones CAN affect humans,

And do.  All the time.  Every second of every day of every year of your life.
Period.

Nowhere near the same way as with deer - we can ignore the urges easily enough.



humans can generally have/not have sex whenever they feel like it.

I won't argue this because I beleive it to be fruitless.  But I will say that I
don't think it's quite that clear cut.

What's fuzzy about it?  If YOU have no control over your sex drive, I feel sorry
for you.



I can't put this all together.  You asserted that plants are sensory • organisms,
and my response was that they're just reacting biochemically.  Is that what • you
mean?

If I REALLY had time, I'd dig out the references for some experiments done in

Well, I've had several people (starting with my mother) try to tell me that
plants have feelings.  They universally refer to "those studies."  Yeah, right.
I'll read them with an open mind if someone can ever really produce said
studies.  But I've been waiting for about 23 years with no results.

the
70s or 80s - in one, the researcher THOUGHT about dipping the leaf of a plant

So not only are they sensory, but they are telepathic?  Uh-huh.

You might be able to prove "just reacting biochemically" on the second
experiment

I might be able to prove that those "experiments" were falsified and completely
irreproducable.

I can't remember the plants used, unfortunately.  I THINK philodendrons
in at least one experiment.

Interestingly, philodendrons were the subject presented to me in earlier
examples too, so that must be right.

My problem is you are forcing a CNS as the "magic" - prove to me that a CNS • similar
to mammals is REQUIRED for any form of sentience.

I don't believe that so I shan't try to prove it to you.  I do think that an
animalian CNS is the only thing on earth that leads to sentience.

  (BTW, plants reacting
"biochemically" can be equated to animals CNS transmitting sequences - after • all,
OUR CNS is simply a chemical pathway).

Right, but then we're back to being non self determinant and we might as well
throw in the towel on everything.

The "magic" in my mind is self-awareness

Hard to define.

and changing the environment to suit the
organism, rather than the other way around.

Like beavers?

Beavers change it the same way every time, it's hardwired into them.  Humans change
the environment to suit them in much more self-deterministic ways.


And, we've changed over the years to suit the environment.

Of course, but that is general evolution, outside of our changes to the environment
to suit us (and many of those changes are obviously more damaging than NOT changing
it).


Very few organisms on Earth fit that criteria.

Only if you define changing the environment so strictly as to purposely rule
out other organisims.

Chris

--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?")
 
(...) won't (...) back (...) OK, I guess I have two comments to this, but I want them to come after first noting that I agree with the general gist of this. One thing, is that we may have lucked into not being hormonally ruled WRT our mating habits. (...) (24 years ago, 6-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?")
 
(...) Well, that's not what I said, is it? At least not that it's exactly the same. I think that more paralells can be drawn between human and deer motivation than many people seem to think are valid. (...) Cite. (...) And do. All the time. Every (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

149 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR