Anthropocentrism (against a.)

Post Reply New Topic

It’s hard for an evolutionist (I am one of them) to hold the anthropocentric view of life. In serious hard evolutionism there is some form of kinship between all living beings (plants included) and no intrinsic (or ontological) superiority of humans over the rest of the “creation” (this term is not appropriate here, evolutionism rejects the idea of a creator). But why should we worry so much about the extinction of some species, if the only important species is the human species? Though this is not explicitly stated even by hardcore defenders of biodiversity, the defense of biodiversity makes sense only if we assign to evolutionist solutions a superiority over mechanical, technical solutions to the problems of reaching some goals. Movement via wings, e.g., is superior to movement via jets, motors and wheels. Sometime jets, motors and wheels will disappear from the planet. Wings and limbs will again reestablish their primacy.

I hope my wings develop soon-I`ll save a packet on air fares.

I like Jet Aircraft, but I am biased from having worked on them. Having an Airplane go from hangar queen status back to service is a good feeling. Do you have a belief that people will be wiped out by a plague or war Paolo?

Climate change is only one problem. Then there is the dissolution of any ethical plausible foundation of the political community. Economic growth, our present unique respected divinity is an avalanche, is unstoppable and all sweeping in its destructions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2 ... matechange

What is an Evolutionist? The naturalistic evolutionist believes that the universe began about 14 billion years ago. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Life began, probably as bacteria deep in rocks (or in the so-called "primordial broth") and has been evolving ever since. Purely natural forces without any input from any god or other deity have driven the evolutionary process. Some of these evolutionists do not believe in any type of god. Others believe in one or more gods who are not involved in the process. Then there are monists (mainstream of evolutionary theory) and dualists who postulate some force (élan vital perhaps) behind life and evolution, though not a personal subject (God).

erm... "evolutionist" know that evolution comments on the change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. For instance: Man's breeding of wolves into the wide variety of dogs we have today.

Anything beyond that is a person projecting their own philosophical (or religious (which is a primitive form of philosophy)) views, many of which have nothing to do with evolution itself.

I still don't exactly understand what you mean by an "evolutionist"

A person would be someone who thinks the world is 4 billion years old. A "young-earther" believes otherwise.

A person is someone who thinks that they have no idea how live originated. A "Creationist" believes otherwise.

A person is someone who lacks a belief in god. A deist believes in god. An agnostic is someone who, on principle, refuses to see a difference between the two.

A person is someone who sees climate change as a natural part of the planet climate cycle. A greeny is someone who sees mankind as destroying the planet.

I think you get the picture. Please stop ascribing extra stuff to evolution. The religious nuts already have enough to go on with, without being given extra to go on with.

"Billions and billions ..."

~Carl Sagan

The term "evolutionist" has mostly been promoted by creationists, presumably in their attempt to create a level playing field between their silly pseudoscience and hard natural science. No biologist, paleontologist, or physical anthropologist I know would use the term "evolutionist."

Paolo, I think Izaak and nominalist make good points as far as how you attempt to clarify your point of view. Maybe it's partly because you're translating from Italian to English, but you seem less of an empiricist on evolution and more of an eclectic combining evolution, some spiritualism and the Philosophical works that you know. Nominalist made good points about how the term evolutionalist is used here in America. You might want to consider how he defined it versus how it may be translated from Italian.

About animals and humans.

Yes, animals are aggressive, predatory, they have codes to communicate ("tails up" etc.), but how much of our behavior is made of etiquette, positioning in terms of fights for power In percentage points: imagine a social party and what is there strategic coded exploration of the other sex, and what is sincere, straight communication? Dogs, when they meet each other in the street, smell each other's genitals: isn't this better than to talk about Proust in view of the same goal (copulating)?. Humans are animals gone astray. No remedy for that.

Well the thing is without built on parts or adaptions we can do anything. Dispite the idiocy of mankind over all throughout history it remains that our brains are whats delveloped.

Keep in mind man can live anywhere on the planet and even in space not due to physical adaption but to invention.

As for going astray from the animal kingdom, I remember watching a video of young male chimps causing a ruckus to display thier position. The females were terrified. I thought theyre just posturing , you shouldnt be afraid.

However without a spoken or written language they were experiencing it for the first time. We as humans in the same situation can learn before hand and not be worried.

( Of course in reality the males would just escalte the violence to get the desired effect :( )

About animal and humans:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/magaz ... nted=print