|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Louis VI
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
Location: In my Kingdom
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 9:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| We flatter ourselves to think we're even capable of destroying all life on earth. We can't. We're a small part of the planet and after we kill ourselves and a few other species with us there will continue countless species and new species into future millenia. Just look at ground zero of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Plants, insects and animals of the land and certainly the oceans will survive us, don't worry about that. We aren't as powerful as we like to think we are. Humans are smart enough to learn how to kill all of humanity yet stupid enough to do it some day. Good riddance to us, would be the judgement of any other sentient lifeform that could have the capacity to understand what we are, what we have done and what we are capable of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
Urbanised doesn't automatically mean damaged. |
Of course it does... 
Pristine environments with their precious remnants of wildlife do not stay special when you have towns, road-building, disturbance and factories plonked into the middle of them.
| Quote: |
| If human happiness can be derived from it, I think we have an obligation to put it to use. |
Koreans have exploited every inch of this country for their factories and construction sites and other money-making schemes. Do they look happy to you?
People are happiest living in nature. Natural environments are what humans are designed for. Not office jobs in concrete sprawl.
| Quote: |
| Come off it. Have you ever been to Gangwon do or Jeolla? The whole of Korea doesn't look like central Seoul. |
Those areas are still ecologically severely damaged. Do you see leopards, tigers, bears, wapiti, eagles, etc roaming those monocultured conifer-planted hillsides? Even the rivers have been concrete-paved along their edges. The fields are sprayed with pesticides. and so on.
| Quote: |
| What about the DMZ? Apparently that is an area teeming with life. |
Precisely because no humans have been allowed into it. Long may that continue.
| Quote: |
| Are you saying that Koreans are bad people because they chose their children over bears? |
Your thinking is so simplistic and antiquated.They could easily have set aside regulated areas for korean wildlife to live. Such as is the case in most countries on earth.Even crowded Hong Kong and singapore have their own nature reserves. That attract millions of people and revenue annually.
Singapore:
http://www.sbwr.org.sg/
Hong Kong
http://www.wwf.org.hk/en/whatwedo/conservation/wetlands/managemaipo/
When you get a situation where urbanised people living in uniform grey concrete, are so materialistic and selfish that they go into spasms of fear at the sight of a pigeon, are afraid to pat a dog, and there is widespread cruelty to animals, then yes, there is something radically wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Senior wrote: |
Urbanised doesn't automatically mean damaged. |
Of course it does...
Pristine environments with their precious remnants of wildlife do not stay special when you have towns, road-building, disturbance and factories plonked into the middle of them. |
I guess we (and the other people on Earth) have different judgment values. Urbanised areas give people places to live. Warmth comfort, familial ties. They allow humans self expression, which is a good in and of itself. Fetid swamps, on the other hand, are anti human. I consider SOME human dwelling places to be far superior to SOME of nature's handy work.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| If human happiness can be derived from it, I think we have an obligation to put it to use. |
Koreans have exploited every inch of this country for their factories and construction sites and other money-making schemes. Do they look happy to you?
People are happiest living in nature. Natural environments are what humans are designed for. Not office jobs in concrete sprawl. |
Again you are applying your value judgments, to every other person on Earth. I think Korean's inherent unhappiness (which I'm sad to admit, I witness on a daily basis) stems from much more than Korea's, perceived, lack of nature. Your last sentence is totally your opinion. Some people like nature, some like an urban environment. It isn't either or. Personally, I like both.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Come off it. Have you ever been to Gangwon do or Jeolla? The whole of Korea doesn't look like central Seoul. |
Those areas are still ecologically severely damaged. Do you see leopards, tigers, bears, wapiti, eagles, etc roaming those monocultured conifer-planted hillsides? Even the rivers have been concrete-paved along their edges. The fields are sprayed with pesticides. and so on. |
I like it there.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Are you saying that Koreans are bad people because they chose their children over bears? |
Your thinking is so simplistic and antiquated.They could easily have set aside regulated areas for korean wildlife to live. Such as is the case in most countries on earth.Even crowded Hong Kong and singapore have their own nature reserves. That attract millions of people and revenue annually.
Singapore:
http://www.sbwr.org.sg/
Hong Kong
http://www.wwf.org.hk/en/whatwedo/conservation/wetlands/managemaipo/ |
Korea's path to development started much later and was much rockier than those countries. There is a Green movement in Korea, I'm sure we will see a movement towards that in the future.
| Quote: |
| When you get a situation where urbanised people living in uniform grey concrete, are so materialistic and selfish that they go into spasms of fear at the sight of a pigeon, are afraid to pat a dog, and there is widespread cruelty to animals, then yes, there is something radically wrong. |
How do cultural foibles with regards to animals (which I admit are weird, but not necessarily wrong), stem from where people live, or your perception of their cultural traits? Koreans don't seem to me to be any more materialist or selfish than any other developed country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Louis VI wrote: |
| We flatter ourselves to think we're even capable of destroying all life on earth. We can't. We're a small part of the planet and after we kill ourselves and a few other species with us there will continue countless species and new species into future millenia. Just look at ground zero of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Plants, insects and animals of the land and certainly the oceans will survive us, don't worry about that. We aren't as powerful as we like to think we are. Humans are smart enough to learn how to kill all of humanity yet stupid enough to do it some day. Good riddance to us, would be the judgement of any other sentient lifeform that could have the capacity to understand what we are, what we have done and what we are capable of. |
I'm not say it's not a big shame when plants, animals or eco-systems are wiped out, but more often than not, the gain in human happiness is more than off set by the loss of non-human happiness.
Do we lament the passing of species that existed before man? Personally, I do. In the exact same proportion I lament the passing of animals in our own time. They are equally unavoidable to me. In the sense that I have as much power to prevent the passing of the panda as I did the T-Rex.
In some ways, I think we are more powerful than we give ourselves credit for. There is a high likely hood that we will be responsible for spreading life to other planets. Whether we destroy ourselves, or not (I don't see it), that is an incredible responsibility and honor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
| Louis VI wrote: |
| We flatter ourselves to think we're even capable of destroying all life on earth. We can't. We're a small part of the planet and after we kill ourselves and a few other species with us there will continue countless species and new species into future millenia. Just look at ground zero of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Plants, insects and animals of the land and certainly the oceans will survive us, don't worry about that. We aren't as powerful as we like to think we are. Humans are smart enough to learn how to kill all of humanity yet stupid enough to do it some day. Good riddance to us, would be the judgement of any other sentient lifeform that could have the capacity to understand what we are, what we have done and what we are capable of. |
I'm not say it's not a big shame when plants, animals or eco-systems are wiped out, but more often than not, the gain in human happiness is more than off set by the loss of non-human happiness.
Do we lament the passing of species that existed before man? Personally, I do. In the exact same proportion I lament the passing of animals in our own time. They are equally unavoidable to me. In the sense that I have as much power to prevent the passing of the panda as I did the T-Rex.
In some ways, I think we are more powerful than we give ourselves credit for. There is a high likely hood that we will be responsible for spreading life to other planets. Whether we destroy ourselves, or not (I don't see it), that is an incredible responsibility and honor. |
How do you measure non-human happiness? I think it is already difficult enough to measure human happiness. So, I do not think that you can just make that sweeping statement so justifiably. And even if it is true, I do not think it is a valid reason for the destructions of a species anymore than say the Nazis were making themselves happier by killing the Jews (an extreme example, I know). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Konglishman wrote: |
How do you measure non-human happiness? I think it is already difficult enough to measure human happiness. So, I do not think that you can just make that sweeping statement so justifiably. And even if it is true, I do not think it is a valid reason for the destructions of a species anymore than say the Nazis were making themselves happier by killing the Jews (an extreme example, I know). |
I would never advocate intentionally exterminating a group of people or species of plant or animal. Also, all measures should be taken to protect species during development. But no person should be prevented from doing as they please on private land. If other people object to what someone does on their own property, they are free to form a trusteeship who can buy, and then subsequently administer the land.
As for measuring happiness. I would say it's impossible to put a number on it, but we can make comparisons. For instance infant mortality in Korea is lower in 2010 than in 1910. There are, today, thousands of people who can enjoy the natural environs that do remain, who would not have been able to had they died in childhood. I would say that is an increase in happiness right there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Gipkik
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Louis VI wrote: |
| We flatter ourselves to think we're even capable of destroying all life on earth. We can't. We're a small part of the planet and after we kill ourselves and a few other species with us there will continue countless species and new species into future millenia. Just look at ground zero of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Plants, insects and animals of the land and certainly the oceans will survive us, don't worry about that. We aren't as powerful as we like to think we are. Humans are smart enough to learn how to kill all of humanity yet stupid enough to do it some day. Good riddance to us, would be the judgement of any other sentient lifeform that could have the capacity to understand what we are, what we have done and what we are capable of. |
Your words might have been true at one time, but the oceans of the world prove that a world with humans, a particularly rapacious and insatiable species verging on 7 billion people, is very capable of destroying most of what humans value on earth. Yes, many insects and viruses and aggressive plants may thrive, but this in no way equals a thriving biosphere.
When Thor Heyerdahl made a pacific journey back in 1947 on the Kon-Tiki, the oceans were a thriving biosphere. His crew were literally throwing fish off of their raft. David de Rothschild's current journey is the absolute opposite. He says he's seen "a couple of dophins, a couple of distant whales, a few flying fish, but other than that, nothing. When you start reading about 80% of the world's fish stocks being gone, it's hard to believe. But then you come out here."
This was on the first leg of his Plastiki journey from Samoa to New Caledonia--2,735 km. The Plastiki is a catamaran kept afloat by 12,500 plastic bottles in its hulls. Now, add in oil spills, tsunamis, and other man-made and natural disasters, and we're in for one very big wake-up call. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Louis VI
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
Location: In my Kingdom
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh powerful us! Man has indeed supplanted God in the consciousness of many.
| Senior wrote: |
| In some ways, I think we are more powerful than we give ourselves credit for. There is a high likely hood that we will be responsible for spreading life to other planets. Whether we destroy ourselves, or not (I don't see it), that is an incredible responsibility and honor. |
Ah, a disciple of Star Trek you are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
| Fetid swamps, on the other hand, are anti human. |
Swamps are places where other species can live, not just humans.
The word "fetid" means foul smelling.
Swamps are certainly not foul smelling: they are areas of fresh clean air: fish, animals, frogs, birds, butterflies etc.
People who live in swamps are probably far healthier than you are..
| Quote: |
| The Okavango Swamp peoples consist of five ethnic groups, each with its own ethnic identity and language. They are Hambukushu (also known as Mbukushu, Bukushu, Bukusu, Mabukuschu, Ghuva, Haghuva), Dceriku (Dxeriku, Diriku, Gciriku, Gceriku, Giriku, Niriku), Wayeyi (Bayei, Bayeyi, Yei), Bugakhwe (Kxoe, Khwe, Kwengo, Barakwena, G/anda) and ||anikhwe (Gxanekwe, //tanekwe, River Bushmen, Swamp Bushmen, G//ani, //ani, Xanekwe). The Hambukushu, Dceriku, and Wayeyi are all Bantus who have traditionally engaged in mixed economies of millet/sorghum agriculture; fishing, hunting, and the collection of wild plant foods; and pastoralism |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okavango_Delta
The only places on earth I could ever describe as "fetid" are areas of human habitation. Cities and towns. Seoul on a summers day springs to mind.
Compared to human settlements, natural swamps are paradisical.
And before you say it, yes, it has been one of my ambitions to spend a year in the afore-mentioned swamp. See link.
http://www.okavango-delta.net/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Senior wrote: |
| Fetid swamps, on the other hand, are anti human. |
Swamps are places where other species can live.
The word "fetid" means foul smelling.
Swamps are certainly not foul smelling: they are areas of fresh clean air: fish, animals, frogs, birds, butterflies etc.
People who live in swamps are undoubtedly healthier far than you are.. |
If you can't open your mouth without refraining from name calling or lame puns, perhaps best to keep it shut.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| The Okavango Swamp peoples consist of five ethnic groups, each with its own ethnic identity and language. They are Hambukushu (also known as Mbukushu, Bukushu, Bukusu, Mabukuschu, Ghuva, Haghuva), Dceriku (Dxeriku, Diriku, Gciriku, Gceriku, Giriku, Niriku), Wayeyi (Bayei, Bayeyi, Yei), Bugakhwe (Kxoe, Khwe, Kwengo, Barakwena, G/anda) and ||anikhwe (Gxanekwe, //tanekwe, River Bushmen, Swamp Bushmen, G//ani, //ani, Xanekwe). The Hambukushu, Dceriku, and Wayeyi are all Bantus who have traditionally engaged in mixed economies of millet/sorghum agriculture; fishing, hunting, and the collection of wild plant foods; and pastoralism |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okavango_Delta |
I wonder what the Okayango Swamp people's average life span and infant mortality rate is. I wonder how many Eiffel Towers, Mona Lisas and symphonies they have created.
| Quote: |
| The only places on earth I could ever describe as "fetid" are areas of human habitation. Cities and towns. Seoul on a summers day springs to mind. |
Cities can be smelly, wretched places but they can also be great centers of human expression.
How come when an ant colony builds a city it is a wonder of nature? Didn't they destroy the environment to build their city? Doesn't it also produce pollution? How much CO2 does an ant colony emit? But when humans do something similar, albeit on a much grander scale, it is destroying the environment and a move backwards from the pristine place that existed before.
Why is one moral but not t' other? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
If you can't open your mouth without refraining from name calling or lame puns, perhaps best to keep it shut. |
I said "people living in swamps are probably far healthier than you are".
How is that "name calling"?.
its a simple fact. With that diet of daily fresh fish, fresh-killed animal meat, and collected wild plants..nevermind the daily exercise in collecting such natural food...of course they are!
You're telling me that your average stressed city lifestyle of sitting at a desk before having 5 minutes available to grab a burger is healthy? Even walking home you have traffic fumes and dangerous traffic.
Apart from that...the rest of your post appears nonsensical/ infantile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 3:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
[quote="Junior"]
| Senior wrote: |
If you can't open your mouth without refraining from name calling or lame puns, perhaps best to keep it shut. |
I said "people living in swamps are probably far healthier than you are".
How is that "name calling"?.
its a simple fact. With that diet of daily fresh fish, fresh-killed animal meat, and collected wild plants..nevermind the daily exercise in collecting such natural food...of course they are! |
How long do your swamp people live? I guarantee they live decades shorter lives than people comparable to me do, and their children die at a significantly higher rate, also.
What is your measure of health? How many clams you can catch? I'm not sure where you came about this fatuous conclusion.
| Quote: |
| You're telling me that your average stressed city lifestyle of sitting at a desk before having 5 minutes available to grab a burger is healthy? Even walking home you have traffic fumes and dangerous traffic. |
Look at the life span of your mythical swamp people and the life span of an average westernized person (including Japan and Korea).
It will be decades longer and more comfortable than any other person on earth. Including swamp people.
| Quote: |
| Apart from that...the rest of your post appears nonsensical/ infantile. |
Wondering about real world cause and effect is infantile? Maybe you just prefer to ridicule people who present facts and ideas contrary to your own. It sure is easier and more fun after all.
Last edited by Senior on Sun Aug 01, 2010 3:33 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
Look at the life span of your mythical swamp people and the life span of an average westernized person (including Japan and Korea) |
How are they "mythical"?
Millions of people worldwide live in swamps, be it in Louisiana, Florida, the nile delta, or the okavango.
People in 3rd world countries have a lower life expectancy due to lack of advanced medical care. This is a socio-political factor unrelated to the natural environment.
However that is irrelevant to the fact that swamps and other natural environments remain healthier places to live in than your beloved stinking polluted fetid cities.
See below:
http://internationalliving.com/2010/05/worlds-healthiest-places-to-live-2010/
But don't let me stop you enjoying your jog through seouls traffic fumes and that bracing sewer-smell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Gipkik
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 3:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Junior vs. Senior! They be going at it!
Junior, aren't swamps renowned for mosquitoes and other creepy crawlies? Not exactly a livable place for humans. They may be healthier for frogs and beetles and such, but humans? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Senior wrote: |
Look at the life span of your mythical swamp people and the life span of an average westernized person (including Japan and Korea) |
How are they "mythical"?
Millions of people worldwide live in swamps, be it in Louisiana, Florida, the nile delta, or the okavango. |
Sweet dodge. Florida and Louisiana have nothing to do with what we are talking about. I would hardly call Miami a swamp, would you?
| Quote: |
| People in 3rd world countries have a lower life expectancy due to lack of advanced medical care. This is a socio-political factor unrelated to the natural environment. |
Do you think advanced medical care would have any long lasting effect on life span for people who live in grass huts? (or what ever environmentally friendly housing the "okavango" live in). I rarely go to the Doctor. And have never required life saving medicine, yet myself and people like me can expect to live into our sixties easily, and maybe 80s without these things.
So, I will ask you again, what is the life span of the people you mentioned earlier?
Did you think I wasn't going to follow the link? What does living in NZ (nice enough though it is) have anything to do with anything that has been mentioned in this thread? The places mentioned in that article are all relatively developed. What does it have to do with anything?
| Quote: |
| But don't let me stop you enjoying your jog through seouls traffic fumes and that bracing sewer-smell. |
If I was ever going to jog, I can assure you I would do it in the lovely southern climes of Gyeongnam province. In this weather I wouldn't dream of it and might consider doing so in the air conditioned confines of a gym. But since jogging has never been proven to have any direct health benefits, why would I even consider doing it in the first place? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
