[MD] shrimps, pissed to death

[ADRIE KINTZIGER]

re, Mark.
quote,
"Based on theories of evolution one could say that Nature does
not see such a thing by our same criteria of Morality.  This would
imply that Nature is immoral.  However, one could convincingly argue
that making room for new species is Moral."-End.

Adrie
As well the universe as nature(as an expansion of the universe)are
indifferent towards the concept of Morality, morality itself, or the role of
Morality
human-induced, projected as we mean to say upon the univers or nature.
Not the question or the answer itself is the most important in this
matter,but the
pattern of indifference, ...only this pattern, will allow -'all'- other
patterns(all of them, resorting under the umbrella of dynamic quality) to
happen.
It is impossible to restrict the the patterns of the universe or nature,
under
the mechanisms or projections of "mankind'(the arch of morality).
Yes, mark, the arch of morality is inherent to
mankind(intellect,intelligence, the toplevel).Morality delivers the frame
for intelligence to form intellect, and to expand this intellect further on.

Nor nature or the universe will accept in any way to be restricted under the
arch of moral value's.

Allow me to project a simplified model.
Simply take the bill of rights,"LILA", or the "Origin Of Species By Means of
Natural selection",....get outside, surch for a bear's cave,a heap of ants
or some
apes in the zoo.
Speak them out loud, the books about morality, reality, the bill of rights
and try to
observe the difference in the behaviour among the apes, the ants or the
bear.
You can shout all you want, they will keep on anting, eating or playing
according to the dynamism of their instictive embedded patterns.Nothing
else.

Same goes for the universe,or nature, do the test, take some books about
morality along with you towards the fields,the forest, the starry sky.......
You can declare your formulations about  morality forever and ever, but
there will be 'nothing' of difference,not one single atom will blink an eye.
It is however very acceptable that the indifference will remain as it is.

To come back on your position,..
quote , Mark.
"However, one could convincingly argue
that making room for new species is Moral."

Adrie.
Argueing convincingly is a human(intellect/intelligence) endevour only,and
by such
the endstatement 'making room for new species', is restricting the
argumentation
under the humanly arch of morality,in stead of expanding it beyond, or make
it transparant down the arrow of the levels.


So , in conclusion,i don't think it is possible for nature or the universe
to be moral or immoral.They just "are", without cause and effect, resorting
under the pattern of dynamic quality, and this in itself is a responding to
Quality. Every pattern supports dynamical quality.




2011/2/9 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com>

> Hi Adrie,
> I am not how you interpreted me as stating that we have a moral
> obligation.  We express morality as a continuity of Quality,
> certainly, not through some  uniquely human power.  We call the
> preservation of species a Moral activity if we see it that way.  Some
> do not.  Based on theories of evolution one could say that Nature does
> not see such a thing by our same criteria of Morality.  This would
> imply that Nature is immoral.  However, one could convincingly argue
> that making room for new species is Moral.  In the same way, short
> lifespans and death is Moral.  There is no Truth to be had here, only
> quality of rhetoric.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2011, ADRIE KINTZIGER <parser666 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi , Mark.
> >
> > your statement about us keeping and upholding the morals, and morality
> > by , for example, preserving species from extinction kept bugging me.
> >
> > and it is by reason.
> >
> http://sharkdivers.blogspot.com/2009/10/branchinella-latzi-death-by-tourism.html
> >
> > I don't think it is a moral endevour to try to preserve species,we don't
> > preserve them from extinction.
> > We can however stretch the species lifespan when they are on the treshold
> of
> > dissapearing.
> > But,! when the pool of genes becomes too small, the species will die out
> > anyway.
> > Its a dynamical event.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geochelone_nigra_abingdoni
> >
> > Only to make my point,i don't believe in our role as moral guardian of
> the
> > animal kingdom.
> >
> > And exuses for the lack of editing.(no time)
> >
> > Adrie
> >
> >
> > --
> > parser
> > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> >
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>



-- 
parser