[at-l] Let's Get Stupid

[yumitori at montana.com (Ron Martino)]

> This will lead to three eventualities.  The first is actually the least
> desirable: That the environmentalists will win and preserve the planet for
> humanity.  Why is this undesirable?  Because then humanity becomes stable.
> Evolution does not progress.  We become, as a species, stagnant.
> 
> The second option is that we resolve some of our issues and leave the womb
> of the Earth behind us and reach for the stars - where our mass consumption
> can continue unmolested.
> 
> The third option is actually more desirable than the other two, and that is
> the mass collapse of the ecosystem that eliminates most of the life on the
> planet.  A comet strike, lots of volcanic activity, and a large scale
> thermonuclear war would also be acceptable for this purpose.  The forces of
> evolution will then, again, make something better - something better than
> us...
> 
> So, you see, all this progress is actually good in the long run.
> 
> Shane

	Why the assumption that the options are mutually exclusive? Could we
not, for example, have a situation in which the planet is preserved, and
mankind also expands to other worlds? Or one where a catastrophe
destroys the planet, but the race is still preserved among the stars?

	No need to limit your thinking, after all...

-- 

It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will
determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate
discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor
must preside at our assemblies. 
	William O. Douglas 

yumitori(AT)montana(DOT)com