Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Sy Borg]

Putting aside hollow Earth crackpottery, we are in fact part the Earth, and we exist inside it, not on it. The atmosphere tends to be treated more like a product of the Earth than a part of it, like body odour or flatulence. Yet, the history of Earth's gaseous envelope is intimately entwined with geological and biological histories.

Since the planet's top layer is mostly invisible and impossible to precisely measure, it tends to be somewhat disregarded when we consider our existential situation, even if we need to focus on the state of the atmosphere to survive. We live in the atmosphere like a crab lives in the sea. We are like small bubbles that briefly (in geologic time) complexify before breaking down.

Perhaps religion has played a role, but there is a common notion that we are - despite all evidence to the contrary - separate from the Earth. Invaders. Parasites. Distortions. Cancers. Yet, I keep thinking of cyanobacteria, whose oxygenated excretions killed off over 90% of all marine species two billion years ago. That oxygen also made multicellularity possible.

It seems to me that humans are, like cyanobacteria, evolutionary revolutionaries, so to speak. Who knows what will come of our activities after the destruction? What new "seeds" will be left that could usher in an entirely new modus operandi for Earthly life, like cyanobacteria's oxygen?

[Consul]

[JackDaydream]

Putting aside hollow Earth crackpottery, we are in fact part the Earth, and we exist inside it, not on it. The atmosphere tends to be treated more like a product of the Earth than a part of it, like body odour or flatulence. Yet, the history of Earth's gaseous envelope is intimately entwined with geological and biological histories.

Since the planet's top layer is mostly invisible and impossible to precisely measure, it tends to be somewhat disregarded when we consider our existential situation, even if we need to focus on the state of the atmosphere to survive. We live in the atmosphere like a crab lives in the sea. We are like small bubbles that briefly (in geologic time) complexify before breaking down.

Perhaps religion has played a role, but there is a common notion that we are - despite all evidence to the contrary - separate from the Earth. Invaders. Parasites. Distortions. Cancers. Yet, I keep thinking of cyanobacteria, whose oxygenated excretions killed off over 90% of all marine species two billion years ago. That oxygen also made multicellularity possible.

It seems to me that humans are, like cyanobacteria, evolutionary revolutionaries, so to speak. Who knows what will come of our activities after the destruction? What new "seeds" will be left that could usher in an entirely new modus operandi for Earthly life, like cyanobacteria's oxygen?

The question as to whether any human being is separate or interconnected with the earth may be a complex ecological question. It may be a matter of perspective. It also involves the question of the individual and other people and other organic forms? Where does the human perspective lie in this, because a person may feel themselves to be separate from other human beings and other lifeforms? However, this could also be an illusory aspect of human consciousness and it could be argued that human ego consciousness may see themselves at the top of the hierarchy. This could involve a sense of responsibility and the capacity for destruction; and this may lie in the role of human consciousness itself and human agency.

[JackDaydream]

Of course, it does go back to the issue of 'dust to dust' and the way matter assembles, breaks down and emerges again in the recycling of matter. Earth, matter and bodily forms are in processes of constant change and some developments may be transmutations within evolution. This may involve cosmic cycles too, as there may have been planets similar to earth at some point in the past or present, even if not apparent in the present or dimensions of space and time. Everything is part of processes within systems, involving dynamic relationships.

[Sy Borg]

Putting aside hollow Earth crackpottery, we are in fact part the Earth, and we exist inside it, not on it. The atmosphere tends to be treated more like a product of the Earth than a part of it, like body odour or flatulence. Yet, the history of Earth's gaseous envelope is intimately entwined with geological and biological histories.

Since the planet's top layer is mostly invisible and impossible to precisely measure, it tends to be somewhat disregarded when we consider our existential situation, even if we need to focus on the state of the atmosphere to survive. We live in the atmosphere like a crab lives in the sea. We are like small bubbles that briefly (in geologic time) complexify before breaking down.

Perhaps religion has played a role, but there is a common notion that we are - despite all evidence to the contrary - separate from the Earth. Invaders. Parasites. Distortions. Cancers. Yet, I keep thinking of cyanobacteria, whose oxygenated excretions killed off over 90% of all marine species two billion years ago. That oxygen also made multicellularity possible.

It seems to me that humans are, like cyanobacteria, evolutionary revolutionaries, so to speak. Who knows what will come of our activities after the destruction? What new "seeds" will be left that could usher in an entirely new modus operandi for Earthly life, like cyanobacteria's oxygen?

The question as to whether any human being is separate or interconnected with the earth may be a complex ecological question. It may be a matter of perspective. It also involves the question of the individual and other people and other organic forms? Where does the human perspective lie in this, because a person may feel themselves to be separate from other human beings and other lifeforms? However, this could also be an illusory aspect of human consciousness and it could be argued that human ego consciousness may see themselves at the top of the hierarchy. This could involve a sense of responsibility and the capacity for destruction; and this may lie in the role of human consciousness itself and human agency.

The mystics would give the pat answer that any sense of separation is an illusion, but that answer misses the point that to be alive is to feel separate. What is a cell but an area that is partitioned from the rest of the environment?

It seems to me that humans are the most aware parts of the planet. Humans being on top of the mental hierarchy is clearly a fact. It doesn't make us better, but it does make us more influential than we otherwise would be.

Many humans and societies attempt to show a sense of responsibility, yet the forests keep declining, ocean life keeps depleting, once-arable lands keep becoming deserts, and fresh water is becoming harder to come by. Whatever responsible humans are doing, it's not working too well. While we have much influence over the surface conditions of the Earth, we have less control over that influence. We cannot predict the complex knock-on effects when we interfere with long-established natural systems, with their complex web of interdependencies.

[Pattern-chaser]

Putting aside hollow Earth crackpottery, we are in fact part the Earth, and we exist inside it, not on it. The atmosphere tends to be treated more like a product of the Earth than a part of it, like body odour or flatulence. Yet, the history of Earth's gaseous envelope is intimately entwined with geological and biological histories.

[...]

The question as to whether any human being is separate or interconnected with the earth may be a complex ecological question. It may be a matter of perspective.

Here, I'm with Sy Borg. I don't think it *is* a "complex ecological question", I think it's a justifiable fact that we often fail to see. Everything and everyone is connected: by gravity and electromagnetic ties, by location and proximity, by mutual dependencies, by ... everything.

The mystics would give the pat answer that any sense of separation is an illusion, but that answer misses the point that to be alive is to feel separate. What is a cell but an area that is partitioned from the rest of the environment?

It is an area that is cushioned or protected from, and by, the rest of the environment?

[Lagayascienza]

You are correct, Sy Borg. We are “in” the earth. And we are part of the earth, and not a separate creation.

The biosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere are all enmeshed and entwined in processes such as the carbon cycle and the water cycle which have linked the earth's four primary spheres for billions of years to produce the earth we see today.

But, in the last century or so, humans have become a dominant force in shaping the earth and it's cycles and, in the process, we have drastically altered the balance so that anthropogenic mass has surpassed all global living biomass. By "anthropogenic mass" is meant mass in addition to our human body mass, mas that we humans create. Anthropogenic mass includes plastics, roads, buildings infrastructure... These now outweigh all of the living things on earth. Just "plastics alone now weigh twice as much as all the planet’s marine and terrestrial animals. Buildings and infrastructure outweigh trees and shrubs".[1] So profound has been our impact that some argue we have left the Holocene and entered a new geological epoch called the Anthropocene.[2]

And as you mention, Sy Borg, we have been to a large extent unable to predict knock-on effects of all this. However, as well as effects on climate, we should expect that there will be profound effects on ourselves and other living organisms and ecosystems. It is a qualitatively different earth to the one we evolved on and in.

[1] Stephanie Pappas, Scientific American, Dec 9, 2020
[2] Elhacham, E., Ben-Uri, L., Grozovski, J. et al. Global human-made mass exceeds all living biomass. Nature 588, 442–444 (2020). https: // doi. org/10.1038/s41586-020-3010-5

[Lagayascienza]

However, because, we , too, are part of nature, it is hard to say that the changes we have wrought are unnatural. It could be argued that they are no more unnatural than the the enormous changes brought to the world by the Cyanobacteria.

[JackDaydream]

Putting aside hollow Earth crackpottery, we are in fact part the Earth, and we exist inside it, not on it. The atmosphere tends to be treated more like a product of the Earth than a part of it, like body odour or flatulence. Yet, the history of Earth's gaseous envelope is intimately entwined with geological and biological histories.

[...]

The question as to whether any human being is separate or interconnected with the earth may be a complex ecological question. It may be a matter of perspective.

Here, I'm with Sy Borg. I don't think it *is* a "complex ecological question", I think it's a justifiable fact that we often fail to see. Everything and everyone is connected: by gravity and electromagnetic ties, by location and proximity, by mutual dependencies, by ... everything.

The mystics would give the pat answer that any sense of separation is an illusion, but that answer misses the point that to be alive is to feel separate. What is a cell but an area that is partitioned from the rest of the environment?

It is an area that is cushioned or protected from, and by, the rest of the environment?

Really, when I said about a complex ecological question I was thinking more of what humans have done as a result of their relationship with earth. However, the focus is more upon the nature of the earth itself rather than ethics and solving the issue. It does relate to the way in which humans have seen themselves as separate rather than as part of nature.

[Sy Borg]

Of course, it does go back to the issue of 'dust to dust' and the way matter assembles, breaks down and emerges again in the recycling of matter. Earth, matter and bodily forms are in processes of constant change and some developments may be transmutations within evolution. This may involve cosmic cycles too, as there may have been planets similar to earth at some point in the past or present, even if not apparent in the present or dimensions of space and time. Everything is part of processes within systems, involving dynamic relationships.

You are right to extend the scope with "cosmic cycles". Just as we are part of the Earth, it could be argued that the Earth and the other planets are chunky parts of the Sun's atmosphere, given that the Sun comprises 99.86% of the solar system's mass, a fact that never ceases to bend my tiny primate brain. We think of all this as a human journey, but it's more the Earth's journey, or really, the Sun's journey. Panning out to galactic scale won't work though because it's too big to be relevant to us ... mostly. When Sun passes through the galaxy's spiral arms, gravity from the greater amount of material in the arms can cause disturbances in the Oort cloud, resulting in increased comet activity, although the interdependencies are vastly weaker than within the solar system.

[Sy Borg]

However, because, we , too, are part of nature, it is hard to say that the changes we have wrought are unnatural. It could be argued that they are no more unnatural than the the enormous changes brought to the world by the Cyanobacteria.

Humanity does what all of nature does - it processes material into forms that it finds useful. Still, the way the humanity is changing the Earth's surface appears to be the most profound change since the emergence of life. While technology may seem "unnatural", life itself was an "unnatural" addition to the early Earth. Abiogenesis was a bizarre state change to the Earth's surface, with profound impacts on surface geology and climate.

[Samana Johann]

Putting aside hollow Earth crackpottery, we are in fact part the Earth, and we exist inside it, not on it. The atmosphere tends to be treated more like a product of the Earth than a part of it, like body odour or flatulence. Yet, the history of Earth's gaseous envelope is intimately entwined with geological and biological histories.

Since the planet's top layer is mostly invisible and impossible to precisely measure, it tends to be somewhat disregarded when we consider our existential situation, even if we need to focus on the state of the atmosphere to survive. We live in the atmosphere like a crab lives in the sea. We are like small bubbles that briefly (in geologic time) complexify before breaking down.

Perhaps religion has played a role, but there is a common notion that we are - despite all evidence to the contrary - separate from the Earth. Invaders. Parasites. Distortions. Cancers. Yet, I keep thinking of cyanobacteria, whose oxygenated excretions killed off over 90% of all marine species two billion years ago. That oxygen also made multicellularity possible.

It seems to me that humans are, like cyanobacteria, evolutionary revolutionaries, so to speak. Who knows what will come of our activities after the destruction? What new "seeds" will be left that could usher in an entirely new modus operandi for Earthly life, like cyanobacteria's oxygen?

"The world, the world", good householder. And what is the world? Simply Eye and form, ear and sound, nose and smell, tongue and taste, body and bolily touch, intellect and idea. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range.”

[Sy Borg]

Putting aside hollow Earth crackpottery, we are in fact part the Earth, and we exist inside it, not on it. The atmosphere tends to be treated more like a product of the Earth than a part of it, like body odour or flatulence. Yet, the history of Earth's gaseous envelope is intimately entwined with geological and biological histories.

Since the planet's top layer is mostly invisible and impossible to precisely measure, it tends to be somewhat disregarded when we consider our existential situation, even if we need to focus on the state of the atmosphere to survive. We live in the atmosphere like a crab lives in the sea. We are like small bubbles that briefly (in geologic time) complexify before breaking down.

Perhaps religion has played a role, but there is a common notion that we are - despite all evidence to the contrary - separate from the Earth. Invaders. Parasites. Distortions. Cancers. Yet, I keep thinking of cyanobacteria, whose oxygenated excretions killed off over 90% of all marine species two billion years ago. That oxygen also made multicellularity possible.

It seems to me that humans are, like cyanobacteria, evolutionary revolutionaries, so to speak. Who knows what will come of our activities after the destruction? What new "seeds" will be left that could usher in an entirely new modus operandi for Earthly life, like cyanobacteria's oxygen?

"The world, the world", good householder. And what is the world? Simply Eye and form, ear and sound, nose and smell, tongue and taste, body and bolily touch, intellect and idea. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range.”

The world, diminutive townsperson, is a gigantic sphere in space. "Eye and form, ear and sound" emerged a long time after the sphere has started exuding small life forms.

Sure, as far as our tiny animal perceptions are concerned, reality lies within our heads rather than outside of it ... at least until a Mack truck is bearing down on you at 100kmph, in which case the reality of the world outside of our heads suddenly comes vividly into focus.

[Samana Johann]

Putting aside hollow Earth crackpottery, we are in fact part the Earth, and we exist inside it, not on it. The atmosphere tends to be treated more like a product of the Earth than a part of it, like body odour or flatulence. Yet, the history of Earth's gaseous envelope is intimately entwined with geological and biological histories.

Since the planet's top layer is mostly invisible and impossible to precisely measure, it tends to be somewhat disregarded when we consider our existential situation, even if we need to focus on the state of the atmosphere to survive. We live in the atmosphere like a crab lives in the sea. We are like small bubbles that briefly (in geologic time) complexify before breaking down.

Perhaps religion has played a role, but there is a common notion that we are - despite all evidence to the contrary - separate from the Earth. Invaders. Parasites. Distortions. Cancers. Yet, I keep thinking of cyanobacteria, whose oxygenated excretions killed off over 90% of all marine species two billion years ago. That oxygen also made multicellularity possible.

It seems to me that humans are, like cyanobacteria, evolutionary revolutionaries, so to speak. Who knows what will come of our activities after the destruction? What new "seeds" will be left that could usher in an entirely new modus operandi for Earthly life, like cyanobacteria's oxygen?

"The world, the world", good householder. And what is the world? Simply Eye and form, ear and sound, nose and smell, tongue and taste, body and bolily touch, intellect and idea. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range.”

The world, diminutive townsperson, is a gigantic sphere in space. "Eye and form, ear and sound" emerged a long time after the sphere has started exuding small life forms.

Sure, as far as our tiny animal perceptions are concerned, reality lies within our heads rather than outside of it ... at least until a Mack truck is bearing down on you at 100kmph, in which case the reality of the world outside of our heads suddenly comes vividly into focus.

That's the part of intellect and idea, good householder. Again in other words:

“'The world, the world'(1) it is said. In what respect does the word 'world' apply?

“Insofar as it disintegrates,(2) monk, it is called the 'world.' Now what disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate. Consciousness at the eye disintegrates. Contact at the eye disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.

“The ear disintegrates. Sounds disintegrate…

“The nose disintegrates. Aromas disintegrate…

“The tongue disintegrates. Tastes disintegrate…

“The body disintegrates. Tactile sensations disintegrate…

“The intellect disintegrates. Ideas disintegrate. Consciousness at the intellect consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the intellect disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.

“Insofar as it disintegrates, it is called the 'world.'”

Now let the origin and decay of the world be told, and read carefully:

„And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.

„Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact… Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact… Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact… Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact… Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.

„And what is the ending of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world.

„Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact… Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact… Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact… Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact… Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world.“

[Pattern-chaser]

It does relate to the way in which humans have seen themselves as separate rather than as part of nature.

Yes, how did we make such a dreadful mistake? What possessed us to think that we, alone of all creatures, were distinct, independent, and separate?