UFOs,Aliens, And Racism By: Posey Gilbert

[trainedobserver]

I'm wondering if Pixel and T.O misunderstood Mike.

That is entirely possible. I like you Mike and like I've said in the past, appreciate your conversation.

What follows are my thoughts and opinions, I have not borrowed them from anyone else.

I personally find the whole transhuman movement an abhorrent fantasy world. I use the word fantasy to describe both the technological leaps of faith as well as the philosophical ones necessary to entertain it. The fantasy, as I understand it, is that human engineering is part of the evolutionary process and that engineered products could one day be considered human.

I consider myself an environmentalist and a secular humanist with my entire career being in high tech. I'm not saying that makes me an expert on anything. These are just things that form my opinions. I am all for the conservation and proper management of the environment for not only the preservation of our species but others as well. However, I really think that the degradation of human beings is unrealistic and counterproductive and have little tolerance for the notion that human beings are evil or some sickness let loose on the Earth. Human beings are what they are, what we are. We can accept, cope, and deal with it correctly or we can make up a bunch of crap to make ourselves feel better, ether by adopting some pseudo-noble anti-human attitudes or supernatural fantasies that make us god-like beings having a "human experience." What utter dross.

We are the planet Earth. It can't get any simpler than that. We are that organism known as planet Earth. We are the gorillas and the whales as well as the wooly mammoths and every other lost species. We see ourselves as individuals and as a group we see ourselves as separate from the Earth and the other species that inhabit it, but in reality we are all part of the same organism. Maybe I'm a pagan after all, I don't know.

Are we making a better world for ourselves through the unbridled use of technology? I don't think so. I think our attempts at cheating death through technology will hit a wall. If they hand you the immortality pill tomorrow would you take it? I know I sure as hell I wouldn't. The cycles of life cannot be circumvented without consequence.

 

[mike]

If they hand you the immortality pill tomorrow would you take it?

I wouldnt even stop to get a glass of water........

I'd swallow it dry

 

[mike]

Goggs, has understood my position perfectly, ive never advocated man should be wiped out, only that he consider the other tenants of this biosphere, and accord them the same rights we hold dear.

Humanitys social evolution is slowly recognising and addressing the "ism's"

Sexism..... women have the same rights as men, being a "different" gender is not grounds for discrimination
Racism...... the colour of a persons skin or the slant of their eyes is not grounds for discrimination

Its time we address speciesism..... Just because their species is different to ours doesnt mean they have any less rights to a place in the biosphere, to live, to evolve.

Is it not self evident that the loss of even a single species so that humanity can have another car park another shopping mall is an injustice of the worst kind.
We rightly feel revulsion at what hitler tried to do to the jews, genocide is wrong, we know this.
And yet we turn a blind eye to the loss of habitat thats causing entire species to go extinct.... and for what gain, whats the trade off ? a few more humans when we have so many of them.

To those that "dont get it" i feel sorry for you

Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find money cannot be eaten.
~ Cree Prophecy

much wisdom here
American Indian Quotes

 

[trainedobserver]

Its time we address speciesism..... Just because their species is different to ours doesnt mean they have any less rights to a place in the biosphere, to live, to evolve.

Is it not self evident that the loss of even a single species so that humanity can have another car park another shopping mall is an injustice of the worst kind.

Only the most callous and ridiculous among us would think that causing the extinction of a species for a shopping mall is something that would be acceptable. We already have agencies and laws that are all about conservation and preservation. That there isn't a need for stronger consideration and enforcement is hardly questionable given the present state of affairs with industry.

The reality of the situation is that species go extinct practically every day and have done so for as long as there has been life on this planet. Human activity is just another factor contributing to it, not the sole cause.

I am a human being. I feel very strongly that my ultimate loyalty and responsibility is to other human beings. That the health of the planet is directly related to that shouldn't have to be mentioned.

 

[mike]

Only the most callous and ridiculous among us would think that causing the extinction of a species for a shopping mall is something that would be acceptable. We already have agencies and laws that are all about conservation and preservation. That there isn't a need for stronger consideration and enforcement is hardly questionable given the present state of affairs with industry.

The reality of the situation is that species go extinct practically every day and have done so for as long as there has been life on this planet. Human activity is just another factor contributing to it, not the sole cause.

I am a human being. I feel very strongly that my ultimate loyalty and responsibility is to other human beings. That the health of the planet is directly related to that shouldn't have to be mentioned.

Actually the human factor is unprecidented, your attempt to play it down is incorrect

Species Extinction and Human Population

Species are currently going extinct at a faster rate than at any time in the past with the exception of cataclysmic encoders with extraterrestrial objects. A good proxy for the rate of extinction is the rate of growth in energy used by the human population. In other words, extinction rates are increasing in step with the product of population growth times the growth in affluence.

The cascade of current extinctions, however, is related mostly to destruction of habitat, and displacement by introduced species. Chemical pollutants, over harvesting and hybridization have played smaller but still significant role. While the actual extinction rate is difficult to pin down, there is no doubt that the planet is in the midst of a mass extinction of major proportions. The most conservative estimates place the extinction rate at 1000 times the background rate. These numbers are more easily accepted when placed in the context of habitat destruction.

Diversity and Extinctions

The most conservative estimates place the extinction rate at 1000 times the background rate. These numbers are more easily accepted when placed in the context of habitat destruction.

Humans Pushing Extinction Rates Up Faster Than Species Can Evolve - Will Hit 10,000x Historic Rates

In fact Simon Stuart went on the say that predictions made by biologist EO Wilson that the extinction rate could hit 10,000 times the background rate by 2030 are bearing out

Humans Pushing Extinction Rates Up Faster Than Species Can Evolve - Will Hit 10,000x Historic Rates : TreeHugger

ScienceDaily (Jan. 9, 2002) — AUSTIN, Texas -- Half of all living bird and mammal species will be gone within 200 or 300 years, according to a botany professor at The University of Texas at Austin.

Although the extinction of various species is a natural phenomenon, the rate of extinction occurring in today's world is exceptional -- as many as 100 to1,000 times greater than normal, Dr. Donald A. Levin said in the January-February issue of American Scientist magazine.

Extinction Rate Across The Globe Reaches Historical Proportions

In the simplest terms, when a habitat is destroyed, the plants, animals, and other organisms that occupied the habitat have a reduced carrying capacity so that populations decline and extinction becomes more likely.[3] Perhaps the greatest threat to organisms and biodiversity is the process of habitat loss.[4] Temple (1986) found that 82% of endangered bird species were significantly threatened by habitat loss.

Why Have Species Become Endangered?

• • Habitat Loss

• 
  Loss of habitat or the "native home" of a plant or animal is usually the most important cause of endangerment.

What Are The Solutions?
Habitat protection is the key to protecting our rare, threatened, and endangered species. A species cannot survive without a home. Our first priority in protecting a species is to ensure its habitat remains intact.

Although animal extinction is part of the natural cycle, humankind's presence on the earth has accelerated the rate at which species are disappearing.
The list of endangered species around the world is growing due to a range of causes from overhunting to a loss of habitat.

Red list 2009: Endangered species for every country in the world | Environment | guardian.co.uk


There can be no doubt at all, that humanity in its unchecked population growth is the direct cause of an accelerated extinction rate, a 1000 times the normal rate and growing.
There can be no doubt that habitat loss is a primary factor

Its speciesism pure and simple, this species thinks it has a right to expand its already huge population, at the expense of the other tenants of this biosphere.

How can the addition of even one more human, be justified at the cost of the extinction of a whole species ?

 

[mike]

Gorillas, orangutans, and corals are among the plants and animals which are sliding closer to extinction.
The Red List of Threatened Species for 2007 names habitat loss, hunting and climate change among the causes.
The World Conservation Union (IUCN) has identified more than 16,000 species threatened with extinction, while prospects have brightened for only one.
The IUCN says there is a lack of political will to tackle the global erosion of nature.
Governments have pledged to stem the loss of species by 2010; but it does not appear to be happening.

The rate of biodiversity loss is increasing

Julia Marton-Lefevre
"This year's Red List shows that the invaluable efforts made so far to protect species are not enough," said the organisation's director-general, Julia Marton-Lefevre.
"The rate of biodiversity loss is increasing, and we need to act now to significantly reduce it and stave off this global extinction crisis."
One in three amphibians, one in four mammals, one in eight birds and 70% of plants so far assessed are believed to be at risk of extinction, with human alteration of their habitat the single biggest cause.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Gorillas head race to extinction

In Borneo, home to the second orangutan species, palm oil plantations have expanded 10-fold in a decade, and now take up 27,000 sq km of the island. Illegal logging reduces habitat still further, while another threat comes from hunting for food and the illegal international pet trade.

 

[trainedobserver]

I would agree that population is the problem. People are made of food. One view is that the way we make our food and distribute it is a large part of creating the population problem and the problems that come along with it. It's more a social structure malfunction revolving around the industrialization of agriculture.

Paradoxically while it is responsible for our population growth it will most likely be responsible for a great culling back when the artificial food economy collapses. When the trucks don't run an the food isn't delivered for just a few days society will collapse in starvation and violence in large parts of the civilized world. You think of it however you want to but it is just part of the natural system of which we are apart. The right and wrong of it are human concepts only.

Natural forces beyond our complete comprehension and any hope of influence are shaping and molding life on Earth completely divorced of any consideration of the conscious desires or logic of human beings. It is a self-regulating system beyond our control. Granted, I do agree that intelligence and compassion should be applied in all human activity especially in relationship to the environment however, the place of human beings in the greater scheme of things transcends our ability to influence or control. Or so that is the way it appears to me, hence my attitude that we should embrace what and who we are and make the best of it.

 

[mike]

Best practise is best practise........

The fact remains we are wiping out whole species at 1000 times the normal rate, set to increase to 10,000 by 2030, This ultimately self defeating for us and them.
We can and should do better,

Lets look at this number for a moment

In fact Simon Stuart went on the say that predictions made by biologist EO Wilson that the extinction rate could hit 10,000 times the background rate by 2030 are bearing out

You live in one house, but imagine you owned 10,000 houses.
Thats a huge difference isnt it, a massive number. A car works too imagine instead of owning one car, you owned 10,000....... where would you park them all. Its a massive number when looked at in that light.

We are directly causing the extinction of entire species at 1,000 (soon to be 10,000) times the normal natural rate for species attrition



Governments have pledged to stem the loss of species by 2010; but it does not appear to be happening.

the place of human beings in the greater scheme of things transcends our ability to influence or control.

Thats defeatist isnt it.

Its our influence causing the problem, we simply have to rein it in.

And this

Paradoxically while it is responsible for our population growth it will most likely be responsible for a great culling back when the artificial food economy collapses. When the trucks don't run an the food isn't delivered for just a few days society will collapse in starvation and violence in large parts of the civilized world.

And while we are at it who gives a damn if we take tens of thousands of other species with us

And again we come full circle to the cause and fix

Government, regional (blinkered) vs global management (big picture view)

In Borneo, home to the second orangutan species, palm oil plantations have expanded 10-fold in a decade, and now take up 27,000 sq km of the island

Because the population there need the money, the resources. Bugger the orangutan and its right to its ancestral lands.
Local govt in borneo's primary concern is the local people and economy, a global govt would recognise the value of the habitat, and ensure the people got what they needed, essentially paying them not to cut down trees, if we had global taxation, wouldnt you be happy to pay an extra dollar a year to preserve this habitat ?

All the benefits of regional governance/taxation (cost sharing of common social advantages like fire brigades, etc) can be augumented at a global level.

Its this idea

objective is to fight deforestation by purchasing areas of rainforest, and keeping them in private hands.
Rainforests are the main source of oxygen for the world. They cover 6% of the earth's surface
and they are the last barrier in our struggle against global warming and depletion of the ozone layer. Protecting the rainforest is more than a trend. It’s important for the very existence of humans and animals on this planet. Help us save the rainforest,

Save the rainforest - RainforEver - Fight deforestation by purchasing areas of rainforest

Taken to its maximum potential.

Sensitive areas and habitats must be owned and managed by the planetary population, not the local ones. and the trade off must be , if you leave your resource alone in order to preserve a habitat and species, then we will ensure you get a fair share of the safely exploitable resources planet wide

Global govt and global tax system is the way to do it.


Imo there is no human based objection to this, that outweighs the imperative to preserve the other species we have here.

Your attitude is akin to the drug addict junkie who shrugs and says we all die eventually anyway, and who ends up dead in an alley at 25, covered in sores and his own filth.

Thats how we are treating this planet, and how it will end up if we continue

 

[trainedobserver]

the place of human beings in the greater scheme of things transcends our ability to influence or control.​

Thats defeatist isnt it.
Its our influence causing the problem, we simply have to rein it in.

I'm trying to balance an awareness and recognition of our place in a larger system we have no control over and our subset of it. We certainly should do our best not to cause problems for ourselves by destroying our environment which includes the other animals in it.

I sincerely believe Mike, that if we concentrate on doing what is best for our species, we will be doing what is best for everything else on the planet. If humanity will concentrate on solving the problems of poverty and hunger everything else will naturally fall into place. How that is to be achieved is difficult to get anyone to agree on. The key difference between us here is simply a point of motivation. I think if we see ourselves as the solution rather than the problem we'd come out a lot better and have fewer ulcers.

 

[mike]

Well i'll meet you halfway and suggest that speciesism, like sexism and racism, is a case where we are both the problem and the solution.

 

[Posey Gilbert]

Well i'll meet you halfway and suggest that speciesism, like sexism and racism, is a case where we are both the problem and the solution.

​

"Agreed."​

​

 

[pickles]

It seems to me that although UFO and alien encounters take place through out the world whenever they are being televised or made into a documentary there is always an absence of people of color in them.
Is it that these things do not occur to people of a darker hue?

Actually many of the reports I see revolve around events in South America. Those may be tempting to dismiss given the Hispanic media/entertainment industries' tendency towards melodrama and exaggeration, but I digress.

If you're referring to events in the US, hard to say. I think this works two ways. One the one hand, skeptics point to the mouthbreathing hayseeds that "this stuff only happens to them." Once that myth gets busted, is the threat perceived as greater? The flipside of this coin assumes that the populace is inherently racist. Tragically, this is taught in many universities, including the one I attended. While this may be true in sections of the nation, to say it is endemic is really nothing more than another branch of the "I hate America" leftist professor program we see all too often.

Clearly we know the entertainment industry is hardly populated by conservatives. You would therefore think that television shows and other outlets would force-feed minority inclusion into these issues, but we don't see that. My theory is that most "people of color" tend to mass in urban areas, not generally known for the isolation recognized as a key element in abduction/contactee discussion. If these folks tended to live in areas away from millions of bright lights and cameras - as we see in South America for example - you might not have a topic here.

 

[pickles]

I am only saying that their experiences are not treated or high lighted like those of a lighter hue.

Posey, that probably isn't a bad thing if you're a non-white individual. The last thing minorities need is another stigma attached to them.

 

[Randall]

It might be interesting to hear from Chris and Gene on this one.

• How much do racial considerations factor into the potential for ratings?
• Do "black television stations" purposefully feature non-white characters in their UFO abduction stories? ( Would that be reverse racism? )
• What about Middle Eastern, oriental and Native American media ... is it the same thing with them?

 

[pickles]

Let's be real here. Humans are part of nature. We are, after all, animals and our actions need not be any more concerning than that of a polar bear of chipmunk. If we affect the habitats or existence of another species, the fact that humans were the cause isn't any different than cows largely being responsible for excess methane emissions.

The other issue is, why is it that people are so quick to pin things on "humanity?" Let's focus on the teeming billions that don't practice or embrace Western civilization and their endless goal of making more room for more people the West has to support.

 

[pickles]

It might be interesting to hear from Chris and Gene on this one.

• How much do racial considerations factor into the potential for ratings?
• Do "black television stations" purposefully feature non-white characters in their UFO abduction stories? ( Would that be reverse racism? )
• What about Middle Eastern, oriental and Native American media ... is it the same thing with them?

I have a better question. Who cares?

 

[Randall]

I have a better question. Who cares?

See this post: UFOs,Aliens, And Racism By: Posey Gilbert | The Paracast Community Forums

 

[Burnt State]

You think of it however you want to but it is just part of the natural system of which we are apart. The right and wrong of it are human concepts only.

Natural forces beyond our complete comprehension and any hope of influence are shaping and molding life on Earth completely divorced of any consideration of the conscious desires or logic of human beings. It is a self-regulating system beyond our control. Granted, I do agree that intelligence and compassion should be applied in all human activity especially in relationship to the environment however, the place of human beings in the greater scheme of things transcends our ability to influence or control. Or so that is the way it appears to me, hence my attitude that we should embrace what and who we are and make the best of it.

I find UG Krisnamurti's thinking around the negation of thought, language and human culture to be impractical and pretty slippery business when applying it to the macrocosm of life in the 21st century. He says that we are just animals, a part of nature and that all our thinking is just dogs barking in the kennel. While the paracast forum often resembles this, as a mental distraction it is far more pleasant than me working to negate not just my ego but all of communication. I can not apply his thinking to family life or most interactions with people - though it works well with my dog.

On his deathbed he said that humanity can be boiled down to two pieces: survival and fucking. Perhaps that's all we've been up to on this planet but when we look back archaeologically we see that using a langauge and making culture has been a central drive of ours from the get go. I think we are more than just a subset of nature: our wants and desires have made a culture of controlling nature, and in this way we do work against it, and we work from outside it. Perhaps we could use this nature of ours to make the experience of survival and fucking not just more pleasant for the diversity of people on earth but for the diversity of all life. To do this we need to recognize our persistent desire for control and negate that.

Ok, now I feel like I just circled myself and ended with a krishnamurti kernel.

 

[Burnt State]

Let's be real here. Humans are part of nature... If we affect the habitats or existence of another species, the fact that humans were the cause isn't any different than cows largely being responsible for excess methane emissions.

The other issue is, why is it that people are so quick to pin things on "humanity?" Let's focus on the teeming billions that don't practice or embrace Western civilization and their endless goal of making more room for more people the West has to support.

We make the super massive industrial cow farms. We burn down forests to make more cow farms. This is us controlling nature. These are unnatural acts compared to ants farming aphid colonies. We create processes that are not equitable for humans or animals. This is an artificial food economy.

The rest of the world is doing what it does naturally. In times of desperation it is historically natural for humans to breed as much as possible so that something of their culture will survive, the way that trees expend much of their energy following a drought season to produce more seed - it is just about survival. In the west we practice gluttony and excess. That's a different scene b/c our desires and wants create cultures of compromise for the rest of the planet. Why do you think the breast milk of Innuit mothers in the Arctic is contaminated with heavy metals? Octopuses did not do this.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

We also invented cows. We made them out of aurochs. They don't exist in the wild.

While I do agree that human beings are animals whose sole motivator is "surviving and fucking" (even psychological concepts like curiosity, which leads to the by-product of otherwise arbitrary scientific inquiry, derives from those two evolutionary requirements), I recognize that our type of existence in nature reaches an extreme unlike most other living forms.

The types of extremes we introduce into the system are historically, archeologically and paleontologically unique. No other species has ever single-handedly wiped out another -- we've been doing it since the onset of our species. No other single species has ever reached our numbers in the modern world. No other species has ever produced so much waste or destruction, without our species putting factors into play making it possible. We exist in the extremes of nature -- extremes impossible before we existed. Being aware of that is necessary if you're going to try to also be responsible for it.

If our species didn't make an attempt to be responsible for our extremes, we wouldn't survive. That is against our nature.