chris667":1b5ejny9 said:
I wasn't talking about Darwinian theory at all. Where did that come from?
You mentioned the phrase "survival of the fittest" as used by Darwin (though it wasn't he who coined it) - I simply expanded upon the point that the intent behind the phrase is usually misconstrued.
chris667":1b5ejny9 said:
I'm talking about a couple of companies changing society for the worse and threatening the existence of future generations.
I'd say it's society's fault in itself - would these hyper-companies exist if there wasn't the demand for them? Bit of a chicken/egg situation really, and I can see it from both sides.
chris667":1b5ejny9 said:
Or possibly, we'll all die because we've poisoned our planet making easily available consumer goods.
Here's a thought - the human race will eventually become extinct, by our own hand or from an external disaster - and what would it matter? Why does it matter if the human race survives or dies out? The planet
will recover from humanity's effects on it, probably in much shorter a time than we would expect. We are simply a blip in its existence, of no more consequence than fleas on an elephant.
Funnily enough, many people claim to be environmentalists, yet quite possibly the best thing for the global environment as a whole would be for our species to stop existing altogether. So really what they really want is an environment capable of supporting and sustaining human life - which would make them humanists in my eyes! Not that that's a bad thing, more an interesting point to consider.
chris667":1b5ejny9 said:
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
No worries...!
See, isn't reasoned debate fun! I do apologise for the slightly inflammatory comment earlier in the thread though, but look where it lead...