Atman,

If humans are not independent of the natural world, then they are not "above" it. They are embedded in it. They have abundant intelligence and the ability to manipulate and exploit their environment to a great degree. However, they are also beholden to baser instincts which mitigate their "intelligent" actions.

Hence, moderation is wise action. However, restraint and judicious forbearance is not a notable attribute of human behaviour, particularly when it comes to the environment.

cohenite,

I think cosmology is fascinating - colonisation of other planets is not something I think about.

Real wisdom would be learning to respect the planet we're part of - considering we grew out of it and we're fashioned according to its properties and its organisation.

“Economic Growth - is it worth having?” It’s a bit like fertiliser: in excess, it not only stinks but also becomes poisonous to the recipient. The question is a classic of depauperate thought.
It is in the same league as the “look to other planets in the cosmos to colonise when we have finished wrecking our own” - an exercise which would take two hundred and eighty Airbus 380 flights (if they were outer-space capable) per day to deal with the world’s current daily increase in human numbers (all economy class passengers of course).

I see with colinsett's Lilliputian comment that Poirot is not the only biological determinist patronising here.

Colinsett's sneering condenscension is most ironic sinces he enlivens it with sesquipedalism and his choice, "depauperate thought", perfectly captures the green oppression, misanthropy and Ludditism now enslaving the world.

AGW, whereby the Eden myth is repackaged with fraudulent science, is the dominant manifestation of this misonewistic Zeitgeist but the peripheral issue of growth also demonstrates the smallness and meaness of the green psychology.

The greens, as shown by the comments here, regard growth purely in economic terms as part of a system which offends their moral and ethical egocentricity; the idea that growth can mean an apotheosis of humanity whereby humanity can distance itself from the horrors of nature, disease, pestilence, fragility etc, never enters their skulls.

For them, as shown by colinsett's equating of space exploration with a chance to merely to wreck other planets like he says we have done here, exploration, discovery, invention, the nonpareil qualities of humanity, are merely means of expressing humanity's worst side; he wears his misanthropy like a badge of honour instead of the pathology it is.

Poirot's symptoms are more poetic; she thinks "cosmology is fascinating"; one can only assume it is the same fascination which infests Joan Vinge's The Snow Queen, where the summer matriarch forbids technology and rules by superstition, the limitations of nature and the need to look after the poor before exploring new worlds.

What small minds they are, and how sad for mankind that their type holds sway.

At least Obama wants men on Mars before 2030. Perhaps Poirot can cast a spell to stop it happening.

cohenite,

Regarding colonising other planets. You appear to overlook the fact that we evolved as part of this planet......and unless we come across another with similar properties, well........

Yes nature is unforgiving, but it's also sustaining. You, like Atman, seem to think we're separate from it. Look at the earth from space. We're "it" as much as the blue of the oceans and white of the clouds. Our smear of intelligence endows us with much, but our arrogance is equal.

I suggest tonight when you're tucked into beddy-byes, you put aside "The Snow Queen" - and perhaps indulge in a little poetry. Shelley, I think will be just the shot:

http://www.online-literature.com/shelley_percy/672/

Poirot

I don't think I said we were separate from nature. You seem to assume that we are somehow an equal partner with worms and toads etc. I don't think of humans as being on the same 'level' as these barely sentient creatures.

Cohenite is merely describing the misanthropic Greens who are against all forms of economic development as far as I can see. Green logic is unfathomable because it doesn't add up on any level. Thinking is anathema to the Greens.

How original of you Poirot, to link to Shelley; I'm surprised you didn't go for Hardy who promulgates the theme of the dominance of nature over man's petty little ambitions much more emphatically.

That's it then; let's all give up, sit in a puddle and chant to nature.