Thee are people who say all sorts of rubbish, it doesn't make it plausible. In this case, they fail to understand population control via predator/prey - prey would breed out of all control, while the predators would be in direct competition with them, rather than a mutually fluctuating population level. The majority of people who say "more advanced" in such a sense know nothing about genetics specifically because it's a fallacy that change is always directed, so I doubt that applies here - but then again, I doubt these people know anything about genetics either or they'd realise the impossibility of this - reading wikipedia does not equate to detailed knowledge.
Quote:
|
... which just makes clear that some people just did not get any of the messages from Avatar that the natural world and the culture of indigenous peoples have a value of their own and that it is not all just about utilitarianism and efficiency.
|
At the risk of misunderstanding him as I have before, I think Clarke was pointing out the flaw in your reasoning - that they want to change Earth as part of preserving it rather than simply replacing it, which doesn't actually seem to be the case, and as such, they should be given no more credence than flat-earthers or the 'zeitgeist' group.
10-26-2012, 04:28 PM
Threaded Mode