Funny, I have the feeling that I disagree with this, probably just on instinct because it's science related and written by you Charles. However, I have not a fucking clue what you're getting on about. Your quote appears to have no relation to your complaint. WTF?
We need to get out of the habit of reading nonsense like this...
I think he's taking offense at the usage of "our," but I'm really not sure, but if he is he needs to work harder at explaining his point. If it is his point, it's a stupid one at that; to defer that the usage of our indicates possession. It's no different than when I talk about "my" street or "my" city.
I THINK he's saying that the atmosphere doesn't protect "our planet", it protects "us" on "the planet" insofar as the planet would exist without the atmosphere, but we wouldn't. Still a stupid post.
@3, if he's is taking offense to the usage of "our" it is ridiculous. Though I can't think of what else he could be objecting to in that passage. The Earth is OUR planet. Not because it was made for us, or because we "own" it but because because we exist here. And only here.

Language is an awesome thing. Many a word can be used to mean many a thing. "Our" does not have a static meaning and it does not imply any sort of morality or righteousness or divinity. Charles must be really looking for things to be offended/affronted by if this is what he's worried over.
"Earth was not made for humans, not made for the Freudian problems of fathers and sons." Yes, let's just not have those problems then.

Like the man said, Charles: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
YOU simply need to get out of the habit of writing nonsense.

Or get out of the habit of writing.

Whichever gets you out of the stranger faster.
I've found the increasing evidence of life on other planets deeply comforting, as I feel it takes some of the pressure off me to excel at being alive.
More mindless gobbledygook from the biggest asshole on the payroll. Yawn.
I don't get it... what're you whining about? We live here, it's sorta OUR planet. We're the only thing with a sense of ownership that isn't instinct to control territory on this planet. Also, you share your home with countless insects... it's still YOUR home.

Really? Just... stop trying to hard to make people into the bad guy.
Well, humanity is without any inherent value. The earth wasn't meant for us, or anything else. Meaning is illusory. Everything just is.
The conditions on Earth were not created especially for us. Life on this planet evolved and adapted to the conditions that happened to be here.
Charles reminds me of how politicians answer a question by saying, "the real question is..." and then answer the question they want to answer even if the answer has nothing to do with the original question.
Never mind the BBC report is a statment of fact, not oppinion. Here Charles does not seem to understand the distinction.
@10 - "Instinct" is a poorly defined term that people use to distance themselves from animals. We are territorial in pretty much the same way as animals, except that we rarely pee on our property to mark it.

@everybody - My goodness, the frenzy Charles can work you guys up into just by posting. I can't wait for the shitstorm that will follow the day Charles simply posts "Herp a-derp. Herp-derp. Derp herp. Derp?"
@9 -- you sum it up perfectly. there is NO ONE who give a fuck what this man has to say.
I'm trying not to hate you, Charles, but your combination of arrogance, self-absorption, and stupidity make it very difficult.
Lots of hate here... What Charles is saying isn't that far out. He's calling out how embedded anthropocentrism is in our media.
@ 18, well, way to stand up against anthropocentrism! (Hey, spellcheck doesn't like that word. Did you or some college busybody make that up?)
Oxygen on this planet was and is exclusively generated by life.
really? yes, lets continue to detach "our"selves from the planet, that's the leading cause of "our" continued pollution habits. Moron.
@18, well, when another species starts publishing a newspaper, they can call it "their" planet and I promise not to have a problem with it.
And Vince (@20), no, that's not true. Now, if you had said "Most of the free oxygen on this planet was and is generated by life," I'd agree with you. But you didn't.
You make Vogons seem eloquent, Charles.
@19 & 22. It's more of a frame of reference issue. The embedded assumption in that language is that humans are uniquely special and the universe was made for us. And all Charles is saying is, "no, it's not and it bugs me when those assumptions are embedded in the language from the media"
So corviphobia is cool, but anthropocentrism is uncool.

Go back to posting bad pix of the homely houses that threaten "our" neighborhoods.
Radiation is harmful to microscopic life as well. that's why it is used to treat cancer and sterilize things like food and medical equipment. "Tree of Life" or no, Earth would be a lifeles chunk of rock without an atmosphere.
Getting mad at people who write nonsense, huh? I think there's some projecting going on here....

Exactly...if the atmosphere were really there to protect our planet from asteroid impacts, the mammals would never have risen and you wouldn't be reading this.

If a rampaging elephant intercepts a cruel and reckless driver that would have otherwise plowed into a hapless bike rider, did the elephant protect the biker?
The biosphere is part of the planet, elemental oxygen is part of the biosphere (produced almost exclusively by plants, algae, and cyanobacteria) - a majority of what our planet is, is life. The atmosphere very much protects the planet.
Zebes @30, perhaps. If I took shelter from a hailstorm under a rock overhang, the million year old rock did in fact protect me from the hail.
I do agree with Mudede on the basic principle here, although I think the example of "protecting our world" to be a bit weak.

I'm also amused that people who seem to dislike Mudede in general really drive up the comment count on his posts.
Life can't exist without molecular oxygen?
FUCK YOU CHARLES. ewstrdykniolijuytrdeykirtyas09uyg3ioDAy7i 32ec[l,.liaO8932OLKXKjUWOKAE1OCo nuja
@36, breath now...calm down...

I too read it that way on the first go, but no, that's not what he said. He said MACROSCOPIC life would not be possible without oxygen, which is accurate, as far as our observations have taken us.

Not that the post makes any kind of sense even with that. Free oxygen is hardly an "accident" but a byproduct of photosynthetic life. And I wouldn't be so confident that macroscopic life (a largely arbitrary distinction, since it means "life Homo sapiens can see with its eyes) can't exist without oxygen, since we don't actually have other planets with life to compare evolutionary paths with, but then I'm probably asking too much from Charles already eh?
@37 I agree with you on that, but some of the wannabe scientists will argue that point, just watch.
@37: Some polychaete worms are facultative anaerobic organisms; that is, they will use oxygen if it is available, but are also capable of metabolizing in an entirely anoxic environment.
@39, but I don't really think that defeats the statement, since they are facultative, not obligate. I don't know what their evolutionary path was, but it could well be that they started out as fully aerobic and developed a facultative anaerobic ability later. It's widely understood that pluricellular life is associated with aerobic respiration, so you really can't put Charles on the hook for that. Not to worry, that leaves about 999,999 other science related fuck ups to get him for ;-)
Nice, just nice, I say a loosely similar thing and get told I was wrong ... yep, that's the nature of hatred, blind and stupid.
Well, the difference is that you're a dumbass. Go fuck yourself.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.