Chappie Has Some Odd Thoughts...

For example, consider this observation: we can pretty well say how little is too little of anything or how small is too small, but we almost never seem to be able to agree on how large is too large or how much it too much. Is this a foolish topic? I can remember the first school writing assignment I ever had that revealed the role of writing in thought. It was in 7th grade, Mrs McKeith's class, and the assignment was to write a paragraph for homework on the question, "How small is small?" My first reaction was "This is stupid!" but within moments I realized (without knowing the word) that the real topic of the question was the meaning and importance of "relative." This may have been the frst time in my life that I engaged in abstract thought of a higher sort. I was astonished and have never forgotten that assignment after more than half a century.

At that time, the extent of the cosmos was barely dreamed of.

So what is it about this large/small conundrum?

Computer renderings and actual images of a DNA molecule, as seen through an electron microscope (Enzo di Fabrizio via New Scientist)

I am particularly struck by the apparent impossibility of our putting any limits on how large we will grow? In any area or zone. Americans in particular consider any discussion of placing limits on the growth of anything as an affront to their basic freedom. One id obliged to add that both cancer and obesity are biological processes characterized by excessive, unlimited growth. Just saying...

A cogent argument says that things like population naturally limit themselves. Perhaps Malthus was getting at this? But there also seems to be a realistic lag time involved which, given the size of the entities involved, could possibly lead to catastrophe. Consider Easter Island.  Although scientists are increasingly at odds in their respective views of what happened on Easter Island after the arrival of humans, the clear implication is that the ecology of the island and it's ability to support a variety of life forms was altered permanently by the arrival of Man and his pests (rats or European diseases.)

The purpose of this line of thinking is not to demonize mankind for its success in colonizing the planet and thereby causing numerous extinctions (including proto-human extinctions), as regrettable as this may be. If I take a view that would be acceptable to a Dominionist, I would still be obliged to recognize that in the case of Easter island and in numerous other historical instances, the scale of "our" dreams and aspirations made real have had devastating consequences. But we were either unable to see disaster coming or we were unable to help ourselves once recognition had set in.

The current problem of global warming is in this vein. Interestingly, most of the opposition to crediting the reality of global warming and the mortal threat it poses to our continued presence here comes from the same primitive Christian elements who propound openly or implicitly the Dominionist ideology. Christianity is being revealed as a religion not primarily of Love but of Death. Or of love of death and a yearning for the End times. (The charming adherents of the Islamic state share this mordant fantasy with all the Flat Earthers here and there and everywhere.) Death loving given the implicit promise of Life After Death...  I you really buy that I have several rusting bridges to sell you.   It is not my desire to single out Christianity since the negative effects of human over-population and lack of self-control are most extremely demonstrated in the societies of Asia, which are decidedly non-Christian (though not without values highly similar to Christian ones...patriarchy?)

We see everywhere about us evidence that nothing succeed like excess. But where can it lead? To too much of good things and bad. To a world with too many of us in it and no place for any of us...