Definition of poetic justice
:an outcome in which vice is punished and virtue rewarded usually in a manner peculiarly or ironically appropriate
First Known Use: 1691
Carry on.
I would just add that it is a plot device used in (especially) plays and stories the point of which is to show how the hero(ine) prevails - virtue is rewarded and Cruela de Vil is punished in the end. It was called poetic justice because it largely existed in fiction: for the most part real life consists of the realization that there is not going to be a thunderbolt which provides deserved retribution to the asshole(s) currently making your life miserable. Exhibit A is probably the idiot currently occupying the White House.
In a sense it is almost the point of literature. In my view (and I don't expect this to be a popular notion) much of organized religion makes use of this device. It cannot have escaped the attention of kings and warlords that 'you'll get your reward in heaven' was a rather handy way of keeping the peasants in check.
rubato wrote:And it is a bacterium not a virus. Anyway, Ebola is MUCH scarier and kudos to Obama for immediately responding and sending aid to W. Africa.
yrs,
rubato
Who said anything about it being a virus? Nobody.
Mr. Smarty-Pants
You didn't read what you posted:
BoSoxGal wrote:2000+ infected and close to 150 already dead in Madagascar.
Health officials have warned this is the “worst outbreak in 50 years”.
And disease experts have said that if virus mutates, the epidemic will get much worse.
Speaking to Daily Star Online, disease outbreak expert Professor Paul Hunter said that the disease could be contained if it arrived in Europe but the worry would be if the plague became resistant to antibiotics.
I know the tabloids love to stoke fear around a story like this, but wouldn’t it be a kind of poetic justice if it did spread to Europe and become resistant to treatment?
Call me very cynical, but with 7 billion+ human rats destroying the planet, isn’t it about time for a new plague to bring things back into balance?
it’s just a fact that nature seeks a balance within ecosystems, to prevent exceeding carrying capacity. Humans are overrunning and ruining the planet, that is also a fact.
You are anthropomorphizing nature. Nature does not "seek" anything and frequently gets out of 'balance' resulting in die-offs, extinctions &c. What nature does do is kill things by consistent application of thermodynamics and biochemistry (et al) I would say that nature kills her mistakes but that would be a tautological definition of a 'mistake'. Nature is indifferent to the life of any individual, species, or even whole eco-systems. Seas dry up, swamps turn into deserts, Mastodons, Mammoths and Giant Ground sloths die off.
Balance is a human concept as is the idea that it is "good".
If we find beauty in nature it is not because nature put it there.
My apologies, I thought you were correcting me or another poster rather than correcting a headline writer for the Daily Mail who (presumably) doesn’t read or post here.
I don’t need ecological science lessons from a random person on the internet who claims to be a chemist; I studied ecological science with a professor I KNOW was a leading scientist in his field.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
BoSoxGal wrote:My apologies, I thought you were correcting me or another poster rather than correcting a headline writer for the Daily Mail who (presumably) doesn’t read or post here.
I don’t need ecological science lessons from a random person on the internet who claims to be a chemist; I studied ecological science with a professor I KNOW was a leading scientist in his field.
Didn't read it and can't admit it. If you HAD read it you would have known what I was responding to.
And too witless to admit you were anthropomophizing and attributing to nature a desire to maintain balance. A foolish mistake.
"...
I don’t need ecological science lessons from a random person on the internet who claims to be a chemist; I studied ecological science with a professor I KNOW was a leading scientist in his field.
Apparently you did need an alleged chemist to teach you that attributing desires or values to nature is not scientific.
Los Angeles: At least five people have been killed and two children wounded in a shooting near an elementary school in northern California, according to multiple media outlets.
The shooting took place in Rancho Tehama in Tehama County, about 200 kilometres north of Sacramento, at about 8am on Tuesday, according to local newspaper Record Searchlight.
More "human rats" eradicated, what poetic justice...
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
"...
I don’t need ecological science lessons from a random person on the internet who claims to be a chemist; I studied ecological science with a professor I KNOW was a leading scientist in his field.
Apparently you did need an alleged chemist to teach you that attributing desires or values to nature is not scientific.
yrs,
rubato
It’s laughable that you don’t understand the concept of equilibrium in an ecosystem and yet assert yourself to be more knowledgeable than anyone else here about all matters of science.
dales, you putz, I’ve never claimed to be an ‘expert in all fields’ - in fact I’ve often come here for advice or information from other posters. I do, however, have a great deal of education in a few key areas and based on 12 years posting with the same regular characters here, I certainly know which persons have greater knowledge to impart to me in those areas and which don’t. In this case rubato attempts to undermine the sound science I am relying on by attacking the language I chose to use in my post; while it’s true that I’m also a student of English literature with a Masters in that field and a propensity to use poetic constructions in my writing, there is nothing incorrect in asserting that the processes of nature are in constant movement toward a state of equilibrium. Period.
By the way, I’ve been meaning to tell you about the new podcast, Young Charlie - a study of your favorite cult leader’s early life.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
"...
I don’t need ecological science lessons from a random person on the internet who claims to be a chemist; I studied ecological science with a professor I KNOW was a leading scientist in his field.
Apparently you did need an alleged chemist to teach you that attributing desires or values to nature is not scientific.
yrs,
rubato
It’s laughable that you don’t understand the concept of equilibrium in an ecosystem and yet assert yourself to be more knowledgeable than anyone else here about all matters of science.
dales, you putz, I’ve never claimed to be an ‘expert in all fields’ - in fact I’ve often come here for advice or information from other posters. I do, however, have a great deal of education in a few key areas and based on 12 years posting with the same regular characters here, I certainly know which persons have greater knowledge to impart to me in those areas and which don’t. In this case rubato attempts to undermine the sound science I am relying on by attacking the language I chose to use in my post; while it’s true that I’m also a student of English literature with a Masters in that field and a propensity to use poetic constructions in my writing, there is nothing incorrect in asserting that the processes of nature are in constant movement toward a state of equilibrium. Period.
By the way, I’ve been meaning to tell you about the new podcast, Young Charlie - a study of your favorite cult leader’s early life. You might want to check it out.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
"...
I don’t need ecological science lessons from a random person on the internet who claims to be a chemist; I studied ecological science with a professor I KNOW was a leading scientist in his field.
Apparently you did need an alleged chemist to teach you that attributing desires or values to nature is not scientific.
yrs,
rubato
It’s laughable that you don’t understand the concept of equilibrium in an ecosystem and yet assert yourself to be more knowledgeable than anyone else here about all matters of science.
dales, you putz, I’ve never claimed to be an ‘expert in all fields’ - in fact I’ve often come here for advice or information from other posters. I do, however, have a great deal of education in a few key areas and based on 12 years posting with the same regular characters here, I certainly know which persons have greater knowledge to impart to me in those areas and which don’t. In this case rubato attempts to undermine the sound science I am relying on by attacking the language I chose to use in my post; while it’s true that I’m also a student of English literature with a Masters in that field and a propensity to use poetic constructions in my writing, there is nothing incorrect in asserting that the processes of nature are in constant movement toward a state of equilibrium. Period.
By the way, I’ve been meaning to tell you about the new podcast, Young Charlie - a study of your favorite cult leader’s early life.
Equilibrium is an important concept in chemistry and a very useful way of calculating what will happen in situations governed by equilibria. But nature does not "want" equilibria nor are they either good or bad. It is otiose to suggest that nature "strives for balance" and requires a complete lack of knowledge to assert it. Your professor was either an idiot or he had one for a student.
You're just in one of your hissy pissy periods and can't argue rationally. You do this now and then.
Natural ecosystems are often incredibly sensitive to change, such as the introduction or removal of a species. A healthy ecosystem is said to be in equilibrium, which is a relatively stable state that keeps population sizes within a sustainable range (not too many of a certain species alive or dead).
Wouldn't taking all the human rats of Europe out of an eco system ... errmmmm.... unbalance it?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
The Black Death is estimated to have killed 30–60% of Europe's total population, now imagine what would happen if it became "resistant to treatment", as you wished on Europe.
Even sticking to those percentages would mean around 450,000,000 people dead, to salve your eco conscience.
Mind you, Blighty and Aus would be fine, they would just shut the borders, being island nations does have its advantages.
The US with very porous borders, a terribly unfair and unresponsive health service, and a president with the IQ of a fence post, would be fucked.
Poetic justice.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Gob, there wasn’t any treatment during the plague - yet a good percentage of humans survived, so that is certainly likely to be repeated should a treatment resistant plague make its way to Europe. And the island nation of the United Kingdom wasn’t immune during the Middle Ages - before there was a Chunnel. (It’s hard to regulate the travel of rodents, anyway.)
For the last time, it’s not MY eco-conscience, it’s an amoral process of nature that is almost certainly inevitably to be repeated, whether by a mutated bubonic plague or a new kind of bug altogether.
Some interesting plague facts which show how ultimately, the Black Death actually benefited many humans.
The spread of the Black Death followed all of the Trade Routes to every country
The Black Death of the Middle Ages was believed to have originated in the Gobi Desert
Nearly one third of the population of died - about 200 million people in Europe
The 1328 outbreak in China caused the population to drop from 125 million to 90 million in just fifty years
7500 victims of the disease were dying every day
The Black Death in England raged from 1348-1350
Why the Black Death was important to the history of England: The population drop resulted in a higher value being placed on labour - the Peasants Revolt followed in 1381. Farming changed and the wool industry boomed. People became disillusioned with the church and its power and influence went into decline. This ultimately resulted in the English reformation
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
BoSoxGal wrote:
Some interesting plague facts which show how ultimately, the Black Death actually benefited many humans.
A very Trumpian defense of the Black Death, Counsellor. So far I have benefited from P45 because my 401k is looking healthy. So the Black Death was, like The Donald, A Good Thing, was it? I. Did. Not. Know. That.
So. We have it from BSG that the Black Death was not too bad. (In honor of her status as an EngLit major I threw a little litotes in there which is a literary device she will nail immediately.). A better and more relevant analogy is that BD was like Grendel's Mother who defended her music-loving son. (I need to point out to the rest of the ignorami on this board that this is a Beowulf reference. Without Grendel's Mother there would be no Grendel and no-one would ever have heard of Beowulf and thousand of EngLit professors would have to find real jobs. I recommend the Seamus Heaney translation.)
Black Death - we need more of it. A slogan for the ages. (Middle Ages, that is.)
Returning to the science, I do love the phrase 'so that is certainly likely to be repeated'. Do you have a p-value on that? I think I was sick the day we did 'certainly likely.'
