Natural Selection

[Saviourmachine]

We are about to enter in to the age of The Long Emergency.

Emergency, emergency, apocalypse!

I'm critical about all kind of 'Emergency' theories. I'm a donator of Greenpeace, but e.g. their policy regarding nuclear plants is short termed. Nuclear fusion is full of promises.

 

Educuation

I do not have money either. I've to borrow money from the state because I'm a student and have to give to charity from that. And I choose projects that have to do with education.

 

HIV

Education, so that they actually will use condoms. And that's not contraceptive imperialism by the way. It's your country, America, that does give almost nothing to third world countries! You have to change the attitude of your friends, your gouvernment. I hope education will overcome HIV (source). Guess what you will find if you google "condoms" & "third-world"? Religion, religion, religion.

 

Eating truth

What truth is it the way to? If you had a theory of everything, could you feed yourself with it?

Truth is like air for me. I can't live without it. Only live like a beast. Of course if we fail, another intelligent specie will arise somewhere in the cosmos, but why wouldn't we take this opportunity? Our intellect is such a great gift of mother nature, and wouldn't we appreciate her? We will learn how to live ecologically at the end or we will die. She dictates us, it's not the other way around. And - now we are doing our first steps - some mammals and other big species will gonna die. Shit happens. Bacteria will survive! And eventually, other big species will roam the earth again. If you really care about biological diversity, why focussing on eukaryotes? There are already 1500 kinds of procaryotes. Sustainable agriculture also belongs to science. So, the answer is yes: we can eat truth.

 

Indians

If you were plopped down into the Amazon rainforest and told you had to survive on the land, who would you like for a companion, a scientist, or a Yanomani indian? Which one knows TheTruth™ about nature?

I've been living with indians in the south of Venezuela. I had almost nothing to eat. Some very dry kind of bread and sometimes a small piece of meat. Do you know why? Because they were hunters and didn't know anything of agriculture! Nostalgics chef? I helped a woman there to learn them to grow crops.

 

Cars & kids & insurances

My friends are mostly those that have nothing left after paying the rent, buying food, paying utilities, buying gas for the car to get to work, and making payments on a 5 year old car. They hope to hell a kid doesn't get bad sick because they have no insurance.

What do you need a car for? Why an almost new car of 5 year old? That you can't pay for insurance is not because of science, that's because you live in America. In two areas science is underdeveloped, and that's in economics and in politics. E.g. in the new European Constitution science could have had such a great place. (It's a pity it didn't make it because of so many conservative elements in France and my country.) Not even Penrose's square law was applied to get voting weights for the countries (source)! Politics and economics have to change. I'm buying fair trade, although I can't barely afford that. If everybody would think about the consequents of a few of his/her actions, the world would change. I hope this will happen at the time people don't need the security of a religion anymore. I'm looking forward.

[MrSpooky]

Cool, I agree. Demonstrate how.

 

I'm not going do to your research for you. Look up any professional source on nature and ethics, particuarly David Hume.

 

And haven't I already argued that what "is" is not equal to what "should be?"

 

 

Darwin? I was citing my source.

 

Yes, and I called it name-dropping. You didn't use an argument or evidence to make a point, you used a quote from someone that says nothing about ethics.

 

 

So, why is this thread meaningless?

 

I've said like three times that comparisons between "Natural" and "Ethical" is a matter of mixing apples with oranges. Prescriptive VS Descriptive. What IS vs what SHOULD. There is no contradiction here, and the topic you brought up in your first post is just as meaningless as asking "What does Sartre and Nietzsche add up to mathematically?" Neither concept of "Natural" and "Ethical" share a relevant context to be evaluated within.

 

Honestly, I don't see how this could be a complex issue at all. If you need to ask questions about the most basic of philosophical and rhetorical matters, it seems more disingenuous than rational.

[Burry The Rag]

Hey Mr. Spooky,

I'm not going do to your research for you.  Look up any professional source on nature and ethics, particularly David Hume.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks.

And haven't I already argued that what "is" is not equal to what "should be?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes you have. Have not I already agreed?

Yes, and I called it name-dropping.  You didn't use an argument or evidence to make a point, you used a quote from someone that says nothing about ethics.

I've said like three times that comparisons between "Natural" and "Ethical" is a matter of mixing apples with oranges.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Darwin initiated the concept of natural selection. When we attempt to protect a species, this is interference with this process. Darwin further referred to natural selection as a good process. Goodness is much more of an ethical than scientific concept.

 

If you have moved away from Darwin, oops, —pardon me— previously held scientific belief, then state such. But don't slam me for a relevant question.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[chefranden]

You are doing good Saviour,

 

Emergency, emergency, apocalypse!

I'm critical about all kind of 'Emergency' theories. I'm a donator of Greenpeace, but e.g. their policy regarding nuclear plants is short termed. Nuclear fusion is full of promises.

 

Can't eat promises. Just as you are critical of supposed apocalypses, you ought to be just as critical of supposed utopias

 

Nevertheless, it is good to be critical of apocalypse, so that you can be ready for the right one. Peak Oil is here, it is not a conjecture. Will there be other sources of energy? Sure, but they will not be cheap. That is they will not produce the same or even near the same energy output per energy input. It is not a matter of money.

 

If you want an apple you might pay 1 euro for it. If you really really want an apple you might pay 5 euro for it, or maybe 1000. But one thing you will not pay for the apple is 2 apples. When it starts to cost 1BTU to recover 1BTU you have to stop production.

 

Educuation

I do not have money either. I've to borrow money from the state because I'm a student and have to give to charity from that. And I choose projects that have to do with education.

I don't know what education is like in Europe. Here it is crap. (sorry teachers it isn't your fault) Why? Because it prepares students to be cogs in endless production and consumption. The highest value of the majority of education's products (and yes students are products too) is Nike and Walmart.

 

HIV

Education, so that they actually will use condoms. And that's not contraceptive imperialism by the way. It's your country, America, that does give almost nothing to third world countries! You have to change the attitude of your friends, your gouvernment. I hope education will overcome HIV (source). Guess what you will find if you google "condoms" & "third-world"? Religion, religion, religion.

Forgive me if I've given you the impression that religion is the solution. I don't think it will be including the religion of science.

 

I agree with you about America. I have changed the attitude of some of my friends, buy constantly rubbing their faces in reality -- like I'm attempting to do here.

 

Let us consider Education as if it were some miraculous solution to the world's problem. Just as there is a lot of religion going on without improvement of the human condition there is a lot of education going on with out improvement of the human condition. One of the reasons we reject religion that because it does not accomplish what it promises to do. I don't see any reason to have more faith in education than I would have in religion. Education didn't work last year to get people to use condoms. Education didn't work the year before that get people to use condoms. Education didn't work the year before that, or the year before that, or the year before that, but society still has faith if we just do some more education this year, this time it will work.

 

You are interested in truth, that is good. It is a truth that a species, any species, will increase in population if it's food supply increases. If you really wish to have less people, the only way to do it is to reduce the amount of food available. You wouldn't even have to starve anybody already alive to do that. Simply stop producing surplus.

 

Eating truth

Truth is like air for me. I can't live without it. Only live like a beast. Of course if we fail, another intelligent specie will arise somewhere in the cosmos, but why wouldn't we take this opportunity? Our intellect is such a great gift of mother nature, and wouldn't we appreciate her? We will learn how to live ecologically at the end or we will die. She dictates us, it's not the other way around. And - now we are doing our first steps - some mammals and other big species will gonna die. Shit happens. Bacteria will survive! And eventually, other big species will roam the earth again. If you really care about biological diversity, why focussing on eukaryotes? There are already 1500 kinds of procaryotes. Sustainable agriculture also belongs to science. So, the answer is yes: we can eat truth.

 

You are correct, Mother nature dictates. That is basically all I'm saying. Endless growth is cancer. That is the case whether it takes place in an individual, or in a species. If we recognize that perhaps we can stop doing that. If we do not recognize it, it will stop anyway. Cancer kills its host. I do not have much hope that we as a species will make the proper diagnosis. If we do manage that, I do not have much hope that we will carry out the treatment. We are something like a smoker with emphysema, even if we see that overconsumption is destroying us, it is not likely we will stop until we can't do anything else but stop. If that means our extinction so be it. The only thing special about humans is that we are them.

 

The problem with depending upon science is that we are depending upon science to allow us to continue the cancer.

 

Sustainable agriculture existed a long time before science was even thought of. Science may be useful in recovering that skill, but it is not the source of it

 

Indians

I've been living with indians in the south of Venezuela. I had almost nothing to eat. Some very dry kind of bread and sometimes a small piece of meat. Do you know why? Because they were hunters and didn't know anything of agriculture! Nostalgics chef? I helped a woman there to learn them to grow crops.

 

Where did the Indians ability to hunt go? Did they lose it to the science that allowed others to destroy their forests? Sure you had to teach them agriculture -- Western-style totalitarian agriculture, which I'm sure you have seen is not sustainable in rain forest soils. I cannot be nostalgic for their lost way of life, because I have not experienced it. But I can wonder what would be better for them: that they could still live in the forests or that they should subsist on a piece of dry bread and an occasional bit of meat while they're being taught how to be Third World citizens condemned to endless poverty.

 

Cars & kids & insurances

What do you need a car for? Why an almost new car of 5 year old? That you can't pay for insurance is not because of science, that's because you live in America. In two areas science is underdeveloped, and that's in economics and in politics. E.g. in the new European Constitution science could have had such a great place. (It's a pity it didn't make it because of so many conservative elements in France and my country.) Not even Penrose's square law was applied to get voting weights for the countries

 

Americans live too far from their jobs not to have a car. It is one of the many stupid things we have done, because we pretended cheap energy was going to last forever. It is not something a poor family can undo. Europe has invested a lot of money and effort in mass transit. In the States you can hardly get a bus subsidized, because the auto industry and the oil industry rule the roost. But what has given us all these automobiles and cheap energy? Is it not science? Without science we could not do the stupid things we do. To say that science is not to blame for the stupid things is like saying Christianity is not to blame for the stupid things Christians do.

 

(source)! Politics and economics have to change. I'm buying fair trade, although I can't barely afford that. If everybody would think about the consequents of a few of his/her actions, the world would change. I hope this will happen at the time people don't need the security of a religion anymore. I'm looking forward.

 

That sounds a bit religious doesn't it? You want people to be less reliant on religion while sustaining religion's basic tenant: "If only other people would be like me the world would be a wonderful place." How many centuries have people been falling for that now? Why is this any less silly than saying, "if only bears were better bears the world would be a wonderful place."

[Saviourmachine]

Man eating habits

Can't eat promises. Just as you are critical of supposed apocalypses, you ought to be just as critical of supposed utopias

You can't eat money, you can't eat love, you can eat a wife, a girl-friend. Value doesn't equal edibility. You're right, I don't think science will lead to an utopia either, I really don't know. However, I find science in itself very valuable.

 

Oil

Peak Oil is here, it is not a conjecture. Will there be other sources of energy?  Sure, but they will not be cheap. That is they will not produce the same or even near the same energy output per energy input. It is not a matter of money.

You're right, nuclear fusion does cost energy until now. It has to be studied further. In Holland we always had windmills, and nowadays they're coming back. Solar cells were subsidized for a while (although I don't know if they are sustainable ecologically when taking every chain in its lifecycle into account). Oil will become very expensive, so at some time other energy sources will become competing. That's just economics.

 

Our new students are dumb, unintelligent, stupid

The highest value of the majority of education's products (and yes students are products too) is Nike and Walmart.

Don't be too pessimistic. Education will not solve every problem at once. There are intellectual fundamentalists willing to kill their fellow humans. Not the once that were best educated will survive, but the ones that learn best from their education.

 

Education does get people to use condoms

Education didn't work last year to get people to use condoms.

Bullshit. Education does have a positive effect. See PubMed: Outcomes of intensive AIDS education for male adolescent drug users in jail, Effectiveness of a theory-based risk reduction HIV prevention program for rural Vietnamese adolescents, From awareness to adoption: the effect of AIDS education and condom social marketing on condom use in Tanzania (1993-1996).

 

Solution?

If you really wish to have less people, the only way to do it is to reduce the amount of food available. You wouldn't even have to starve anybody already alive to do that. Simply stop producing surplus.

How's that gonna work? Firstly, I don't want to have less people, stabilizing the world population is good enough. Just as happens in western countries. Stop eating meat, because you're occuping more ecological space than when you're only eating vegetables. Secondly, to distribute food fairly among the countries is better than stopping the production.

 

Humans... booh!

The only thing special about humans is that we are them.

I'm a proud human, and I don't think so. Sorry.

 

Indians

But I can wonder what would be better for them: that they could still live in the forests or that they should subsist on a piece of dry bread and an occasional bit of meat while they're being taught how to be Third World citizens condemned to endless poverty.

They were starving. Is hunting sustainable agriculture? Of course, they did die years after years before we even knew them. "Let them die!?"

 

Science is to blame for our stupid things

But what has given us all these automobiles and cheap energy? Is it not science? Without science we could not do the stupid things we do. To say that science is not to blame for the stupid things is like saying Christianity is not to blame for the stupid things Christians do.

I disagree with you. Xianity, indeed, is not to blame for the stupid things xians do. It's only to blame for its inherent faults. Without evolution you couldn't formulate these sentences, but evolution isn't responsable for your sayings. In Europe we do have science and public transport. So, it's definitely not the fault of science if you'll driving yourself crazy. It's possible to live that far from someones work that someone can bike the distance.

 

Religion

If everybody would think about the consequents of a few of his/her actions, the world would change.

That sounds a bit religious doesn't it? You want people to be less reliant on religion while sustaining religion's basic tenant: "If only other people would be like me the world would be a wonderful place."

Other people were needed to get me thinking about these issues. You don't have to be like me. But, yes, please, think some things through. I'm relying on your abilities and have full confidence in you. Act as a proud, rational, empathic human!

[Ouroboros]

Man eating habits

You can't eat money, you can't eat love, you can eat a wife, a girl-friend.

Are you sure about the last part?

 

Oil

You're right, nuclear fusion does cost energy until now. It has to be studied further. In Holland we always had windmills, and nowadays they're coming back. Solar cells were subsidized for a while (although I don't know if they are sustainable ecologically when taking every chain in its lifecycle into account). Oil will become very expensive, so at some time other energy sources will become competing. That's just economics.

I have my hopes to Nano Tech, but also fears of it.

[MrSpooky]

Yes you have. Have not I already agreed?

 

If you have already agreed on this matter, then why must you ask THIS:

 

So, why is this thread meaningless?

 

in the same breath?

[Burry The Rag]

If you have already agreed on this matter, then why must you ask THIS:

in the same breath?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Mr. Spooky,

 

Because you never backed up your claim.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[MrSpooky]

But I HAVE.

 

I've demonstrated that the question you posed...

 

But isn’t protecting an endangered species or maintaining a wildlife habitat interfering with what is seen as not only an effective, but desirable, process? Does not this intervention enable the weak, which would otherwise pass on, to survive? Won’t this medaling, over time, yield negative results?

 

is based on an erroneous interpretation and that the contradiction you see doesn't exist at all. If the question is meaningless, there is no substantive point that can be drawn from it.

[chefranden]

Man eating habits

You can't eat money, you can't eat love, you can eat a wife, a girl-friend. Value doesn't equal edibility. You're right, I don't think science will lead to an utopia either, I really don't know. However, I find science in itself very valuable.

 

My jury is still out on the value of science. Science certainly makes exploitation more efficient.

 

Oil

You're right, nuclear fusion does cost energy until now. It has to be studied further. In Holland we always had windmills, and nowadays they're coming back. Solar cells were subsidized for a while (although I don't know if they are sustainable ecologically when taking every chain in its life cycle into account). Oil will become very expensive, so at some time other energy sources will become competing. That's just economics.

 

Money wise other energy sources will be more attractive than oil. Nevertheless, Energy output to energy input for production will fall dramatically. The production of most of these alternative energy sources requires a good bit of oil energy. How would the Chinese build the 3 gorges dam without oil? It really isn't a matter of money, except that the wealthy will get the last drops of oil.

 

Our new students are dumb, unintelligent, stupid

Don't be too pessimistic. Education will not solve every problem at once. There are intellectual fundamentalists willing to kill their fellow humans. Not the once that were best educated will survive, but the ones that learn best from their education.

I don't know where this faith in education comes from. I don't see that it is any different than any other faith. But yes I do know it is heresy to say so.

 

Education will not solve any problem. Education is not about solving problems, it is about insuring that people know their place in the hierarchy.

 

Education does get people to use condoms

Bullshit. Education does have a positive effect. See PubMed: Outcomes of intensive AIDS education for male adolescent drug users in jail, Effectiveness of a theory-based risk reduction HIV prevention program for rural Vietnamese adolescents, From awareness to adoption: the effect of AIDS education and condom social marketing on condom use in Tanzania (1993-1996).

 

Jail Study ...Education participants as compared with controls were significantly more likely to increase their condom use, to increase positive attitudes towards condoms, and possibly to decrease high-risk sexual partnerships. However, other sexual risk variables and substance use were unchanged. CONCLUSION: Intensive AIDS education provided in jail can be useful in reducing certain HIV risk behaviors of criminally-involved male adolescents...

I know I'm a clutz at the inter net, but I couldn't find the data. It would be interesting to know what significant means. I'm guessing that it means that most of the participants did not alter their behavior.

 

Vietnam Study ...Although HIV education efforts have increased, there remains a need for proven effective programs. ...No significant difference was found for the construct of response cost at 6 months, and there were no significant differences for the constructs external and internal rewards... changes in actual behaviors could not be accurately measured. However, intention to use condoms in possible future sexual encounters increased significantly

Again the data aren't clear to me. However, it didn't sound like much happened.

 

Tanzania study ...During the study period, condom use increased from 15% at the beginning of 1993 to 42% at the end of 1996. Increases in condom use were driven both by men who became sexually active, and by men who were not yet protected, or not fully protected. The results further show that it is uncommon for men who adopted condom use to return to more risky behavior, which suggests that behavior change in the study population is permanent.

This is pretty good, but one might wonder about the 58% that learned but did not change their behavior.

 

Solution?

How's that gonna work? Firstly, I don't want to have less people, stabilizing the world population is good enough. Just as happens in western countries. Stop eating meat, because you're occuping more ecological space than when you're only eating vegetables. Secondly, to distribute food fairly among the countries is better than stopping the production.

 

I'm not against fair distribution. In fact I think that people have as much right to food and they do to air or water. Locking up the food is how the powers stay in power. I would like to see a reduction in the population. But that is something that will never be done on purpose. It will take catastrophe, famine, war, and plague -- like the Revelation predicts.

 

Humans... booh!

I'm a proud human, and I don't think so. Sorry.

I like your little title here.

 

You think that man was the purpose of evolution, or are we just taking over because we think maybe it is a good Idea, and we can, maybe. So far so good?

 

Indians

They were starving. Is hunting sustainable agriculture? Of course, they did die years after years before we even knew them. "Let them die!?"

Hunting can be sustainable hunting until your habitat is taken away. Why couldn't they hunt anymore? was the question.

 

Science is to blame for our stupid things

I disagree with you. Xianity, indeed, is not to blame for the stupid things xians do. It's only to blame for its inherent faults. Without evolution you couldn't formulate these sentences, but evolution isn't responsible for your sayings. In Europe we do have science and public transport. So, it's definitely not the fault of science if you'll driving yourself crazy. It's possible to live that far from someone's work that someone can bike the distance.

Oh sure Christianity is to blame for the stupid things Christians do that are tied to their religion: Pogroms, wiping out indigenous populations, justifying slavery, treating women as chattel, and the like. Science gives you the notion that because you can drive 25 miles to work, you should drive 25 miles to work. In the States driving kills 50,000 people/year and no one bats an eye, except for the families. I understand that terrorism killed about 5200 in the world in 2004 and that way smaller number makes people run around as if the sky is falling. In response we and Britain kill another 100,000. We kill more because our science is better. In Iraq our technology lets us kill 60 of them for every one of us. Tell me of one new technology that was not used because of the misery it would cause. Remember we have 13.5 quadrillion lethal does of plutonium, with a 1/2 life of 25,000 years. Don't you find that a bit insane?

 

Religion[/b

That sounds a bit religious doesn't it? You want people to be less reliant on religion while sustaining religion's basic tenant: "If only other people would be like me the world would be a wonderful place."

Other people were needed to get me thinking about these issues. You don't have to be like me. But, yes, please, think some things through. I'm relying on your abilities and have full confidence in you. Act as a proud, rational, empathic human!

 

what is the difference between this, "If everybody would think about the consequents of a few of his/her actions, the world would change" and this "If everybody just loved Jesus, the world would change"?

 

And you didn't answer my really cool question: Why is saying that better people will make a better world any less silly than saying that better bears will make a better world?.

[Saviourmachine]

Science & Language are means

My jury is still out on the value of science.  Science certainly makes exploitation more efficient.

Science does make so many things more efficient. As does the human intellect. As does language. That doesn't mean that language is not valuable. Someone can not miscommunicate if he/she can not communicate. But is communication to blame?

 

The Fall

Nevertheless, Energy output to energy input for production will fall dramatically.

Can you back up that claim? Does that include nuclear energy? How much room does nuclear waste occupy actually? Of course, this have to be investigated thoroughly. I, for myself, see already some possibilities for the (near) future, like dropping nuclear waste on our sun. I disagree strongly with dumping it in the sea or ecological terrible things like that.

 

New religion = ecological

I don't know where this faith in education comes from. I don't see that it is any different than any other faith. But yes I do know it is heresy to say so.

You know that I live in Holland. Overhere there are ecological freaks that have a new faith. One of them killed Pim Fortuyn that would have become our new premier. It's not heresy overhere, I'm afraid. I find dystopias even worse that utopias. And both are paralyzing. You can call my attitude faith-based, so can I call yours. That doesn't solve anything. (By the way, yours seems based on terror. )

 

Educational attack

Education is not about solving problems, it is about insuring that people know their place in the hierarchy.

Are you trying to educate me? You seems to educate me. But, education doesn't solve problems, isn't it? So, why are you doing that? It's like using reason to attack reason. You're using the means of education to attack education.

 

Education & condoms

I know I'm a clutz at the inter net, but I couldn't find the data. It would be interesting to know what significant means.  I'm guessing that it means that most of the participants did not alter their behavior.

I'm just picking some of the first entries of PubMed. You can use keywords "education" "HIV" e.g. and look for yourself. Try to find some articles with a 'significant' negative impact of eduction on condom use. It's your turn. 'Significant' is good enough for me.

 

The Dolphins

You think that man was the purpose of evolution, or are we just taking over because we think maybe it is a good Idea, and we can, maybe. So far so good?

No, not at all. Evolution process doesn't have purposes. It just happened to be like this. If dolphins had the opportunity to give way to their creativity, being able to change their environment, they had been in our place. They didn't got hands or things alike, so they didn't get the opportunity to create instruments, buildings, whatever. They didn't need to communicate as we had to do. They didn't need to develop a language, to develop their intellect.

I'm not saying that life is not good as a dolphin. Maybe the sexual interaction between dolphins developed significantly. I read somewhere for instance that they (male and female) were able to control their genitalia. Maybe you wish to be a dolphin. I hope you'll be happy again in your human body some time.

 

love will lead us, alright

love will lead us, she will lead us

can you hear the dolphin's cry?

see the road rise up to meet us

it's in the air we breathe tonight

love will lead us, she will lead us

 

life is like a shooting star

it don't matter who you are

if you only run for cover, it's just a waste of time

we are lost 'til we are found

this phoenix rises up from the ground

and all these wars are over over over over

Don't run for cover.

 

Indians

Why couldn't they hunt anymore? was the question.

They have always had high mortality rates. I don't know if these rates are increased. However, it certainly is an option that there is less wild life to hunt because of the growing human population also in the Bolivar state of Venezuela. I agree with you that unlimited growth is very bad for our earth.

 

Blame the System

Oh sure Christianity is to blame for the stupid things Christians do that are tied to their religion: Pogroms, wiping out indigenous populations, justifying slavery, treating women as chattel, and the like.

It's not. You can live like a mormon, like Amish, like a protestant, like a liberal xian. Firstly, the xian is to blame that he/she doesn't use his/her own brain. Van Gogh here got killed by a moslim fundamentalist. He is to blame. Of course, xianity and the islam do have their own systematic faults. If - for example - you derive from Lev. 11:20-23 that insects have to have four feet, and you're starting to cut of the two remaining feet of every insect you encounter, it's your responsability. At the other hand if it would have been written in the bible to do that, without any indication to do otherwise the bible would have been to blame.

 

Kill Science!

Science gives you the notion that because you can drive 25 miles to work, you should drive 25 miles to work. In the States driving kills 50,000 people/year and no one bats an eye, except for the families. I understand that terrorism killed about 5200 in the world in 2004 and that way smaller number makes people run around as if the sky is falling. In response we and Britain kill another 100,000. We kill more because our science is better. In Iraq our technology lets us kill 60 of them for every one of us. Tell me of one new technology that was not used because of the misery it would cause. Remember we have 13.5 quadrillion lethal does of plutonium, with a 1/2 life of 25,000 years. Don't you find that a bit insane?

It's insane to think that would you can do, you should do. I guess the 50,000 killed people/year you find a good thing!? The war was insane too, fault of your president IMHO. Cold wars are insane. All wars are.

 

Hope

Maybe the world wouldn't change... I'm relying on human abilities, not on the supernatural. But, I'm optimistic.

Bears aren't able to reason, but because you don't know reasons to find reason valuable, I can't make you to understand how humans are more valuable than bears. Also, ethics apply to human and not to bears (or beers). They have their own 'rules'. Is mankind created to the image of god, or does it deserve hell? I choose the former. We are the Gods, and we will reign justly. Not yet, but we'll learn. That's my hope for the future. It's not based on science, but on (wo)mankind.

[Cerise]

Someone can not miscommunicate if he/she can not communicate. But is communication to blame?

 

I'm sorry but this is the silliest thing I've ever heard you say. A lot of miscommunications occur because of the fact that someone does not know how to commincate. I would even venture that the majority of miscommunication occurs because people can not communicate with each other. If you aren't communication, you are by default miscommunicating. This is like saying someone can't drown if they can't swim.

 

Educational attack

Are you trying to educate me? You seems to educate me. But, education doesn't solve problems, isn't it? So, why are you doing that? It's like using reason to attack reason. You're using the means of education to attack education.

 

Oh great. Does this mean I can drag out "I know you are but what am I?" from the come back bin?

 

We are the Gods, and we will reign justly. Not yet, but we'll learn. That's my hope for the future. It's not based on science, but on (wo)mankind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And exactly how were we planning on doing that? Like we haven't been working that particular project for the past millenia or so...

 

Someone must have left a memo with the cavemen. "Learn to reign justly" and then the next generation said, "okay, when I get a round to it."

[Amanda]

My jury is still out on the value of science.  Science certainly makes exploitation more efficient.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think I know what you mean? People say science can be used for good, and it can be used for bad. The additional problem is when it is used out of ignorance, we usually don't find that out till its too late...

 

I don't know where this faith in education comes from.  I don't see that it is any different than any other faith.  But yes I do know it is heresy to say so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't know if this is what you are referring... yet I think a lot of 'education' is a myth. Some of the degrees, certifications, technical training to get many jobs is crazy! I've seen an LPN, who got her license back when apprenticeship programs were allowed, telling RNs what to do and how to do it... and they listen to her, and ask her many questions! Some people get chosen as managers from outside an organization because they have a degree... and I'm wondering how many more qualified people don't get the job from right there. No, they'll train the new guy with the degree. Of course learning is good, and I want my surgeon to have been formally trained, yet it just seems to be this great 'myth' put on a lot of formal education. Is that why you meant by this:

 

Education will not solve any problem.  Education is not about solving problems, it is about insuring that people know their place in the hierarchy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Saviourmachine]

Adjectives

I'm sorry but this is the silliest thing I've ever heard you say.  A lot of miscommunications occur because of the fact that someone does not know how to commincate.

You're using the sentence "can't communicate" in the sense of miscommunication. I can't communicate with the planet Pluto, so no miscommunication occurs. Someone can't stutter if s/he can't talk. Someone isn't a miserable swimmer if s/he isn't a swimmer. Of course s/he can drown, but that is not necessarily related to their swimming cabilities. Maybe this miscommunication occured because English isn't my mother tongue.

 

Attacking science & human intellect

Oh great. Does this mean I can drag out "I know you are but what am I?" from the come back bin?

I don't understand you. You can't attack science, eduction and human intellect on every ground.

 

Project

And exactly how were we planning on doing that? Like we haven't been working that particular project for the past millenia or so...

Not all the time. Even two generations back - my grandparents - couldn't receive the education intellectually challenging them. They had to build up our country from the war with Germany. Education is not a miraculous elixer that solves all world problems. Like Morris describes: we're like animals in a cage, in a zoo. We want our territories, fight or flight, need authority, need symbols of authority, etc. Science, human ratio didn't get enough time yet IMHO. And awareness of (environmental) problems does have to do with human intellect IMO.

 

Why are you bothering about the Earth? On what grounds? Because she is Beautiful? Because she is your Mother?

[Saviourmachine]

Are you sure about the last part?

I tried to be chef one step ahead.

 

I have my hopes to Nano Tech, but also fears of it.

Of course, utopias as well as distopias belong to the future's possibilities. But it's because chef is continuously kicking my arse and blaming science that I got upset.

[Cerise]

Why are you bothering about the Earth? On what grounds? Because she is Beautiful? Because she is your Mother?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Because we live here?

[Saviourmachine]

Because we live here?

What kind of reason is that?

 

1. That's a fact, not a reason.

2. Is the emphasis on 'we'? Is the earth valuable to worry about because we are on it?

3. Is the emphasis on 'live'? Is the earth valuable because the human race did survive until now accidently?

4. Is the emphasis on 'here'? If we lived somewhere else we couldn't care about this earth? Is it about not shitting in "our" "own" yard? Whatever place it is?

5. Because we live here on Earth, why not destroy it?

 

 

I like the earth, her beauty, her abundance. I like science, her beauty, her abundance. I see a beautiful future for them.

[Cerise]

What kind of reason is that?

 

1. That's a fact, not a reason.

 

Reporter: Mrs Persopolis, Why did you save your daughter from a burning building?

Mrs Persopolis: She's my daughter.

Reporter: That's a fact, not a reason.

Mrs Persopolis: *smacks reporter*

 

2. Is the emphasis on 'we'? Is the earth valuable to worry about because we are on it?

 

yes.

3. Is the emphasis on 'live'? Is the earth valuable because the human race did survive until now accidently?

 

yes.

 

4. Is the emphasis on 'here'? If we lived somewhere else we couldn't care about this earth? Is it about not shitting in "our" "own" yard? Whatever place it is?

 

yes.

 

5. Because we live here on Earth, why not destroy it?

 

Because that would be stupid. And not unlike these questions, if you'll forgive the bluntness. And probably even if you don't forgive the bluntness.

 

I like the earth, her beauty, her abundance. I like science, her beauty, her abundance. I see a beautiful future for them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well tra la la and smack the pansies. Is there a reason you needed to add this? Or was that just a fact?

[Cerise]

Adjectives

You're using the sentence "can't communicate" in the sense of miscommunication. I can't communicate with the planet Pluto, so no miscommunication occurs. Someone can't stutter if s/he can't talk. Someone isn't a miserable swimmer if s/he isn't a swimmer. Of course s/he can drown, but that is not necessarily related to their swimming cabilities. Maybe this miscommunication occured because English isn't my mother tongue.

 

Maybe it occured because we don't know how to communicate with each other.

 

Attacking science & human intellect

I don't understand you. You can't attack science, eduction and human intellect on every ground.

 

Great, I don't understand you either. Who the hell was doing any of that? Are we holding the same conversation or are there blanked out parts that my computer screen just isn't showing here?

 

Not all the time. Even two generations back - my grandparents - couldn't receive the education intellectually challenging them. They had to build up our country from the war with Germany. Education is not a miraculous elixer that solves all world problems. Like Morris describes: we're like animals in a cage, in a zoo. We want our territories, fight or flight, need authority, need symbols of authority, etc. Science, human ratio didn't get enough time yet IMHO. And awareness of (environmental) problems does have to do with human intellect IMO.

 

I thought we were talking about the knowledge of how to rule the earth. Humans have been pondering that one for an awfully long time. Long before WWII. Long before WWI. Long, long before.

 

Seriously, which conversation are you holding? I don't follow this train of your thought and I feel like I'm being abandoned at the station or something.

[Saviourmachine]

Reporter:  Mrs Persopolis, Why did you save your daughter from a burning building?

Mrs Persopolis:  She's my daughter.

Reporter:  That's a fact, not a reason.

Mrs Persopolis:  *smacks reporter*

You're funny. This is not the time to approach you, I think. I'm afraid the same fate awaits me.

 

Is there a reason you needed to add this?

Okay, okay. I'll give up. Whatever reason you state, it's okay. It's only not reason enough for me. One of the things I find very difficult: to decide how big the burden of proof has to be on each side.

[Christopher Carrion]

Just as a minor deviation from the current path of the topic, I think its important to point out that the notion of "evolution" does not function in diametric opposition to that of "God". Many of the Christians I have the dubious pleasure of debating with suffer from a particular intellectual cowardice whereby they automatically render all concepts and perspectives down to "matters of faith", thereby effectively establishing all things as no more or less valid than that of "God". Unfortunately for them, those of us with an ounce of critical capacity in our bodies know different. "Evolution" is a pre-existing and above all PHYSICALLY QUANTIFIABLE phenomena to which theories are applied. That said theories might be revealedf over time to have flaws is irrelevent; the phenomena itself would exist and continue to function regardless of whether there were theories pertaining to it or no. Therefore "Evolution" is no more a matter of faith than the post man is. The post man does not require "faith" or "belief" to be; he simply is, regardless of whether people choose to believe in him or no. "God" on the other hand is an abstract; it is a concept without ANY legitimate quantifiable or measurable existence, and therefore relies ENTIRELY upon "faith" and "belief" to maintian validity. The current vogue objection to "Evolution" from modern Christian churches is simply symptomatic of the same witless defensism that had Galilleo imprisoned and tortured for proclaiming his perspectives on cosmological process.

[Saviourmachine]

Great, I don't understand you either.  Who the hell was doing any of that? Are we holding the same conversation or are there blanked out parts that my computer screen just isn't showing here?

You chose to comment on this conversation with chef:

Education is not about solving problems, it is about insuring that people know their place in the hierarchy.

Read his remarks about science. That's why I defended the positive side of science and education.

 

I thought we were talking about the knowledge of how to rule the earth.

Not by means of power. I abhore politics & economics. But by means of science, education, intellect. (Not indoctrination etc.)

 

I feel like I'm being abandoned at the station or something.

How terrible!

[Cerise]

Whatever reason you state, it's okay. It's only not reason enough for me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why do I suddenly hear that theme from the 007 soundtrack, The World is Not Enough, in my head?

 

I think we're talking about different things here. When you say "education" I think you are referring to "gaining knowledge/wisdom". Whereas, when I see "education" I think "useless years of circling verbs and colouring in maps during public school".

[Guest Joseph]

You didn't answer my question. Let's assume that arson is responsible for more environmental damage than lightning.

 

Arson is less destructive over-all than lightning strikes.

Think about the vastness of wildlife preserves and the massive amounts of lightning strikes per year. Lightning is much more destructive than man-made fires overall.

 

Let's further assume that it is more easily preventable. Neither assumption is, I think, unreasonable.

 

I think that both lightning strikes and arson are virtually without prevention capabilities when you take into account the acres of land involved.

 

What man focuses on is early detection, location, and containment of fires (of either type).

 

Fires are not inherently bad either. You need to burn off the under-growth every so many years or you will have raging forest fires that go without the ability to control them in the long run. Many species of trees require forest fires to sprout new trees also various species do very well after a forest fire has taken place (black bears per example).

 

Should we or should we not focus our prevention efforts on arson?

 

We can't. There is no way we could afford the man-power needed to stop someone from droping a match in a secluded area. It [resources] would be much better spent in early detection and containment.

 

If you answer "yes", you are inconsistent with your making no distinction claim. If you answer "no", you are not a practical person.

-Rob

 

I won't get involved in you guys semantical arguments, but needless to say the above should at least clarify some basic facts about forestry and fire detection.

[Saviourmachine]

Progress

Progress is a human value that purports to be heading for perfection, yet appears to be as empty as belief in Christ.  Not that the attempt at progress doesn't make some of us very comfortable, but only at the expense of many other life forms including other humans.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was thinking about the concept 'progress'. I think progress in science is an artifact of starting with no knowledge. Just as any conceived progress in evolution is an artifact of the fact that life started simple.

 

Does that make any sense to you chef?