I'm sorry, but this is again just coming across as a word salad seasoned with decrees. You are very direct with your decrees, but very ethereal with your justifications of them. Perhaps some other compadre in the audience, if they can understand what you are saying, can reiterate your discussion points? Actually, I would agree with that. I have already made it quite clear, that setting up religion as some sort of competitor with science is just as silly as arguing for atheism on the strength of science. By the same measure, it is silly to bring science to a problem of ethics. If the current human civilization is facing a very real threat of consuming itself to a very premature death, it's not clear how further scientific advancement can solve that problem, nor how secularism plans to steer it from falling into a ditch. What new territory will science have to open up to discover the role austerity plays in being self controlled and satisfied?