humans are slowly killing themselves...

I was talking about the globalization of an institution, not the entire country. In any case, the US would still have had its own criminal court, so I'm not sure what you mean.

Besides, even the US's approach to the UN process has been done with bad faith, as recent events have illustrated.
 
All I see is crying and whining without fixing. This thread reminds me of Jesus, the weakest man on the planet.
 
Woh, you're right and2000x...

All anyone ever does on this discussion board is TALK!

Why do you suppose that is?

C'mon Sciforums! Less talk, more action! Uh... as soon as we get an action board.

(BTW... I'm getting tired of your religious references... weird how you're always accusing everyone of being a Christian though)
 
Because I'm a lunatic. I couldn't open my car door this morning because of the Christians! My mom just broke her spine because of the zionists at the ice rink!

But in reality, I'm working on a philosophy book and eating healthy, just to make myself and example of good human stock.
 
Aah! You seek to offend me with your religious references!:mad:
But, that one was kinda funny...:D
 
regarding topic title:
Dont worry we a getting better, sometime out in the future, we migth be able to blast away entire continents
 
HI:
THIS IS A VERY SADDENING NEWS. THEY SHOULD SPEED IT UP. WE MUST DELIVER THIS WORLD TO THE ANIMALS AND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE WE must SAY ...GOOD-BYE thanks:)
 
There is a book that talked about our current sitation as a species destroying ourselves and how to change that to create a better world. I urge everyone to read it, it is truly life changing and we need more people to be aware of the things that we can do to achieve a better world. It is called "The New Revelations" by Neale Donald Walsch.
 
Originally posted by korey
I mean, "we" not only destroy everything in sight, but we harvest everything to make way for new forms of pollution.
Click to expand...

Maybe our individual self-destructiveness is linked to this problem?
 
Humans have been changing the world for 8,000 years. New evidence suggests that human-induced climate change began with the dawn of agriculture. Perhaps it is our fate to go extinct like the dinasaurs. This would make way for the octopus to evolve into a space-faring species. Come on, they are more suited to space than us, and they communicate using visual patterns on their skin. I am certain that's what will happen. So, enjoy life while you can, burn all the gas you can, we will never get another chance.
 
What we need is an octopus-human hybrid! Unfortunately, all of my research in this area has been fruitless. Except for some very happy octopus.
 
"There are two reasons why I think we all need to get rid of the religion of environmentalism. "

Ahh, suicidal humans. I have this urge to go smack mr chrichton in the mouth. This religion is less harmful in some ways than the one devoted to money, or the ones debvoted to god, or the others based on country, or ethnicity, or free markets, etc.

"between 10-30 million people since the 1970s."

Well, that might be right, but then starvation, capitalism, war, etc etc have directly killed many more. There is no panacea, we are not omnipotent, anything you want to do will have unforeseen side effects, but I'd rather have an orientation that values us and the environment and encourages its preservation, than one which blindly accepts the status quo and thinks technology solves problems.
 
He's an advocate of environmentalism, just not in the extreme religious sense. We should be wary of our actions and know that they carry reactions but we shouldn't go crazy. There was no Eden of nonindustrialism and the Hell of depleted ozone layers and dried oil reserves is farther off than we all think.
 
Is he? the way that read he sounded like a carry on as normal, tehnology will sort everything out kind of person. There was indeed no non industrialism, except there was, because it wasnt industry they had more than 300 years ago, and their environmental impacts were negligible compared to ours.

AS for the ozone and the oil, depends who you talk to. YOuve heard of the hubber peak? I think thats what its called. Due around 5 years time. AS for the ozone, its not getting better very much faster. You might like to look up that aquifer in the midwest that is being depleted far far faster than its filling.

Actually this brings me to the same old point, which is that straight line extrapolation is silly, because technology changes. But also, expecting that technology to change advantageously is also a silly move.

Thinking back, it seems that Crichtons books have always to smoe extent been more about the technological wizardry and things science can do, rather than the human and non human side of things. Which makes them sf in my opinion, although where to draw the line between hard and soft is a problem.

"The notion that the natural world obeys its own rules and doesn't give a damn about your expectations comes as a massive shock."

hehehe, he got that bit right. Of course, the whole undercurrent of technology is that you try and make the natural world obey your rules.
 
Upon further reflection, what needles me about the article is that it reads more like all environmentlaists are nutters.

"But this time around, we need to get environmentalism out of the sphere of religion. We need to stop the mythic fantasies, and we need to stop the doomsday predictions. We need to start doing hard science instead. "

And i'm thinking, yeah, well, theres hordes of real scientists doing real research out there, backed up by proper, intelligent supporters and lobbys etc, and you just lumped them all together with the religious fundamentalist variety. Thats like me comparing all technology lovers to the people who think we should all encode our brains in digital and nanotech will solve all our problems, or the ones who never make any noises about the environemnt and only talk about money. And of course he is correct about apolitical stuff, except that you cant separate the environment from politics, because the environment is politics, about resources and who uses them in what way and who gets damaged by their use, etc. All you can do is use the ebst science and try and work out least cost courses.

oh well, at least he makes good sense in the last couple of paragraphs.
 
Positive eugenics...????

Originally posted by KitNyx
[]Thank you for putting all of those words "into my mouth". I do not think what I wrote pointed to the conclusions you drew, but just in case let me clarify - Malignant genes - diabetes, color blindedness, etc. Genetic Screening of fetuses and genetic manipulation/ gene therapy to fix these. I am a Darwinist, not a supremist.
Click to expand...


Through genetic counseling, carriers and those afflicted can be advised of the potential risk of passing the disease on to their offspring and then make an educated decision about whether to reproduce or not. Using the scientific tools at hand voluntarily and choosing freely whether to act on that information or not, we, now, more than any other time, have an opportunityto change nature as we see fit.

This paragraph from this link

22 000 hits on google, re: positive eugenics

Btw, I support the eradication of undesirable genes, but don't believe that there are genes for poverty and other conditions of mans laziness/apathy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top