Is It Time To Consider The Commandment "Be Fruitful And Multiply" Fulfilled?

[krsnaraja]

thank you for your kind efforts :sarcastic

You`re welcome not nom! Your neighbor`s dog`s penis you place glue on have mated with your dog!

 

[Father Heathen]

...the ****?

 

[krsnaraja]

...the ****?

The two dogs ( not nom`s & his neighbor) became Siamese twins.

 

[Magic Man]

Why do people get so mad at me when I point out the realities of the situation at hand?

No one's getting mad at that/ We're annoyed by your attitude and the fact that you're so convinced of your false beliefs.

You guys are acting just like orthodox Christians do when their beliefs get questioned.

Hey, whatever you need to tell yourself to get through the day. Although the reality is that it's you who is having their beliefs questioned and getting upset about it. We're just pointing out that you're wrong. It's OK if you can't handle that, though.

 

[not nom]

your false beliefs

just stating that doesn't constitute an argument.

Hey, whatever you need to tell yourself to get through the day. Although the reality is that it's you who is having their beliefs questioned and getting upset about it. We're just pointing out that you're wrong. It's OK if you can't handle that, though.

you're not pointing out anything, you're just being unintentionally funny

 

[Photonic]

just stating that doesn't constitute an argument.



you're not pointing out anything, you're just being unintentionally funny

I think his point about her being so convinced of the obvious falsehood is that, ironically, if enough people believed like her she would be correct.


Thankfully very few do.

 

[not nom]

all she's saying is that in the context of our resource mismanagement, space travel will not be there in time to make any difference.

nobody is head on debating that. it's a point that still stands, unrefuted. you get hung up on the "not ever", as if that matters. as if that would address the unrefuted, valid point.

so sure, she may or may not be wrong about the "not ever". so? how does that matter? how does squabbling about this help? so you can have a scapegoat? that's so medieval ^^

 

[Photonic]

all she's saying is that in the context of our resource mismanagement, space travel will not be there in time to make any difference.

nobody is head on debating that. it's a point that still stands, unrefuted. you get hung up on the "not ever", as if that matters. as if that would address the unrefuted, valid point.

so sure, she may or may not be wrong about the "not ever". so? how does that matter? how does squabbling about this help? so you can have a scapegoat? that's so medieval ^^

Failed argument so you resort to putting words in my mouth? Is that really necessary?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

No one's getting mad at that/ We're annoyed by your attitude and the fact that you're so convinced of your false beliefs.



Hey, whatever you need to tell yourself to get through the day. Although the reality is that it's you who is having their beliefs questioned and getting upset about it. We're just pointing out that you're wrong. It's OK if you can't handle that, though.

What false beliefs? You guys think that just because I don't buy into your geeky little Star Trek that I have violayed one of the most sacred tenets of your faith.

 

[work in progress]

How many people can fit in the space station? Not all of us that's for sure. As for the Hardon supercollider...how many people is that going to fed?

All those endeavors in the end are meaningless when you have a ecosystem that is changing so drastically that it might not be able to sustain us.

Wait a minute...the Hardon collider!!!....I hope that's just a spelling mistake...sounds like something that would be very painful!

Seriously, I agree with you basic assessment of delusional pro-techies who think that Moore's Law applies to everything besides computers, and a rabbit can be pulled out of a hat to save us from destruction....but I don't agree with trashing fundamental, basic research on science and technology. We wouldn't have computers or pretty much any electronic device that exists today if it wasn't for the development of quantum mechanics -- which was carried out by dedicated physicists who were motivated by the desire to push the boundaries of knowledge further and discover the secrets of the Universe. From what I understand of the lives of Heisenberg, Schrodinger or Nils Bohr, and others who worked on the development of theoretical physics -- there were no Bill Gates's or Steve Jobs's, who enriched themselves by selling applications of their discoveries! They lived comfortable, academic lives similar to most scientists today who conduct basic scientific research -- and just happen to be the ones who are the most at risk of having their funding cut.

Today, many astronomers, physicists, neuroscientists, paleontologists, biologists, and others, have to take time away from research to lobby for funding, and try to develop more public awareness of science. Not that I don't appreciate all the books written for the general, non-academic audience -- but the quest for knowledge and greater understanding should receive more funding than it currently receives, and we should keep on building the biggest atom smashers that are practical, to push the boundaries of understanding further.

 

[work in progress]

See: pessimism.

You discover things by attempting change.

And you do realize there's an international (human species) space station, right? Hadron supercollider? Fusion? I guess we should just give up these endeavors?

Look, we likely will not see it happen in our lifetimes, but the possibility is there. Please take your pessimistic ever from the discussion. (Which has gotton way off topic).

I see irrational optimism as a greater threat than pessimism. That was one of the issues (among many) that make me get nauseous every time I listen to Al Gore's stupid advice on the environment! His so called moderate, or green initiatives approach is supposedly based on the concern that too much bad information will cause panic and denial among the population...so you have to spoonfeed them carefully selected bites on info, along with easy solutions to wash it down. Needless to say, the former vice president has profited himself substantially from his carbon offsets/carbon trading ideas, but he and the other green capitalists are totally out to lunch about how to deal with these issues!

I should have kept a link for a psychology study I came across a week ago that came to the conclusions that the majority of people are more optimistic about their futures and their abilities than they deserve to be...and many who suffer depressive illnesses have the most realistic self-assessments. This sort of irrational exhuberance may have served us well in the past, for escaping dangers and threats that were immediate and near-term, but in the last few years, as I have become aware of the scale and scope of our environmental problems, the most difficult issue for me to grasp is how dense most people are about the implications of these threats! It's just not sinking in to most people

That said, to the OP: I think the bigger issue is that technology has allowed humans to live (much) longer than they have in the past, not that we continue to bring life into existence.

I have to get ready for a job interview, more later.

Good luck with the interview! But there are problems with a lot of the longevity ideas coming from transhumanists and other groups...starting with the fact that in our current, grossly unequal world, it will almost certainly lead to a small class of wealthy, healthy rulers of society, who also have the benefit of living virtually forever! While the vast majority will not be able to afford, let alone be offered the chance to increase their lives.

 

[not nom]

Failed argument so you resort to putting words in my mouth? Is that really necessary?

coming up with stuff like "time to get off this stupid rock" you better be grateful haha

 

[not nom]

But there are problems with a lot of the longevity ideas coming from transhumanists and other groups...starting with the fact that in our current, grossly unequal world, it will almost certainly lead to a small class of wealthy, healthy rulers of society, who also have the benefit of living virtually forever! While the vast majority will not be able to afford, let alone be offered the chance to increase their lives.

It wasn't the "European banks" that got hurt from the mortgage-backed bunkum. They were made whole to the tune of 100 cents on the dollar. The people who are paying for it are the same ones that are paying for it over here. You and me. Our parents. Our kids.

They are creating a "breakaway" culture, who within decades will be the only ones with access to capital, to new technologies, to advanced health care. That's the ultimate effect of the dramatic increase in wealth disparity. Fifty years of this and they'll be as far ahead of the rest of us as the American settlers were of the Native Americans. When two cultures exist side-by-side and one is so far in advance of the other, it doesn't work out well for the ones on the bottom. We are seeing evolutionary branching based on wealth alone.

Time to leave this stupid rock.

That's not ever going to happen.

For who?

No man is an Island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.

5chars

 

[meogi]

I see irrational optimism as a greater threat than pessimism.

Funny how most things in excess are not beneficial.

I don't inherently see optimism or pessimism as a threat to anything... they are outlooks and, thankfully, tend not to affect progress. I do think that people benefit from being more optimistic than pessimistic, however. This idea comes from placebo studies and such; things tend to get and be better if we think they will.

Good luck with the interview!

Thanks! Went very well.

But there are problems with a lot of the longevity ideas coming from transhumanists and other groups...starting with the fact that in our current, grossly unequal world, it will almost certainly lead to a small class of wealthy, healthy rulers of society, who also have the benefit of living virtually forever! While the vast majority will not be able to afford, let alone be offered the chance to increase their lives.

I think someone saw In Time.

I'm not sold on that idea, but I still believe a lot of our current (food) consumption problems stem from our increasing lifespans.

 

[krsnaraja]

Wait a minute...the Hardon collider!!!....I hope that's just a spelling mistake...sounds like something that would be very painful!

Seriously, I agree with you basic assessment of delusional pro-techies who think that Moore's Law applies to everything besides computers, and a rabbit can be pulled out of a hat to save us from destruction....but I don't agree with trashing fundamental, basic research on science and technology. We wouldn't have computers or pretty much any electronic device that exists today if it wasn't for the development of quantum mechanics -- which was carried out by dedicated physicists who were motivated by the desire to push the boundaries of knowledge further and discover the secrets of the Universe. From what I understand of the lives of Heisenberg, Schrodinger or Nils Bohr, and others who worked on the development of theoretical physics -- there were no Bill Gates's or Steve Jobs's, who enriched themselves by selling applications of their discoveries! They lived comfortable, academic lives similar to most scientists today who conduct basic scientific research -- and just happen to be the ones who are the most at risk of having their funding cut.

Today, many astronomers, physicists, neuroscientists, paleontologists, biologists, and others, have to take time away from research to lobby for funding, and try to develop more public awareness of science. Not that I don't appreciate all the books written for the general, non-academic audience -- but the quest for knowledge and greater understanding should receive more funding than it currently receives, and we should keep on building the biggest atom smashers that are practical, to push the boundaries of understanding further.

Scientists never learn. That one can travel space through the mind & soul. One can levitate like the great Souls. The bodies can`t stand even when it is at high altitude or thousands of fathoms deep in the ocean. It will suffocate or explode. So, it has to build spaceships to go to other planets? When the funding in building this so-called atom smashers should have spent in building more schools, payments for mentors & salaries for the admin. Why don`t scientists explorre the universe within the body & try to spend more on how to cure diseases like cancer.

 

[krsnaraja]

Scientists never learn. That one can travel space through the mind & soul. One can levitate like the great Souls. The bodies can`t stand even when it is at high altitude or thousands of fathoms deep in the ocean. It will suffocate or explode. So, it has to build spaceships to go to other planets? When the funding in building this so-called atom smashers & spaceships should have been spent in building more schools, payments for mentors & salaries for the admin. Why don`t scientists explore the universe within the body & try to spend more on how to cure diseases like cancer.

I hate the scientists who built the atom bombs & then dropped them at Hiroshima & Nagasaki, Japan.

 

[Photonic]

I hate the scientists who built the atom bombs & then dropped them at Hiroshima & Nagasaki, Japan.

Except all the scientists were the ones against the use of it.

Another misuse of science for politics.

 

[Photonic]

5chars

Well, thanks for providing supporting quotation I guess.

 

[meogi]

Overpopulation and Extinction

Could be that we're able to take records of enormous amounts of data now and analyze it. I do know a large portion of fish are grown to be eaten. And that's why we have limits on what people can catch. We are attempting to remedy the situation.

oh, and we've come so far that people can call earth a "stupid rock" without even considering to wash their mouth with soap, OR how incredibly stupid that is (hint: earth is the only known planetoid which is NOT just a stupid rock). awesome.

Who's saying that?

and where are the pollinating insects are going? anyone found something out yet? seeing how we know there are problems, and are "working on them".

I don't know, I'm not one of the people studying it. If I had to guess, I'd say it had something to do with the availability of the knowledge. Colony collapse has always happened, and I'd think the 'increase' is due to the farmers being able to share it so quickly with everyone else.

I have not ever heard any meaningful proposals when it comes to trends as the ones quoted above, or the gap between rich and poor, or our financial system which always has more debt than there is money in it to pay it with, thanks to interest.

Really? Never? I find that hard to believe, but if I had to guess it's because it's difficult to organize a huge group of people without a leader. Which is normally where this 'gap' starts. Life tends to organize itself in a hierarchy. Inequality seems built into the system. But technology has reached a point where we can actually start changing that norm. That's why I think they will be solved. This 99% movement is a testament to that.

it's not a scientific problem. scientists have the insight, but they don't have the leverage, the power so to speak. they are free to give their advice, and usually perfectly safe to ignore when it comes to quartal profits or demagoguery.
we have the food to feed everybody. we just don't give it to them. instead: iraq war and debts for future generations. woo.

Agreed.

you said "look how far we came", but I asked about social and political progress. I'm aware of the technology. I just say bollocks to it when it's for the benefit of a few.

The technology I was referring to wasn't benefiting only a few. It's that tech that has allowed us to come together. It's that tech that we even know something is wrong. It's that tech that will help us find a solution.

all other things remaining how they are now, that is what would effectively happen. it's still how aesop put it, "we hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to high office". only now we can do it with optic fibers in real time. neat!

And what I'm trying to get across is that I doubt we'll continue to do that. We're at a pivotal point.

sure, I'm a cynic. but I don't argue for apathy, I just find wide eyed dreaming appalling, and what some suggest about the near future, people in the 50's suggested about the 2000's. it didn't happen. let's wake the **** up already and deal with the problem right in front of our nose, ourselves.

I'm not a cynic, but I agree 100%. I'm pretty sure that's what we're working on solving (along with the myriad of other problems).

 

[Photonic]

Except that the computer is the technology that came even further than they predicted we would be in the 50's. Not to mention far, far more powerful.

So in a way we are further than we thought we would be technologically in the 50's.