Why science is better than religion...

[Riverwolf]

If there is something that is giving me great existential anxiety in recent years, it is the growing realization that the human race is heading towards possible extinction - according to some experts in as little as a hundred or two hundred years, because of the combined effects of overpopulation, climate change, and over-consumption of available resources. What a waste!

I think you can put your mind at rest. One thing those people seem to fail to take into account is that humans are, by nature, VERY adaptable. It's why we're so successful. Even if all societies collapse, there'll still be people alive to rebuild.

Aum namah sivaya :namaste

 

[work in progress]

I think you can put your mind at rest. One thing those people seem to fail to take into account is that humans are, by nature, VERY adaptable. It's why we're so successful. Even if all societies collapse, there'll still be people alive to rebuild.

Aum namah sivaya :namaste

If the crisis was a storm that we have to ride out, I might be able to agree with you. The problem is there are looming threats that we have no idea how severe they will be - like all the nuclear warheads that are still out there just waiting for someone to do something stupid. For some reason, since the end of the Cold War and the drawdown in the number of missiles the U.S. and Russia have pointed at each other, everyone has totally forgotten about the nuclear threat.

And when it comes to climate change - this is something that we could vaguely see coming on the horizon 30 years ago, but as more and more evidence has informed us of the degree and scope of danger, a well financed disinformation campaign by energy conglomerates has made it impossible to take any collective action to reduce carbon emissions.

As we move through this century and look forward to 450+ppm CO2 levels, the only thing in the past that we can compare the present with the past is the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum of 55 million years ago. And even here we're in uncharted territory, because The rate of release of carbon into the atmosphere today is nearly 10 times as fast as during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), 55.9 million years ago. Some of the deniers today claim that the relatively low level of extinctions during the PETM mean we can just adapt to the changes we are causing now.

The first obvious problem is that adaptation will have to occur 10 times as fast as during the PETM, and there wasn't a huge human population on Earth 55 million years ago with cities, roads and other infrastructure, blocking the path for animal migrations to the north!

And what about us? We have almost 7 billion people on Earth today; are they all going to fit in Canada and Russia a hundred or two hundred years from now? My country will sure be alot more crowded!

What is especially alarming, is that after just assuming that global warming deniers were just rightwing ideologues afraid of international cooperation and a larger role for government, I pick up a book two years ago by foreign policy correspondent Gwyn Dyer "Climate Wars" and learn that most of the people he talked with at high levels of the Bush Administration were well aware of the threat, and expecting huge populations shifts or mass migrations, failed states, diminishing world-wide food production, and disease epidemics as a result of the impending changes that could start taking effect as little as ten years from now.

What I wished Dyer could have explored more was the motivations of these people at high levels of government and business. If they clearly see the problem, why are they okay with doing nothing about it? They are clearly taking the "adaptation" approach, but they know full well that there is not going to be enough food and resources for everyone, and everybody isn't going to fit into Canada 100 years from now, even when all the ice melts! To me, this means that assumption of the green movements - that we're all in this together, is not shared by the elites who rule the world. If they are young enough, they have personal plans for the future we are mostly unaware of; and in the longer term, they are making plans that their descendents are among the lucky few survivors, while most of the World's population, especially in the poorer nations in the Tropics become uninhabitable.

The environmental movements are motivated by a kind of universalism that only appears on the left wing of the political spectrum. While the various right wing groups are following the usual selfish strategy of me-first lifeboat ethics. Maybe all this is why I'm bucking the usual trend, and becoming more radical as I get older. A cooperative approach at least has a chance of ensuring future survival, while the rightwingers may find their "life boat" tipped over by desperate millions fighting to be among the survivors.

It's also interesting how religion can be used to support both universal and selfish strategies. Once again, religion could be a force for good, or a justification for genocide. It also doesn't help the majority if it feeds a complacent attitude that God will just come down and fix everything.

Damn! I had to remove my links...something about a 15 post threshold.

 

[Adonis65]

I love the sciences, and so does God. He is, afterall, the greatest scientific mind in all of history. :yes:

 

[Riverwolf]

If the crisis was a storm that we have to ride out, I might be able to agree with you. The problem is there are looming threats that we have no idea how severe they will be - like all the nuclear warheads that are still out there just waiting for someone to do something stupid. For some reason, since the end of the Cold War and the drawdown in the number of missiles the U.S. and Russia have pointed at each other, everyone has totally forgotten about the nuclear threat.

And when it comes to climate change - this is something that we could vaguely see coming on the horizon 30 years ago, but as more and more evidence has informed us of the degree and scope of danger, a well financed disinformation campaign by energy conglomerates has made it impossible to take any collective action to reduce carbon emissions.

As we move through this century and look forward to 450+ppm CO2 levels, the only thing in the past that we can compare the present with the past is the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum of 55 million years ago. And even here we're in uncharted territory, because The rate of release of carbon into the atmosphere today is nearly 10 times as fast as during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), 55.9 million years ago. Some of the deniers today claim that the relatively low level of extinctions during the PETM mean we can just adapt to the changes we are causing now.

The first obvious problem is that adaptation will have to occur 10 times as fast as during the PETM, and there wasn't a huge human population on Earth 55 million years ago with cities, roads and other infrastructure, blocking the path for animal migrations to the north!

And what about us? We have almost 7 billion people on Earth today; are they all going to fit in Canada and Russia a hundred or two hundred years from now? My country will sure be alot more crowded!

What is especially alarming, is that after just assuming that global warming deniers were just rightwing ideologues afraid of international cooperation and a larger role for government, I pick up a book two years ago by foreign policy correspondent Gwyn Dyer "Climate Wars" and learn that most of the people he talked with at high levels of the Bush Administration were well aware of the threat, and expecting huge populations shifts or mass migrations, failed states, diminishing world-wide food production, and disease epidemics as a result of the impending changes that could start taking effect as little as ten years from now.

What I wished Dyer could have explored more was the motivations of these people at high levels of government and business. If they clearly see the problem, why are they okay with doing nothing about it? They are clearly taking the "adaptation" approach, but they know full well that there is not going to be enough food and resources for everyone, and everybody isn't going to fit into Canada 100 years from now, even when all the ice melts! To me, this means that assumption of the green movements - that we're all in this together, is not shared by the elites who rule the world. If they are young enough, they have personal plans for the future we are mostly unaware of; and in the longer term, they are making plans that their descendents are among the lucky few survivors, while most of the World's population, especially in the poorer nations in the Tropics become uninhabitable.

The environmental movements are motivated by a kind of universalism that only appears on the left wing of the political spectrum. While the various right wing groups are following the usual selfish strategy of me-first lifeboat ethics. Maybe all this is why I'm bucking the usual trend, and becoming more radical as I get older. A cooperative approach at least has a chance of ensuring future survival, while the rightwingers may find their "life boat" tipped over by desperate millions fighting to be among the survivors.

It's also interesting how religion can be used to support both universal and selfish strategies. Once again, religion could be a force for good, or a justification for genocide. It also doesn't help the majority if it feeds a complacent attitude that God will just come down and fix everything.

Damn! I had to remove my links...something about a 15 post threshold.

I didn't say there wouldn't be mass death. If civilization collapses, we can expect the majority population to die. But that's the thing: there's so many of us that I can't see us becoming totally extinct, sans every single nuclear warhead exploding at the same time.

Besides, I remember when Mexico City had to shut down because of, I think the bird flu, after only a few days, the air became cleaner than anyone there could remember.

 

[idea]

"religious without science is blind, science without religion is lame" - Einstein.

 

[work in progress]

I didn't say there wouldn't be mass death. If civilization collapses, we can expect the majority population to die.

That is a chilling thought...especially considering that virtually nothing is being done to avoid a looming disaster that should be obvious for most everyone to see. The next question is: will a massive die-off of the human race be an accidental secondary effect of inaction, or could it be a deliberate policy of neglect by some extremely wealthy and powerful players in the World, who recognize that there are too many people for the amount of resources available, and are already deciding who will get to move north and be among the winners of a coming struggle for survival?

Whether it's deliberate or not, the prospect of human extinction is what provides my existential angst; not eventual death, or being alone in the Universe; it's the possibility according to some biologists or ecologists who specialize in the study of extinctions, that the human race could become extinct, and all of the science, technology - especially the just started venture into space, would end up with no lasting value.

On that last point - back when I was young, we took it as a given that there would be permanent space colonies in orbit and on the moon by now, and we would be already sending manned flights to Mars. So, it seemed that if we did destroy the Earth, at least there would be a remnant of the human race exploring and settling on other worlds....sure doesn't look like it will get started in time, now!

But that's the thing: there's so many of us that I can't see us becoming totally extinct, sans every single nuclear warhead exploding at the same time.

I'm only a science fan, not a scientist, so I have little to go on, except the expert opinion that threatened animal populations which experience a die-off can cascade right to complete extinction, as disease, in-breeding and other factors eventually weaken the species enough to cause complete extinction. It seems unlikely now, with 7 billion of us all over the Earth, but consider how fast thriving species like the Passenger Pidgeon or the American Bison went from untold millions to complete gone in just a few decades.

 

[idav]

I'm only a science fan, not a scientist, so I have little to go on, except the expert opinion that threatened animal populations which experience a die-off can cascade right to complete extinction, as disease, in-breeding and other factors eventually weaken the species enough to cause complete extinction. It seems unlikely now, with 7 billion of us all over the Earth, but consider how fast thriving species like the Passenger Pidgeon or the American Bison went from untold millions to complete gone in just a few decades.

One thing to consider is our ability to survive just about anywhere in the world. We would survive a cataclysmic mass extinction no matter if it is nature or man-made. If humans were around the time of the dinosaurs we would have survived along side the alligators and would have made it through the ice ages and whatever else the earth had to throw at us. It makes me believe we will survive for millions of years as long as we don't inadvertently sterelize ourselves.

 

[fantome profane]

If I desire healing (well being, and/or peace), I go with spirituality. If I want (mere) treatment, I go to medical science. Great to have both.

The science of neurology is still in its infancy, but like any infant it is growing and developing at a fantastic rate. I predict that in the not distant future science will have an answer to the question of how to provide emotional well-being and inner peace that is superior to anything that religion has so far provided.

 

[Riverwolf]

That is a chilling thought...especially considering that virtually nothing is being done to avoid a looming disaster that should be obvious for most everyone to see. The next question is: will a massive die-off of the human race be an accidental secondary effect of inaction, or could it be a deliberate policy of neglect by some extremely wealthy and powerful players in the World, who recognize that there are too many people for the amount of resources available, and are already deciding who will get to move north and be among the winners of a coming struggle for survival?

Whether it's deliberate or not, the prospect of human extinction is what provides my existential angst; not eventual death, or being alone in the Universe; it's the possibility according to some biologists or ecologists who specialize in the study of extinctions, that the human race could become extinct, and all of the science, technology - especially the just started venture into space, would end up with no lasting value.

That's going to happen, anyway, whether in ten years or ten thousand years.

I'm only a science fan, not a scientist, so I have little to go on, except the expert opinion that threatened animal populations which experience a die-off can cascade right to complete extinction, as disease, in-breeding and other factors eventually weaken the species enough to cause complete extinction. It seems unlikely now, with 7 billion of us all over the Earth, but consider how fast thriving species like the Passenger Pidgeon or the American Bison went from untold millions to complete gone in just a few decades.

Yes, the Passenger Pigeon is extinct, but the American Bison is still around.

Nature is more likely to cause our extinction than we are, I think. After all, Yellowstone is due for an eruption, and if it's as big as scientists think it could be, we can all say bye-bye to America and Canada. There's also at least one asteroid we know of that has a VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY SMALL chance of hitting us in 2037, and if it does, I think it's said that it could cause our extinction. Not many nuclear explosions have reached the magnitude of the Tunguska explosion (in fact, I'm not sure if any of them did), which was natural.

I've kind of stopped worrying about it and just live my life as best as I can. It's all I can do, as I'm not in power.

 

[idav]

Nature is more likely to cause our extinction than we are, I think.

This is true but the funny thing is if we cause extinctions it is still nature being mean to itself as usual. One of our biggest foes are those microscopic buggers. Hopefully we don't have any viruses getting any huge evolutionary advantages that we aren't able to handle.

 

[Acim]

The science of neurology is still in its infancy, but like any infant it is growing and developing at a fantastic rate. I predict that in the not distant future science will have an answer to the question of how to provide emotional well-being and inner peace that is superior to anything that religion has so far provided.

I'd be willing to wager on this. If you stand by your prediction, I'd think you'd make a bet such as this.

This is part where you claim "not to distant future" meant 700 years in your statement above.

Even then, I'd still make the wager.

 

[idav]

I'd be willing to wager on this. If you stand by your prediction, I'd think you'd make a bet such as this.

This is part where you claim "not to distant future" meant 700 years in your statement above.

Even then, I'd still make the wager.

They are already figuring out how to produce well being by stimulating certain parts of the brain. They even made the god helmet which gives us the feeling that we are in touch with the higher power. It isn't as far off as you think, in fact it's around the corner.

 

[Riverwolf]

They are already figuring out how to produce well being by stimulating certain parts of the brain. They even made the god helmet which gives us the feeling that we are in touch with the higher power. It isn't as far off as you think, in fact it's around the corner.

Honestly, I think the religion side would still be better in the long run, because you'll be able to have the ability to evoke these feelings yourself, without the aid of external devices. (Or so the Sages claim.)

 

[idav]

Honestly, I think the religion side would still be better in the long run, because you'll be able to have the ability to evoke these feelings yourself, without the aid of external devices. (Or so the Sages claim.)

I agree but for some it is rather difficult to meditate their way out of depression. There needs to be a balance as some physical ailments need to be treated with a little more force.

 

[fantome profane]

I'd be willing to wager on this. If you stand by your prediction, I'd think you'd make a bet such as this.

This is part where you claim "not to distant future" meant 700 years in your statement above.

Even then, I'd still make the wager.

I was thinking more like ten years, twenty at the outside. And I would not be surprised if it began to happen much sooner than that.


I can think of no practical way of actually making a wager over the internet with someone I don’t actually know, and I am not really interested in literally doing so. But I stand by my prediction, confidently.


But I don’t wish to come off as anti-religious here either. Religion is where science should and will start to look. I think that science will begin to seriously look into the claims made by certain religions about providing inner peace. We can methodically and systematically study these claims to determine which of these claims are effective, and under what conditions.


The technology that we now have to study a functioning brain is absolutely incredible and the results are going to be amazing.

 

[work in progress]

One thing to consider is our ability to survive just about anywhere in the world. We would survive a cataclysmic mass extinction no matter if it is nature or man-made. If humans were around the time of the dinosaurs we would have survived along side the alligators and would have made it through the ice ages and whatever else the earth had to throw at us. It makes me believe we will survive for millions of years as long as we don't inadvertently sterelize ourselves.

Yeah, I'll bet the dinosaurs thought they were going to survive too! It took almost a million years for all of the dinosaur species to completely become extinct, and if our descendents are going to survive in the longterm, they will have to put a halt to the ecological destruction we are causing now, and still adapt to worsening conditions for at least a hundred thousand years...anyone's guess if there will be healthy, breeding populations large enough to maintain the genetic diversity to carry on after the end of the Anthropocene Era.

I hate to be the one carrying the sign "The End Is Near," but your faith that invention and technological progress will save us from killing ourselves has no basis other than wishful thinking. The media promulgates a blind faith in economic and technological progress, as something inevitable and irreversible. I think the biggest offenders are economists, who will be the downfall of civilization, because their theories are based on humans being rational creatures that will use the precautionary principle to act in their collective interests....so far, I'm not seeing much evidence for this!

 

[idav]

Yeah, I'll bet the dinosaurs thought they were going to survive too! It took almost a million years for all of the dinosaur species to completely become extinct, and if our descendents are going to survive in the longterm, they will have to put a halt to the ecological destruction we are causing now, and still adapt to worsening conditions for at least a hundred thousand years...anyone's guess if there will be healthy, breeding populations large enough to maintain the genetic diversity to carry on after the end of the Anthropocene Era.

I hate to be the one carrying the sign "The End Is Near," but your faith that invention and technological progress will save us from killing ourselves has no basis other than wishful thinking. The media promulgates a blind faith in economic and technological progress, as something inevitable and irreversible. I think the biggest offenders are economists, who will be the downfall of civilization, because their theories are based on humans being rational creatures that will use the precautionary principle to act in their collective interests....so far, I'm not seeing much evidence for this!

You have missed my point. Dinosaurs are obviously not a species that could survive everything thrown at them in comparison to the smaller animals like cockroaches or alligators. I'm not saying that our technology will save us either. I'm saying that we are a species that can survive in just about any circumstance better than any other animal on the earth. We will survive even if we are thrown back to the stone age. Though if there is something strong enough to kill off even cockroaches we would definitely dwindle in numbers but still not impossible to survive just because of our evolutionary advantages. We find a way to survive which is the whole idea of evolution. Those who don't find a way to survive go extinct. Also the downfall of civilization has nothing to do with us going extinct. You really think we need a good banking system to survive another million years?

 

[work in progress]

That's going to happen, anyway, whether in ten years or ten thousand years.
Yes, the Passenger Pigeon is extinct, but the American Bison is still around.

Yes, the Bison is still around, but not exactly as a wild species any longer. If you want a better example of human-caused extinctions and destruction of environment, take a look at the IPSO report on the world's oceans that came out about a month ago.

Nature is more likely to cause our extinction than we are, I think. After all, Yellowstone is due for an eruption, and if it's as big as scientists think it could be, we can all say bye-bye to America and Canada.

You must be joking? We have added 40% to atmospheric CO2 levels in the last century, and even if we brought the increase to a halt now, it will take thousands of years before the changes we have set in place are undone. It's a given that the Arctic Ocean will completely melt in a few decades, and the Greenland ice sheets as well. If we keep on our present course (and there's no sign that we are stopping any time soon), there will be a remnant of the human race clustered around the Arctic Circle in a century or two, clinging to survival. And I haven't even mentioned the nuclear threat that hasn't gone away.

There are changes we have made, which have never been factors in previous times of great changes that caused past extinctions. For example, a lot of the adaptation type of climate change deniers, such as Bjorn Lomborg, toss up the PETM of about 55 million years ago, as an example of a similar time of great sudden atmospheric changes that didn't cause many land species extinctions. But, during the PETM, there were no roads, cities, or large human populations, standing in the way of animal migrations...and there sure is now! Some of the extinctions and near extinctions that have happened already are linked to the barriers we have put in the way of normal, animal migrations. Long story short, one of the key factors working against our future odds is the plant and animal extinctions we are causing from our impact on the environment. We don't know how much of the natural biosphere we need for our survival, and we might not find out until it is too late.

As for that Yellowstone Caldera; we probably don't have to worry about it that much, since the caldera is moving over a thicker region of the continental plate, which make it less subject to volcanic activity as time goes on.

I've kind of stopped worrying about it and just live my life as best as I can. It's all I can do, as I'm not in power.

If there was a collective attention on the environment, like there was 40 years ago, it wouldn't take a lot of individual effort. It's hard to believe that a little over 40 years ago, the first Earth Day was a pivotal event featuring major Congressmen as speakers; and Richard Nixon took note and created the EPA which today's Republicans are trying to dismantle. Nixon didn't act because he was an environmentalist! He was a typical Republican...but a pragmatic Republican, who had to bring in some reforms that the corporate interests in the Republican Party said were job-killers. The problem today is that apathy, resignation or just plain wishful thinking has brought most progress on the environment to a halt.

 

[Klaufi_Wodensson]

You claim that "religion" is based on faith, which is blind belief. In that respect you are incorrect. While the "Big Three" religions are based on faith, there are many religions out there that are not.

 

[work in progress]

You have missed my point. Dinosaurs are obviously not a species that could survive everything thrown at them in comparison to the smaller animals like cockroaches or alligators.

As a general rule, insects and other small creatures have better odds of survival than larger, more complex animals; so it could be expected that the cockroaches would survive, but paleontologist don't have any answers as to why alligators survived while all of the dinosaurs (including marine reptiles like pleiosaurs) went extinct.

I'm not saying that our technology will save us either. I'm saying that we are a species that can survive in just about any circumstance better than any other animal on the earth. We will survive even if we are thrown back to the stone age. Though if there is something strong enough to kill off even cockroaches we would definitely dwindle in numbers but still not impossible to survive just because of our evolutionary advantages. We find a way to survive which is the whole idea of evolution. Those who don't find a way to survive go extinct.

We are not much of a physically adaptable species! Our survival and ability to flourish and move into every biological niche on land has come through technology and a high use of energy and natural resources. When those resources dry up, so does our technological advantage.

Also the downfall of civilization has nothing to do with us going extinct. You really think we need a good banking system to survive another million years?

No, I said that economists and their theories are a source of a lot of our problems, since they depend on us being rational, and their economic models depend on continual growth. They have played a huge part in creating the problems we have today. When we start hitting the limits to further growth, economies fall apart....which they are doing now.