Why science is better than religion...

[idav]

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.

Well it isn't always survival of the fittest. Any number of advantages can and will be in play.

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.

Yes we are physically adaptable but I will tell you one thing. Without fire we will die cause we lost that adaptability. That is the only "technology" we need and we managed even through the ice age. In fact we probably wouldn't have survived the ice age without it.

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.

Right but my point is we don't need an economy to survive so it is besides the real issue. If our populations go beyond our means then populations will simply dwindle until it is again manageable and population will flux accordingly.

edit: oh and the fire thing is only necessary if we want to remain carnivores.

 

[Acim]

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.

Again, I'm willing to wager on it. Name the stakes and how the bet will be set up, and unless changed drastically from what was claimed earlier, you can count me in.

 

[otokage007]

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.

Although there are many theories from diferent disciplines, the predominant position in Biology is that the order Crocodilia survived due to an unique amount of adaptations that weren't found in other dinosaurs. For example:

-Nutrition: they were among the few carnivores that could eat almost everything. Insects, Gastropoda, fish, birds, mammals, other crocodiles, etc. There are documented cases in which crocodiles eat even their own children.

-Habitat: they had a large number of places to live, like swamps, rivers, caverns, subterranean caves and the sea. They also lived equally good in forest, icefield or desert.

-Etology: this specie cared about their children in order to increase their survival probabilites.

-Adaptability: They could become lethargic even under water to survive long periods in hostile conditions.

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.

Technology is just a consequence of a high intelligence, that is the real evolutive advantage of Homo sapiens, and probably the most competitive feature of life.

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.

Sure, however I think that without economists, society wouldn't be so advanced as it is today and our situation would be even worse.

 

[Acim]

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.

I can think of ways for us to connect and make such a wager. I believe you don't stand by it so confidently if you are backing down for this reason. I stand against your prediction and currently I am absolutely, 100% right. But I don't know if I am as confident as you are, so maybe you'll give me odds like 10 to 1? Or again, are you really not that confident, but just saying you are. I know how that is. I've made claims like that, even dumb bets in that vein. I can understand if you'd want to back down. It's okay.

 

[idav]

Again, I'm willing to wager on it. Name the stakes and how the bet will be set up, and unless changed drastically from what was claimed earlier, you can count me in.

I don't understand what your wagering about. We are already doing what I've been stating.

 

[Acim]

It's alright if you haven't been keeping up. I assure you, we aren't doing (yet) what the wager is about.

 

[idav]

It's alright if you haven't been keeping up. I assure you, we aren't doing (yet) what the wager is about.

BS, only 20% of people who go to church are "happy" by their standards. As if religion is doing such a great job that people don't have to be on prozac as it is. Religion has had thousands of years and people aren't any happier. Science is already gone past religion which is why people are so busy looking and searching for answers outside of religion. The studies I saw for tests stimulating certain areas of the brain helped depression at much higher rate than religion, years of therapy or even some of the drugs on the market. They are indeed doing it already and by 10 years it will just be even more perfected. Religions already fallen behind sorry to break it to you.

 

[idav]

For your viewing pleasure. Adjusting the brain using magnetic impulse for treating pain and depression. They resort to it when drugs fail.

[youtube]qSFOmgxYZAo[/youtube]
NOVA scienceNOW S05E03 4/6 How Does the Brain Work? - YouTube

 

[Acim]

BS, only 20% of people who go to church are "happy" by their standards. As if religion is doing such a great job that people don't have to be on prozac as it is.

Not what bet was about, but thanks for tipping your hand.

Religion has had thousands of years and people aren't any happier. Science is already gone past religion which is why people are so busy looking and searching for answers outside of religion. The studies I saw for tests stimulating certain areas of the brain helped depression at much higher rate than religion, years of therapy or even some of the drugs on the market. They are indeed doing it already and by 10 years it will just be even more perfected. Religions already fallen behind sorry to break it to you.

I'm sorry you don't understand what the wager was.

The rest of what you are saying, given how little there is to back it up, makes me respond with *yawn*

 

[work in progress]

Yes we are physically adaptable but I will tell you one thing. Without fire we will die cause we lost that adaptability. That is the only "technology" we need and we managed even through the ice age. In fact we probably wouldn't have survived the ice age without it.

No, there were something like 15 to 20 hominid species of upright walking apes, and we ended up being the only one that did not go extinct, most likely because of the invention of fire!

If you think about it, when the climate changed in Northern Africa 3 million years ago, and hominids ventured out of the disappearing forests, they were mostly small, slow moving and weaker than the other animals on the savannah. We weren't adaptable really! We only had the crudest of stone tools, which were no match for packs of hyenas, lions, wild dogs or leopards. When Donald Johanson made a show about "Lucy" a few years back, I recall him mentioning that Lucy's kin were the primary prey animals of leopards at the time....making up one third of the leopard diet! It wasn't until Homo Habilis learned how to use and control fire, that populations increased, and they were able to move out and secure their longterm survival. But even after harnessing fire, DNA evidence indicates there were likely population bottlenecks during the modern period - the most serious being about 70 to 90 thousand years ago, when a supervolcano erupted in Indonesia, and the human population may have fallen to as low as 2000 survivors....getting dangerously close to falling below the level where they could maintain healthy, breeding populations.

Right but my point is we don't need an economy to survive so it is besides the real issue. If our populations go beyond our means then populations will simply dwindle until it is again manageable and population will flux accordingly.

The past doesn't help much in dealing with the future. We've never had 7 billion people on Earth before -- a population that is using so much of the Earth's surface, consuming so much natural resources and energy, that we are causing a massive die-off of all kinds of animal species around the world...we're already into a sixth major extinction. And as we crowd out more and more of other lifeforms, we will reach a point where we don't have a healthy biosphere to support ourselves.

A world with 450, 500 or 600 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, is going to be something that our ancestors never encountered or had to try to adapt to. It's completely uncharted territory, so I don't think it's even a valid to assume that there will be enough people around to adapt permanently to whatever world we are heading into.

 

[work in progress]

Although there are many theories from diferent disciplines, the predominant position in Biology is that the order Crocodilia survived due to an unique amount of adaptations that weren't found in other dinosaurs. For example:

-Nutrition: they were among the few carnivores that could eat almost everything. Insects, Gastropoda, fish, birds, mammals, other crocodiles, etc. There are documented cases in which crocodiles eat even their own children.

-Habitat: they had a large number of places to live, like swamps, rivers, caverns, subterranean caves and the sea. They also lived equally good in forest, icefield or desert.

-Etology: this specie cared about their children in order to increase their survival probabilites.

-Adaptability: They could become lethargic even under water to survive long periods in hostile conditions.

But how much do we know about Pleiosaurs? We know alot about Alligators and Crocodiles because there are so many living today, which we can infer were very similar to the ones 65 million years ago.

About the Crocodile habitats though.....were they actually living in icefields? Cause if you're referring to Crocodile skeletons living in the Arctic Ocean; a species that lived there around the time of the PETM, was living in an ice free fresh water Arctic Ocean; although the Crocs did have special adaptations to deal with the colder water and the long Arctic winter nights.

Technology is just a consequence of a high intelligence, that is the real evolutive advantage of Homo sapiens, and probably the most competitive feature of life.

And on the flip side, technology is also threatening to kill us off entirely.

Sure, however I think that without economists, society wouldn't be so advanced as it is today and our situation would be even worse.

Certainly there have been great inventions; but technology has also enabled us to overpopulate the planet. And the economists are the last ones to see a crisis coming our way. They just assume that 3% growth rates can go on forever, regardless of our energy, land, water or resource situations.

 

[otokage007]

technology is also threatening to kill us off entirely.

but technology has also enabled us to overpopulate the planet.

Doesn't that pair of statements contradict theirselves?

I think you would agree if I said that without technology there would be a lot more deads.

 

[idav]

No, there were something like 15 to 20 hominid species of upright walking apes, and we ended up being the only one that did not go extinct, most likely because of the invention of fire!

If you think about it, when the climate changed in Northern Africa 3 million years ago, and hominids ventured out of the disappearing forests, they were mostly small, slow moving and weaker than the other animals on the savannah. We weren't adaptable really! We only had the crudest of stone tools, which were no match for packs of hyenas, lions, wild dogs or leopards. When Donald Johanson made a show about "Lucy" a few years back, I recall him mentioning that Lucy's kin were the primary prey animals of leopards at the time....making up one third of the leopard diet! It wasn't until Homo Habilis learned how to use and control fire, that populations increased, and they were able to move out and secure their longterm survival. But even after harnessing fire, DNA evidence indicates there were likely population bottlenecks during the modern period - the most serious being about 70 to 90 thousand years ago, when a supervolcano erupted in Indonesia, and the human population may have fallen to as low as 2000 survivors....getting dangerously close to falling below the level where they could maintain healthy, breeding populations.


The past doesn't help much in dealing with the future. We've never had 7 billion people on Earth before -- a population that is using so much of the Earth's surface, consuming so much natural resources and energy, that we are causing a massive die-off of all kinds of animal species around the world...we're already into a sixth major extinction. And as we crowd out more and more of other lifeforms, we will reach a point where we don't have a healthy biosphere to support ourselves.

A world with 450, 500 or 600 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, is going to be something that our ancestors never encountered or had to try to adapt to. It's completely uncharted territory, so I don't think it's even a valid to assume that there will be enough people around to adapt permanently to whatever world we are heading into.

None of what you said is argument against what I said but thanks for the history lesson. I could really care less how many other hominids didn't make it. There are plenty of other not suited animals that still made it plus all the diversity of apes you see today. It is very valid to assume that if we made it in the past then we will make it in the future. I'll tell you what if god forbid half the human population got wiped out there would be plenty for everyone as long as the sun still shines. And a global warming or global ice age won't stop us, we will just adapt. Not saying it will be easy but complete extinction is wishful thinking. There is a reason we overrun the earth even in africa where it is not suited to live so try and keep that in mind.

 

[idav]

The rest of what you are saying, given how little there is to back it up, makes me respond with *yawn*

I take it your not a medical doctor or a patient trying to find cures for mental ailments we have or you would be on top of the research. After your done sleeping comment on the video explaining the rubbish I'm talking about.

 

[Acim]

I take it your not a medical doctor or a patient trying to find cures for mental ailments we have or you would be on top of the research.

Depends what you mean by "being on top" of research. If you mean conforming to standards and practices that have inherent biases, and justify things I simply can't go along with anymore, then no, I'm not on top of it anymore. Lost desire many years ago. Cost of procedures that come from 'good, solid research' is huge issue, not just for me, but arguably is number one issue in U.S. that we have control over. But we pretend like this has spun out of our control, and so we justify that procedures which other countries cost out at say $120, we in U.S. have costing out at $1900. Why? Partially because of materials being used (and way over inflated in their cost), but also because of research gone into getting to point of that procedure.

Until there is serious addressing of the costs, the research for medical ailments from particular perspective simply doesn't matter to me, and doesn't even need me (at that level).

On top of healing is another matter. One that I do care to stay on top of, if for no other reason than personal. I have had healing occur with things that didn't need physical treatment plan nor medical 'cure.' They may have appeared to 'need it' but experience will show, not necessary.

Unless we are talking about mending something (like broken arm), I find that healing can more often than not occur naturally and within our own consciousness. It may take enormous amount of faith, but there is realities to this understanding, that make it clear that it isn't about enormous anything, and more like, 'getting out of the way, and letting natural healing do what it does.'

I understand medical science has way of spinning what I'm conveying, but it is just that, it is spin. I've had many times where something 'they did' actually did nothing, and yet it cost lots of money for 'their time.' It has gotten to point where it is, in at least some cases, a scam. And is for sure overinflated costs at work. But the scam understanding is more accurate the more one really really stays on top of healing. Akin to charging someone to do reading of their future. Yes, I am comparing it to that. It is that sort of scam. Not the mending kind of healing, but the kind that treats physical ailments with outer chemical stimulants designed to facilitate processes. That is a scam. If you feel otherwise, all the more power to you. You're going to need it.

 

[work in progress]

None of what you said is argument against what I said but thanks for the history lesson. I could really care less how many other hominids didn't make it.

What if a coming die-off is deliberately caused, rather than an accidental secondary effect of overpopulation and environmental degradation...is that a reason to care?

I hadn't really thought of this before reading "Climate Wars" by Gwynne Dyer -- and he doesn't really explore the full implications of his findings that the global warming-denying Bush Administration was actually full of people who secretly took the climate change issue very seriously, but instead of taking actions like carbon taxes or carbon credits, they were planning for future scenarios of massive famines in Africa and Asia, and how to deal with the wars (even the prospect of nuclear wars), mass migrations that will result from the present do-nothing strategies! To me, it looks like an obvious strategy of leaders deciding that precipitating a worldwide holocaust is preferable than contaminating their rightwing way of life with anything that hinges on internationalism or socialism.

 

[idav]

What if a coming die-off is deliberately caused, rather than an accidental secondary effect of overpopulation and environmental degradation...is that a reason to care?

I hadn't really thought of this before reading "Climate Wars" by Gwynne Dyer -- and he doesn't really explore the full implications of his findings that the global warming-denying Bush Administration was actually full of people who secretly took the climate change issue very seriously, but instead of taking actions like carbon taxes or carbon credits, they were planning for future scenarios of massive famines in Africa and Asia, and how to deal with the wars (even the prospect of nuclear wars), mass migrations that will result from the present do-nothing strategies! To me, it looks like an obvious strategy of leaders deciding that precipitating a worldwide holocaust is preferable than contaminating their rightwing way of life with anything that hinges on internationalism or socialism.

I do care what happens to us in the future but I'm highly skeptical that any of this will mean complete extinction of the human race. It is very highly unlikely. I'm aware that technology has its pros and cons.

Technology has made it easier for us to survive birth and made it easier for us to last beyond 30 which of course impacts the resources we have available. At the same time technology has allowed us to curb the impact a bit by creating materials that don't require us to tear down the forests at such alarming rates and technology has allowed us to be able to keep food supplies higher allowing us to grow more food and mass produce things for the ever growing population. However though technology has been able to slow down the decline of resources it hasn't been able to stop it because our population just keeps growing and we just keep living longer.

We are quickly running out of fresh water but we are finding better ways of recycling which will also curb the decline. It is very hard to keep up with ever increasing demand but the cost of creating fresh water by these means is so cheap that someone could easily fund the water use for a whole city.

I'm afraid though that with all of this awesome technology we will not be able keep up with demand which will mean an eventual dwindling of population so it will regulate itself one way or another.

The CO2 thing is a huge issue but we are only making something happen faster than it would have normally. Eventually humans will need to deal with serious climate changes and better if its later rather than sooner but we will manage one way or another.

 

[work in progress]

I do care what happens to us in the future but I'm highly skeptical that any of this will mean complete extinction of the human race. It is very highly unlikely. I'm aware that technology has its pros and cons.

There is no scientific means to determine the likelihood of a remnant of humanity surviving extinction in the long term.

Technology has made it easier for us to survive birth and made it easier for us to last beyond 30 which of course impacts the resources we have available. At the same time technology has allowed us to curb the impact a bit by creating materials that don't require us to tear down the forests at such alarming rates and technology has allowed us to be able to keep food supplies higher allowing us to grow more food and mass produce things for the ever growing population. However though technology has been able to slow down the decline of resources it hasn't been able to stop it because our population just keeps growing and we just keep living longer.

The main problems of overpopulation are decline in fresh water and topsoil loss, but technology in the West, and applied all over the world is destroying environments and depleting natural resources, not slowing down the declines! On most scales, the smaller and even declining populations in the West do more damage than the growing populations in the Third World.

We are quickly running out of fresh water but we are finding better ways of recycling which will also curb the decline. It is very hard to keep up with ever increasing demand but the cost of creating fresh water by these means is so cheap that someone could easily fund the water use for a whole city.

In West Texas, the drought has got so bad that some cities are filtering and recycling sewage water to add to the city water supplies. But these methods, or high energy efforts like desalinization are far too costly for growing food economically.

I'm afraid though that with all of this awesome technology we will not be able keep up with demand which will mean an eventual dwindling of population so it will regulate itself one way or another.

The consumer-driven capitalist model of economics demands more products, and replacement of existing products, even if they are still useful. The foot is on the economic gas pedal until we head over the cliff!

The CO2 thing is a huge issue but we are only making something happen faster than it would have normally. [/quote]
Totally wrong! CO2 levels have only increased because of our additions. We may have already entered another ice age cycle if it wasn't for pushing CO2 levels up to almost 400 ppm. We are living in an age where we are determining the Earth's climate.

Eventually humans will need to deal with serious climate changes and better if its later rather than sooner but we will manage one way or another.

Eventually? When will that be? It is already too late to stop the changes we have already set in place. Hopefully we will eventually stop before we make the planet completely unlivable.

 

[idav]

There is no scientific means to determine the likelihood of a remnant of humanity surviving extinction in the long term.

There is no way we will keep going the way we do. When the scales tip the populations will decrease and it will stabilize. Just like when the plague hit Europe things flourished afterwords because there were less people competing for resources. Whatever causes the population to decrease will be to our benefit in the long run.

The main problems of overpopulation are decline in fresh water and topsoil loss, but technology in the West, and applied all over the world is destroying environments and depleting natural resources, not slowing down the declines! On most scales, the smaller and even declining populations in the West do more damage than the growing populations in the Third World.

I'm aware of the issues with overpopulation which is why it can't continue without having adverse affects on population growth.

In West Texas, the drought has got so bad that some cities are filtering and recycling sewage water to add to the city water supplies. But these methods, or high energy efforts like desalinization are far too costly for growing food economically

Wrong it is cheaper than you might think.

The consumer-driven capitalist model of economics demands more products, and replacement of existing products, even if they are still useful. The foot is on the economic gas pedal until we head over the cliff!

Has nothing to do with population but more to do with materialism.

Totally wrong! CO2 levels have only increased because of our additions. We may have already entered another ice age cycle if it wasn't for pushing CO2 levels up to almost 400 ppm. We are living in an age where we are determining the Earth's climate.

Your wrong we are only a contributing factor the earth goes through stages of hot and cold no matter if we are here or not. It will always go through cycles.

Eventually? When will that be? It is already too late to stop the changes we have already set in place. Hopefully we will eventually stop before we make the planet completely unlivable.

Frankly we are spoiled rotten with how great the climate is and has only been like this for a very short time and will not likely remain so with or without us. The earth could benefit from having harsher environments which will certainly keep populations of all species in check. "Unlivable" simply has not happened through several mass extinctions and will likely not change as many species find ways to survive and have for millions of years even against the odds. This is a water planet which is why so many critters manage to survive.

I'm an optimist but the fact is simple. Either technology solves the issues or our populations will suffer. Pretty simple really. Everything we are doing is the reason we are surviving and once it stops we will have to survive a different way.

 

[Riverwolf]

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.

Oh, definitely, when there's an actual disease going on.