bluebell Posted December 31, 2021 Posted December 31, 2021 15 minutes ago, CA Steve said: Then explain his post here, since he introduced the term. He was responding to my post where I said: It seems like everything that can be used for good can also be used for evil. We could say the same thing about religion. I was the one who brought religion into the discussion.
CA Steve Posted December 31, 2021 Posted December 31, 2021 (edited) 8 minutes ago, bluebell said: He was responding to my post where I said: It seems like everything that can be used for good can also be used for evil. We could say the same thing about religion. I was the one who brought religion into the discussion. That does not dismiss his use. Perhaps I should of said "used the term" instead of "introduced.' Either way, he used it. Edited December 31, 2021 by CA Steve
pogi Posted December 31, 2021 Author Posted December 31, 2021 5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Based on what you know of human history, infant mortality, disease, plague etc, if you had to pick a time and place to be born into what would you choose and why? Hands down I would rather live right now. The comforts are unparalleled - but at what future costs? Is it sustainable, or will our appetites for instant gratification without regard for future generations destroy the planet? Science becomes a destructive tool to try and fill our insatiable appetites. I just wonder what generations will say 500 years from now (if science hasn't killed us by then). I honestly wouldn't be surprised in the least if they would choose the hunter/gatherer lifestyle and the risks of disease in a natural and balanced ecosystem over whatever science has in store for us. 7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: I’d say the biggest threat to the planet right now comes from the shear number of humans enabled by science. Secular society is counteracting that by making birth control and other reproductive care more widely available. Certain fundamental religions on the other hand… I'd say that science more than anything else is responsible for the shear number of humans on the earth. Nature keeps numbers in check. Science manipulates nature leading to overpopulation. Science has turned us into parasites. I would rather take my chances against natural parasites and diseases than lab created ones. Whether or not anyone believes that Covid was created in a lab, the sobering thought is that we actually have the scientific ability to make that a possibility even. If it is not our insatiable appetites that kills us, it will be our curiosity and experimentation in labs, or weapons of mass destruction. All made possible by science. I just don't trust people any more. The science used for good is questioned and trodden on, and the science used for evil is celebrated as progress and development. Capitalism and liberty at its finest! More weapons! More consumerism. Bigger, taller, faster, further...
CA Steve Posted December 31, 2021 Posted December 31, 2021 22 minutes ago, california boy said: I honestly am confused by your statement. If the flood actually happened, wasn't it God (religion) that killed all of those people. And wasn't it a moral according to religion that was the reason? I do admit that science has pretty much destroyed that myth as an actual event in the earth's history. Is that what you meant? Hi CB, I am not arguing the flood happened, just stating that religion claims it did. I personally do not believe it happened but Pogi stated that 4 hours ago, pogi said: religion without science has less of a capacity to destroy the planet and humanity as we know it and I was pointing out that religion itself believed that God had the capacity to destroy humanity and had already done so contrary to science. 1
pogi Posted December 31, 2021 Author Posted December 31, 2021 38 minutes ago, rodheadlee said: Science most certainly could save the planet from global warming. The problem is the human beings that are in charge. I agree. I think that science has the potential to save us...and it has the potential to kill us. Based on what I know about humans, I think we are doomed. Greed, pride, and power do not mix well with high intelligence and the tools of science/technology. 1
bluebell Posted December 31, 2021 Posted December 31, 2021 19 minutes ago, CA Steve said: That does not dismiss his use. Perhaps I should of said "used the term" instead of "introduced.' Either way, he used it. Yep, and then decided he didn’t want to focus on that angle.
pogi Posted December 31, 2021 Author Posted December 31, 2021 (edited) 53 minutes ago, The Nehor said: If you haven’t watched “Don’t Look Up” on Netflix I highly recommend it. I found it very cathartic. This thread is kind of playing along that theme actually. When I thought about it though, the meteor (global warming) was a creation of science, and now we are trying to fix the mess that we created through science itself. I think that show was sadly too accurate of a depiction of humanity, and in the end, I think the "meteor" is going to hit us head on. I think the timing of that show was impeccable. While it was originally used as a metaphor for global warming, I think it equally serves as a metaphor for the pandemic. I think they played into that as well. Edited January 1, 2022 by pogi
CA Steve Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 3 minutes ago, bluebell said: Yep, and then decided he didn’t want to focus on that angle. Which has nothing to do with my response. He can decide to go wherever he wants. And you would still have to take your point up with him.
Freedom Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 10 minutes ago, pogi said: I agree. I think that science has the potential to save us...and it has the potential to kill us. Based on what I know about humans, I think we are doomed. Greed, pride, and power do not mix well with high intelligence and the tools of science/technology. I disagree. Science is simply the accumulation of knowledge. What will kill us is ignoring the knowledge by acting in a reckless manner. Science does not create pollution in the same way that guns do not create crime. Pollution results from us ignoring the facts accumulated through the scientific method. Science tells me that breathing water will kill me. It would be silly to therefore say that science is why people drown. Science, or knowing that breathing water will kill us, is not causing deaths but rather it prevents death. We know through the scientific method to take special precautions when going out on the water. I would not be interested in being transported back to 1100BC before all the wonderful developments that the scientific method has produced. What I am concerned about is the antiscience sentiment that is emerging in our society. A refusal to accept the consequences of pollution, or to get a vaccine to stop a pandemic. It is the rejection of science that causes me to tremble. 2
bluebell Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, CA Steve said: Which has nothing to do with my response. He can decide to go wherever he wants. And you would still have to take your point up with him. I honestly have no idea what the disagreement is about. Pogi said that he doesn’t want to discuss the religion idea. As the OP he has that right, even if I thought it was an interesting idea. So to honor his requests as the OP I’m not going to continue our discussion concerning religion and the flood. Edited January 1, 2022 by bluebell
rodheadlee Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, pogi said: I agree. I think that science has the potential to save us...and it has the potential to kill us. Based on what I know about humans, I think we are doomed. Greed, pride, and power do not mix well with high intelligence and the tools of science/technology. It would require working together with China, Russia, India, Europe, South America and Africa, well every body. Build many nuclear plants, keep looking for the holy grail of electricity (fusion) and launch many large solar collectors. DARPA and China could get together on the design of the specific items needed. Everyone could help build them, launch them and build receptor structures. Fat Chance. They're mad at Elon Musk for changing the launch economics, trying to slow him down with red tape and lawsuits. Edited January 1, 2022 by rodheadlee
Calm Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 What is “healthy” for a planet? Maybe being lifeless, without air or water that changes its surface so it can remain the same forever or at least until destroyed by the explosion of its star is healthiest and humans creating a mass extinction that gets rid of both is going to be the best thing that ever happened to earth. 1
bluebell Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 30 minutes ago, Calm said: What is “healthy” for a planet? Maybe being lifeless, without air or water that changes its surface so it can remain the same forever or at least until destroyed by the explosion of its star is healthiest and humans creating a mass extinction that gets rid of both is going to be the best thing that ever happened to earth. Only humans and our hubris would think that we were powerful enough to "destroy the earth". Even if we completely destroyed ourselves and all living life, the earth would eventually be just fine and end up with as much life as it had before. And could even end up better, like you point out. 1
california boy Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 3 hours ago, CA Steve said: Hi CB, I am not arguing the flood happened, just stating that religion claims it did. I personally do not believe it happened but Pogi stated that and I was pointing out that religion itself believed that God had the capacity to destroy humanity and had already done so contrary to science. Thanks for the clarification. That helped me understand your point
mrmarklin Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 9 hours ago, pogi said: The discussion in another thread about science triggered a question in my mind. I would be curious to see what your impressions are. Is science, in the hands of humans, more likely to save our planet/species or destroy it? I'll be honest, the current trajectory is not promising. So far, science in the hands of humans has brought on global warming which threatens life on our planet, created weapons of mass destruction, is exhausting natural resources at an alarming rate, has created new pollutants and toxins which threaten ecosystems, our own health and the health of our planet/oceans... Does the good that science has provided us outweigh the bad? Many people place all of their faith in science, but do the benefits of science outweigh the risks? To have faith in science unavoidably requires faith in humans. Should we have that kind of faith in humans? Science is here and it is here to stay. The genie is not going back in the bottle, and I hate to say it, but was Ted Kazinsky right on some level? Of course science is worth it. You couldn’t be chatting here on the internet without it. And your standard of living would be Stone Age. The trajectory is promising. And many of your assertions as to deleterious effects are bogus.
katherine the great Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 6 hours ago, pogi said: Science is trying to save the planet from the mess it created in the first place. Seems ironic. Idk about this terminology. Science is so broad it doesn’t seem right to lump it all into one destructive force. I do think the planet would be better off if we had not evolved past Homo erectus!
Chum Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 6 minutes ago, mrmarklin said: And many of your assertions as to deleterious effects are bogus. Bogus sees bogus everywhere, I guess.
Calm Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 (edited) 19 minutes ago, katherine the great said: I do think the planet would be better off if we had not evolved past Homo erectus! Define better. What is actually best for a planet, this planet and how do we know this? You don’t actually need to answer that as it is a derail. I think there is a mass of assumptions happening in this conversation that may allow it to be entertaining, but not very useful in the long run if one is seriously trying to do what is best for the planet or even humanity because we need to establish what is best first and best might mean fewer humans around that are more evolved due to extreme hardship in the past. Or it may mean the biggest number sustained at a certain comfort level. Or something else. And best for a planet if the planet doesn’t have a mind or feelings, what does that even mean? For once, I can’t get into the spirit of the discussion because of this. Most of the time I can just go with the flow. Edited January 1, 2022 by Calm
katherine the great Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 1 hour ago, Calm said: Define better. What is actually best for a planet, Better is no plastic killing endless numbers of animals, less air pollution, fewer toxic chemicals being dumped or leached into our water, no deforestation, etc. 1
Chum Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 5 minutes ago, katherine the great said: Better is no plastic killing endless numbers of animals, less air pollution, fewer toxic chemicals being dumped or leached into our water, no deforestation, etc. She isn't wrong.
Calm Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Chum said: She isn't wrong. In my view, yes as well, but I think that because I see it as better. Nothing the planet has done indicates whether it cares or not what is happening on its surface as far as I can tell. Edited January 1, 2022 by Calm
Chum Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 7 minutes ago, Calm said: In my view, yes as well, but I think that because I see it as better. Nothing the planet has done indicates whether it cares or not what is happening on its surface as far as I can tell. Planet references a lot of different things. It doesn't just reference the container but is collectively applied to the trillions of things it contains.
katherine the great Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 9 minutes ago, Calm said: In my view, yes as well, but I think that because I see it as better. Nothing the planet has done indicates whether it cares or not what is happening on its surface as far as I can tell. Well the earth certainly has a very rocky history (no pun intended). I don’t really think of the earth as being alive but she’s become a well oiled machine that acts in somewhat predictable (but sometimes unpredictable) ways. People forget that we have millions of years worth of ice core samples that have allowed us to map climate change over deep time. The planet heated and cooled long before we were around and we really are still coming out of an ice age (geologically speaking) but we seem to be speeding it up by our reckless consumption of literally everything.
The Nehor Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 2 hours ago, katherine the great said: Idk about this terminology. Science is so broad it doesn’t seem right to lump it all into one destructive force. I do think the planet would be better off if we had not evolved past Homo erectus! I don’t know. What is the alternative. I think Homo non erectus would die out in one generation.
Calm Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 4 minutes ago, katherine the great said: Well the earth certainly has a very rocky history (no pun intended). I don’t really think of the earth as being alive but she’s become a well oiled machine that acts in somewhat predictable (but sometimes unpredictable) ways. People forget that we have millions of years worth of ice core samples that have allowed us to map climate change over deep time. The planet heated and cooled long before we were around and we really are still coming out of an ice age (geologically speaking) but we seem to be speeding it up by our reckless consumption of literally everything. Great comment. Hope I am not being too annoying. In a nitpicking mood tonight, I guess. 1
Recommended Posts