And the poisonous spiders that hide in the dunnies. And the poisonous snakes that hide in your shoes. And the poisonous jellyfish that hide in your togs. And the poisonous crocodiles that hide in the sewers. By god, it's no wonder they drink so much.
Costa Rica, it has no army. And a good dose of tranquilo. And a Caribbean coast. And Latino lovers. And volcanoes, but they are very relaxed and not all uptight like the NZ ones.
You don't have to take the plastic food and sitcoms along with the health care if you don't want to.
A little over 250 years ago my ancestors were driven from their tribal lands by the redcoats. Massacre and famine and displacement destroyed an ancient culture. It was a brutal and horrible episode, a human tragedy.
That said, I have researched my ancestral culture and I am glad I did not have to live within it. Poor food, ignorance, squalor, violence, rigid hierarchies, poverty and ill-health were rife. In spite of all that this culture too has been romanticised over time and the less pleasant parts glossed over.
Yes, the destruction of the Highland Clans of Scotland was a bloody and unnecessarily cruel atrocity. But no, I would not like to live like a true clansman of old.
Nope, you don't need everyone in the Linux camp handing out hard drives like Scientologists hand out Dianetics. ... Really, all you need to do is set up a Linux PC company and run it kinda like the way Apple does..
I thought you said they should not run it like a cult.
I have read about the impending birth of AI for over 30 year and seen nothing tangible to show for it.
Get back to me once we have a credible model for what makes *humans* intelligent, or even a decent definition of 'intelligent'. Until then all that is happening is analogous to people trying to build an iron-girder bridge, without ever even having seen one, by throwing iron ore and coal into the air and hoping it all drops into place correctly.
You are confusing some Roman terms with the modern usage of the same terms.
First off the Senate in Rome was never democratic in nature, even in the days of the Republic, never mind during the Empire. The Senate of the United States bears almost no resemblance to the Roman Senate. (Argumentative old men not withstanding).
The democratic radicalism that destabilised the later Roman Republic was not embodied by the election of senators but through other more popularist institutions. The political structure of the Roman Republic was fairly complex, it had been in existence for around 500 years by the end.
Plebeian was not a class distinction, it was a distinction of descent. Some families were 'Patrician' by descent, others 'Plebeian', it was a hangover from some early Roman history. By the late Republic the distinction had zero bearing on wealth, influence or political power. Class distinctions were made on property qualifications, i.e. land ownership and income.
This is all a bit by the by as in the middle and late Imperial period (which is the period the poster was describing) any vestiges of the old Republic were exactly that, vestiges. The Emperor was an absolute monarch and the Senate was an advisory talking shop of yes-men appointed by the Emperor, at best.
You have to remember the timescales here. From the early Republic to the days of Augustus is a period of about 500 years. That is a lot of complex history. Then from Augustus to the fall of the Western Empire there is another 500 years. The time of Senatorial government in Rome is separated from the period described by the previous poster by the same length of time that separates modern United States history from Columbus' voyages.
IIRC American Indians, many African cultures, and even our old agricultural society were much respectful of the environment.
Bullshit. The American indians simply lacked the technology to have a significant impact on their environment until they got horses, at which Quoted for irony, because horses were native to North America, until the ancestors of the original Americans ate them all.
PS: The pueblo Indians managed to deforest their environment to the point that their culture collapsed.
PPS: Also there is no such thing as 'American Indian Culture'. The American continents (like Europe) were diverse places with extremely diverse cultures. Positive racial stereotypes are still racial stereotypes, m'kay?
We can get humans to the moon, but not to the next planet. Just to be precise, we can't get humans to the moon anymore, nevermind the next planet.
Let us be clear, human space travel capability has gone backwards over the last 30 years. Could any space program on earth to day perform the equivalent of an Apollo mission this year? Next year?
Maybe we could do it after a minimum of 5 years of massive investment and infrastructure spending. But not at the moment.
A case in point would be exemplified by the difference between Starbucks coffee and traditional European coffee. Guess the calorific difference between a Starbucks 'Venti' latte (600ml of milk and sugar) and a short black (30ml of unsweetened unmilked coffee)
Trust me, a *good* espresso does not need sugar or cream to be delicious. If you have to add sugar and cream to your coffee to make it taste nice, get better coffee.
Well, since I am in the fortunate position of not having to formulate detailed public policy, and since my original statement was more of a throw away than an 'advocation', I wasn't intending to present a thorough and detailed argument.
However, since we are getting all deep and meaningful about this, I will respond. I'll try to keep the hand waving and generalisations to a minimum, but I'm afraid it is that sort of debate.
First to address the points you raised.
I can't refute the anecdotal evidence relating to your circumstances but, yes, I would say it has to do with social factors. Social factors are significant indicators for all sorts of things, like rates of crime, literacy, employment, education, health, drug use, etc, etc.
The additional evidence you provide shows that half the kids reaching sexual maturity are *not* abstaining. That is a pretty big proportion.
You then go on to assert that teenage parenthood is no big problem, which kind of eats into your abstinence argument. If it is no problem to raise a kid at 17/18 then why are 'near-100%' of the kids around your area too scared of parenthood to have sex? Can it be that they understand that having children is a massive and serious commitment and should, ideally, be undertaken in stable and economically viable circumstances.
Previous, middle class, generations could complete their education and find employment by their late teens. Consequentially they were in a stable position to settle and have a family early in life. Times have changed and these days very few people have completed their education and generally finished stuffing around before they are 21. Also having a child is a somewhat more serious undertaking than getting legally drunk. Anyway, it is a traditional number.
And to clarify my position:
I feel that teenage pregnancy and the propagation of STDs are bad things. Abstinence has the benefit of addressing both problems but unfortunately, as shown by your link, does not work for half the population. So other solutions are required and, apart from condoms, different solutions are required for the different problems. Disease control can be undertaken by education, treatment, vaccination (HPV) and the use of condoms. It is a multifaceted immunological problem. Birth control has drug, education and social control options. I am happy to admit that my 'proposal' is an extreme, and impractical, solution, but has the benefit of being 100% effective.
I'm not much interested in government intervention for the sake of it. But I am a firm believer of the Social Contract. If someone's actions are not going to impact other people, then I have no interest in what they get up to in their spare time. Nor do I think the government should care. However if someone's actions are going to make society in general poorer or less safe then I do care.
Well, that is too much response entirely. Apologies for the wall of text. You may rebut as you see fit, but I will close my remarks here.
[quote] Social and Economic Consequences of Early Childbearing For young women just beginning their adult lives, the risks of childbearing do not end with delivery. Compared with a woman who delays childbearing until her 20s, the woman who has her first child before age 20 is more likely to:
* Obtain less education, * Have fewer job possibilities and lower income, * Be divorced or separated from her partner (405, 450), and * Live in poverty. [/quote]
Yeah that'd be a big drawback, what with that abstinence thing being so popular with kids these days.
Also it's a Strawman argument unless you are advocating the elimination of the birth control pill as well.
Contraception and disease control are two different things. Only one form of contraception has any role in disease control, and it happens to be the least effective form. If you read the stats you'll see that the risk of unwanted pregnancy doesn't seem to be slowing the randy little buggers down at the moment. And precious few are taking much in the way of precautions.
Disease prevention is a separate issue to unwanted pregnancies. In my mind the people most likely to get unwantedly pregnant at a young age are those least fit to raise a child. The consequences of an unwanted pregnancy, such as abortion and welfare dependency, on the individuals concerned (including the children) and society as a whole, are far greater than the risk of STDs spreading.
I also advocate compulsory, reversible, sterilisation of all pre-teens. Perhaps implants would do the job. Then people only get their fertility back once they have turned 21 and/or passed suitable training courses.
Petra was a trading centre for a relatively short time. Nothing special. It was built by the Nabatean Arabs who were not nomads, they were traders. The city of Petra is completely ruined, the bits that people regard as impressive consist of some remarkable natural features and half a dozen ornate cliff tombs with crude interiors. The Ethiopian churches of Lalibela are vastly more impressive.
Machu Picchu is a pretty small hill fort. Impressively isolated location and the usual incredible Incan stonework but the Incas did far more impressive stuff. Machu Picchu is just fortunate to have survived mostly intact. Nothing inherently 'Wonderous' about it.
Other posters have addressed the Great Wall and Christ the Redeemer but I'd like to add a little about the Colosseum. I think the Romans thought it was pretty nifty, since it was copied in just about every single city in the Roman Empire. Impressive sporting arenas are refered to as 'Colosseums' to this very day. The Colosseum was a significant piece of work by any measure.
That said I think it is pretty weak to include ancient ruins such as The Great Wall, The Colosseum, The Pyramids, Machu Picchu, Ankor Wat and Petra in a list of current Wonders. They are shadows of their former selves. The original list was of vibrant, current, living Wonders of their time. Surely we can do better than gravedigging the accomplishments of dead cultures.
Precisely. At the moment we cannot send a human to the moon. Right now, not possible. We could in 1967, so what changed?
Current economics and incentives don't make it worthwhile. Will this always be the case? Maybe, maybe not.
Current technology, economics and incentives don't make it worthwhile to try to colonise the stars. Will this always be the case? Maybe, maybe not.
He is making the claim that the economic, social, political and technological conditions operating over hundreds of years will, under no circumstances, produce the drive to attempt interstellar travel. He might be right, but it is a big claim. I personally think the odds that humanity will make it to the stars are definitely far better than zero.
Anyway, let's do interplanetary this millennium and worry about interstellar in next one.
I agree that "dwarf planet" is stupid. Pluto, Eris and the rest should just be called Kuiper Belt Objects. They are not and should not be categorised (sub or otherwise) with "planets".
I mean, what, precisely does Pluto have in common with any of the planets? Size? Orbital inclination? Orbital shape? Composition?
Pluto was accidentally discovered, on the basic of faulty calculations, masquerading as a planet. It was only classified as a planet because almost nothing was know about it at the time. It is a bloody binary system to start with. It is smaller than 7 of the planetary moons. It is made of ice. Its orbit is also inclined so far off the elliptic that never actually crosses Neptune's orbital track. In fact, given Pluto's composition and orbit (inclined and elliptical) you could make a good case for calling it a comet.
I wasn't really serious when I agreed with you about the NIV. I'm aware of the criticism, but I don't personally consider the NIV to be significantly more distorted than any other translation. It's simply not possible to translate from one language to another completely different language, conveying the same meaning that the original intended while simultaneously remaining literally accurate to the actual text. Fair enough, but there is a difference between making trade-offs for a clearer translation and re-interpreting the text to suit oneself.
What is your interpretation of John 6:65? In this particular case all the (few) passages quoted to support predestination that I have read seem, to me, to be emphasising that God is in charge, human activities alone are not sufficient to assure salvation. Overall the meaning I get is: 'God Decides'. Additional interpolation does not seem of much use.
My general feeling is that sifting individual passages of the bible to find 'hidden' meanings is a dangerous practice. You can't assess the meaning of the bible in a series of selective and disjointed quotes. I believe there is a quote somewhere about the Devil quoting the scriptures.
For example, how do you interpret John 6:45:
"It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me."
Note use of all.
and John 6:54?:
"Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
And whoever. Looks like the Catholics are right after all.
Also, what did you mean by calling Predestination a "greed is good" doctrine? Once you have convinced yourself that only some people are going to be saved (the 'Elect') your next question is "How do I know if I am one of them?". This results in another selective reading of individual passages which comes up with something along the lines of 'By their works/fruit/etc shall ye know them'. Historically this has led Predestination believers to emphasise the importance of seeking signs of God's favour to determine if someone is 'Elect' or not. Unsurprisingly, evidence of God's Favour is often defined in terms of material wealth. Thus the richer you are the more obvious it is that you are Predestined to heaven. Hence Greed is Good.
Atheism and Socialism/Communism often go hand in hand. It did in Soviet Union, it does in China, it does in North Korea etc. In fact, many would argue that Socialism has the State replacing God for the all powerful entity to exact obedience to. If one has a god, then the state is not 'all powerful' enough, which is why they tend to want to remove god from the culture.
And now we are back to the first topic again. I largely agree with your statements here, the one party state does not tolerate rival ideologies, it seems obvious. The problem is that you persist in insisting that Socialism == Atheism and that Atheism is why leftist totalitarian states behave badly. The atrocities committed by Stalin or Mao were motivated by political and social agendas, eliminating rivals or the middleclass or the bourgeoisie, rather than specifically targeting religion. Where is the Atheist agenda? Is it valid to claim that the reason Ferraris go faster than Toyotas is because they are painted red?
Also note that Mussolini, Franco and Hitler reached accommodations with the Christian church which then supported their regimes. It's not like they were paragons of virtue.
Moving to "fundamental" problems, I'm a "fundamentalist" in the most hard core way. If you don't have a set of "fundamental" core beliefs, then you are not opposed to anything at all. Do you really want to belong to a society where there is NOTHING immoral?
You seem like a fairly intelligent and reasoning person so I don't understand why you have to resort to such an obvious and flimsy false dichotomy. Are you really saying that without a "fundamental" belief system (which you appear to equate with Christianity) there is no possibility of moral behaviour? This would come as a surprise to the ancient Greek philosophers.
Who is to say then that slavery is bad/evil if "everything goes". What if it is part of my "culture"? Who are you to say it is wrong? The moment you say it is, you've moved over to the "fundamentalist" side of things, willing to imprison me, or kill me to enforce your fundamental viewpoint.
Having your morality ordained by a religious code does not resolve this problem. It just becomes an argument about which religion is 'right'. Many Christians in the United States of the early 1800s had no problem with slavery. The very Christian British Empire did not embrace slavery but did not outlaw it until the 1830s, they then enforced the ban pretty actively. The Islamic world has been tolerant of slavery throughout its history. So which of these groups is to be most admired for their consistent and "fundamental" morality?
As for some Americans being scared of "crazy Christians", those same people you label "crazy" are also very scared of those that belong to the "everything goes". They don't want their kids exposed (pun intended) to Pornography at every corner, "Smiling Bob" commercials on TV, Britney, Paris or Lindsay.
Please note "crazy Christians" is your term not mine. You used it while characterising and demonising leftist celebrity types as supporters of "(Socialists, Nazis, Fascists, and Communists)". I can't see how the corruption of your country's culture has anything to do with lack of Christianity, America is the most religiously observant of the western democracies by a long way. Perhaps unfettered commercialism, material greed and corporate malfeasance have more to do with it than lack of belief. I also find it ironic that you include Britney Spears, the self-proclaimed virgin Christian, in your examples of degeneracy.
While you may not see anything wrong with these things, some people do.
I see. If you wish to project your insecurities and prejudices onto anyone who does not adhere to your religious beliefs then so be it. Understand this however, your imputation is unfounded, cowardly, dishonest and intellectually lazy. Perhaps this is the reason "fundamentalists" h
I'm talking about the idea that unless you've been chosen in advance by God, you're not capable of believing that. If you've been chosen, and then you believe and confess, then you are saved. That's not a contradiction. I need to learn more about this issue, though.
Yes it is a contradiction, because the idea of Predestination is a) unbiblical and b) totally contrary to the concept of Free Will. If you read a little more theology you might come across the idea that logical conclusion of the doctrine of Predestination implies that God is not Benevolent.
Also, even if it is from the NIV version and is written by that loony Paul, the text is pretty clear, there is no qualification about 'being chosen in advance'. I also believe Jesus is pretty clear on the fact that salvation is available to *anyone*, but it has been awhile since I read the bible.
Of course I know that; I quoted it because it's the most commonly used modern translation. This I don't understand. If you believe that the bible is the word of God shouldn't you be *extremely* angry at the idea of a distorted version being circulated? Rather than quoting it shouldn't you be condemning it?
otherwise there's not much point in complaining about it. I'm not complaining about the NIV version of Romans, I'm complaining about *you* trying to quote that passage while also proposing the unchristian "greed is good" doctrine of Predestination.
Ah but you didn't originally characterise them as 'leftist' or 'radicals', you characterised them as 'atheist'. This is a misleading and unfair implication as atheism was not the dominant ideology of these groups.
The fundamental (pun intended) similarity between the Inquisition, Al Qaeda, Stalinists, the Red Brigades, National Socialists and other dangerous sects is an intolerant and extremist ideology. All extremists are dangerous to lovers of freedom.
The reason some Americans are scared of the "crazy christians" is that there is a brand of Christianity very close to home that is a threat to personal freedom and security and is at least as dangerous as any Nazi, fascist, leftist or Islamic dictatorship.
Slashdot Mirror
"synthetic sapphire is used for shatter resistant windows in armored vehicles and various military body armor suits"
They speak English in New Zealand? Doesn't sound like it.
And the poisonous spiders that hide in the dunnies. And the poisonous snakes that hide in your shoes. And the poisonous jellyfish that hide in your togs. And the poisonous crocodiles that hide in the sewers. By god, it's no wonder they drink so much.
Costa Rica, it has no army. And a good dose of tranquilo. And a Caribbean coast. And Latino lovers. And volcanoes, but they are very relaxed and not all uptight like the NZ ones.
You don't have to take the plastic food and sitcoms along with the health care if you don't want to.
A little over 250 years ago my ancestors were driven from their tribal lands by the redcoats. Massacre and famine and displacement destroyed an ancient culture. It was a brutal and horrible episode, a human tragedy.
That said, I have researched my ancestral culture and I am glad I did not have to live within it. Poor food, ignorance, squalor, violence, rigid hierarchies, poverty and ill-health were rife. In spite of all that this culture too has been romanticised over time and the less pleasant parts glossed over.
Yes, the destruction of the Highland Clans of Scotland was a bloody and unnecessarily cruel atrocity. But no, I would not like to live like a true clansman of old.
Really, all you need to do is set up a Linux PC company and run it kinda like the way Apple does..
I thought you said they should not run it like a cult.
Of course there is no chance that any information from the keyloggers will ever leave official hands, they'd have to share the profits then.
Oh lord preserve me from the fucking Singularity.
I have read about the impending birth of AI for over 30 year and seen nothing tangible to show for it.
Get back to me once we have a credible model for what makes *humans* intelligent, or even a decent definition of 'intelligent'. Until then all that is happening is analogous to people trying to build an iron-girder bridge, without ever even having seen one, by throwing iron ore and coal into the air and hoping it all drops into place correctly.
You are confusing some Roman terms with the modern usage of the same terms.
First off the Senate in Rome was never democratic in nature, even in the days of the Republic, never mind during the Empire. The Senate of the United States bears almost no resemblance to the Roman Senate. (Argumentative old men not withstanding).
The democratic radicalism that destabilised the later Roman Republic was not embodied by the election of senators but through other more popularist institutions. The political structure of the Roman Republic was fairly complex, it had been in existence for around 500 years by the end.
Plebeian was not a class distinction, it was a distinction of descent. Some families were 'Patrician' by descent, others 'Plebeian', it was a hangover from some early Roman history. By the late Republic the distinction had zero bearing on wealth, influence or political power. Class distinctions were made on property qualifications, i.e. land ownership and income.
This is all a bit by the by as in the middle and late Imperial period (which is the period the poster was describing) any vestiges of the old Republic were exactly that, vestiges. The Emperor was an absolute monarch and the Senate was an advisory talking shop of yes-men appointed by the Emperor, at best.
You have to remember the timescales here. From the early Republic to the days of Augustus is a period of about 500 years. That is a lot of complex history. Then from Augustus to the fall of the Western Empire there is another 500 years. The time of Senatorial government in Rome is separated from the period described by the previous poster by the same length of time that separates modern United States history from Columbus' voyages.
Bullshit. The American indians simply lacked the technology to have a significant impact on their environment until they got horses, at which Quoted for irony, because horses were native to North America, until the ancestors of the original Americans ate them all.
PS: The pueblo Indians managed to deforest their environment to the point that their culture collapsed.
PPS: Also there is no such thing as 'American Indian Culture'. The American continents (like Europe) were diverse places with extremely diverse cultures. Positive racial stereotypes are still racial stereotypes, m'kay?
Let us be clear, human space travel capability has gone backwards over the last 30 years. Could any space program on earth to day perform the equivalent of an Apollo mission this year? Next year?
Maybe we could do it after a minimum of 5 years of massive investment and infrastructure spending. But not at the moment.
I find conversations in the car more distracting radio or music, but yes, a good copilot knows when to shut up or scream in terror.
Kids in the back however... should be mandatory to gag them as well as strap them in.
Next you'll be saying Rastafarian =/= Gungan, or Asian Stereotype =/= Neimoidian, or Shylock =/= Watto.
Award Captain Obvious a bonus point!
A case in point would be exemplified by the difference between Starbucks coffee and traditional European coffee. Guess the calorific difference between a Starbucks 'Venti' latte (600ml of milk and sugar) and a short black (30ml of unsweetened unmilked coffee)
Trust me, a *good* espresso does not need sugar or cream to be delicious. If you have to add sugar and cream to your coffee to make it taste nice, get better coffee.
"More is not always better." - Captain Obvious
Well, since I am in the fortunate position of not having to formulate detailed public policy, and since my original statement was more of a throw away than an 'advocation', I wasn't intending to present a thorough and detailed argument.
t s2006Paper.pdf
t ml
However, since we are getting all deep and meaningful about this, I will respond. I'll try to keep the hand waving and generalisations to a minimum, but I'm afraid it is that sort of debate.
First to address the points you raised.
I can't refute the anecdotal evidence relating to your circumstances but, yes, I would say it has to do with social factors. Social factors are significant indicators for all sorts of things, like rates of crime, literacy, employment, education, health, drug use, etc, etc.
The additional evidence you provide shows that half the kids reaching sexual maturity are *not* abstaining. That is a pretty big proportion.
You then go on to assert that teenage parenthood is no big problem, which kind of eats into your abstinence argument. If it is no problem to raise a kid at 17/18 then why are 'near-100%' of the kids around your area too scared of parenthood to have sex? Can it be that they understand that having children is a massive and serious commitment and should, ideally, be undertaken in stable and economically viable circumstances.
Previous, middle class, generations could complete their education and find employment by their late teens. Consequentially they were in a stable position to settle and have a family early in life. Times have changed and these days very few people have completed their education and generally finished stuffing around before they are 21. Also having a child is a somewhat more serious undertaking than getting legally drunk. Anyway, it is a traditional number.
And to clarify my position:
I feel that teenage pregnancy and the propagation of STDs are bad things. Abstinence has the benefit of addressing both problems but unfortunately, as shown by your link, does not work for half the population. So other solutions are required and, apart from condoms, different solutions are required for the different problems. Disease control can be undertaken by education, treatment, vaccination (HPV) and the use of condoms. It is a multifaceted immunological problem. Birth control has drug, education and social control options. I am happy to admit that my 'proposal' is an extreme, and impractical, solution, but has the benefit of being 100% effective.
I'm not much interested in government intervention for the sake of it. But I am a firm believer of the Social Contract. If someone's actions are not going to impact other people, then I have no interest in what they get up to in their spare time. Nor do I think the government should care. However if someone's actions are going to make society in general poorer or less safe then I do care.
Well, that is too much response entirely. Apologies for the wall of text. You may rebut as you see fit, but I will close my remarks here.
Some additional information:
Health costs for the mother:
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/2117
Economic costs for the mother:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2kp7x4
Economic costs for society
http://gandini.unm.edu/research/Papers/RevisedCos
[quote]
Social and Economic Consequences of Early Childbearing
For young women just beginning their adult lives, the risks of childbearing do not end with delivery. Compared with a woman who delays childbearing until her 20s, the woman who has her first child before age 20 is more likely to:
* Obtain less education,
* Have fewer job possibilities and lower income,
* Be divorced or separated from her partner (405, 450), and
* Live in poverty.
[/quote]
http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/j41/j41chap2_5.sh
Yeah that'd be a big drawback, what with that abstinence thing being so popular with kids these days.
Also it's a Strawman argument unless you are advocating the elimination of the birth control pill as well.
Contraception and disease control are two different things. Only one form of contraception has any role in disease control, and it happens to be the least effective form. If you read the stats you'll see that the risk of unwanted pregnancy doesn't seem to be slowing the randy little buggers down at the moment. And precious few are taking much in the way of precautions.
Disease prevention is a separate issue to unwanted pregnancies. In my mind the people most likely to get unwantedly pregnant at a young age are those least fit to raise a child. The consequences of an unwanted pregnancy, such as abortion and welfare dependency, on the individuals concerned (including the children) and society as a whole, are far greater than the risk of STDs spreading.
I've got a couple of anklebiters myself.
I also advocate compulsory, reversible, sterilisation of all pre-teens. Perhaps implants would do the job. Then people only get their fertility back once they have turned 21 and/or passed suitable training courses.
I'd say you have it almost exactly backwards.
Petra was a trading centre for a relatively short time. Nothing special. It was built by the Nabatean Arabs who were not nomads, they were traders. The city of Petra is completely ruined, the bits that people regard as impressive consist of some remarkable natural features and half a dozen ornate cliff tombs with crude interiors. The Ethiopian churches of Lalibela are vastly more impressive.
Machu Picchu is a pretty small hill fort. Impressively isolated location and the usual incredible Incan stonework but the Incas did far more impressive stuff. Machu Picchu is just fortunate to have survived mostly intact. Nothing inherently 'Wonderous' about it.
Other posters have addressed the Great Wall and Christ the Redeemer but I'd like to add a little about the Colosseum. I think the Romans thought it was pretty nifty, since it was copied in just about every single city in the Roman Empire. Impressive sporting arenas are refered to as 'Colosseums' to this very day. The Colosseum was a significant piece of work by any measure.
That said I think it is pretty weak to include ancient ruins such as The Great Wall, The Colosseum, The Pyramids, Machu Picchu, Ankor Wat and Petra in a list of current Wonders. They are shadows of their former selves. The original list was of vibrant, current, living Wonders of their time. Surely we can do better than gravedigging the accomplishments of dead cultures.
Precisely. At the moment we cannot send a human to the moon. Right now, not possible. We could in 1967, so what changed?
Current economics and incentives don't make it worthwhile. Will this always be the case? Maybe, maybe not.
Current technology, economics and incentives don't make it worthwhile to try to colonise the stars. Will this always be the case? Maybe, maybe not.
He is making the claim that the economic, social, political and technological conditions operating over hundreds of years will, under no circumstances, produce the drive to attempt interstellar travel. He might be right, but it is a big claim. I personally think the odds that humanity will make it to the stars are definitely far better than zero.
Anyway, let's do interplanetary this millennium and worry about interstellar in next one.
I agree that "dwarf planet" is stupid. Pluto, Eris and the rest should just be called Kuiper Belt Objects. They are not and should not be categorised (sub or otherwise) with "planets".
I mean, what, precisely does Pluto have in common with any of the planets? Size? Orbital inclination? Orbital shape? Composition?
Pluto was accidentally discovered, on the basic of faulty calculations, masquerading as a planet. It was only classified as a planet because almost nothing was know about it at the time. It is a bloody binary system to start with. It is smaller than 7 of the planetary moons. It is made of ice. Its orbit is also inclined so far off the elliptic that never actually crosses Neptune's orbital track. In fact, given Pluto's composition and orbit (inclined and elliptical) you could make a good case for calling it a comet.
Pluto shouldn't have been declared a planet in the first place because it is tiny and its orbit crosses that of Neptune. It is a moon-in-waiting.
As for the IAU decision, yah, it was a bit ad-hoc. I agree it will be revised, it needs to be. But Pluto will not be a planet again.
BTW I do like the reasoning in the Scientific American article.
My general feeling is that sifting individual passages of the bible to find 'hidden' meanings is a dangerous practice. You can't assess the meaning of the bible in a series of selective and disjointed quotes. I believe there is a quote somewhere about the Devil quoting the scriptures.
For example, how do you interpret John 6:45:
"It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me."
Note use of all.
and John 6:54?:
"Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
And whoever. Looks like the Catholics are right after all.
Also, what did you mean by calling Predestination a "greed is good" doctrine? Once you have convinced yourself that only some people are going to be saved (the 'Elect') your next question is "How do I know if I am one of them?". This results in another selective reading of individual passages which comes up with something along the lines of 'By their works/fruit/etc shall ye know them'. Historically this has led Predestination believers to emphasise the importance of seeking signs of God's favour to determine if someone is 'Elect' or not. Unsurprisingly, evidence of God's Favour is often defined in terms of material wealth. Thus the richer you are the more obvious it is that you are Predestined to heaven. Hence Greed is Good.Atheism and Socialism/Communism often go hand in hand. It did in Soviet Union, it does in China, it does in North Korea etc. In fact, many would argue that Socialism has the State replacing God for the all powerful entity to exact obedience to. If one has a god, then the state is not 'all powerful' enough, which is why they tend to want to remove god from the culture.
And now we are back to the first topic again. I largely agree with your statements here, the one party state does not tolerate rival ideologies, it seems obvious. The problem is that you persist in insisting that Socialism == Atheism and that Atheism is why leftist totalitarian states behave badly. The atrocities committed by Stalin or Mao were motivated by political and social agendas, eliminating rivals or the middleclass or the bourgeoisie, rather than specifically targeting religion. Where is the Atheist agenda? Is it valid to claim that the reason Ferraris go faster than Toyotas is because they are painted red?
Also note that Mussolini, Franco and Hitler reached accommodations with the Christian church which then supported their regimes. It's not like they were paragons of virtue.
Moving to "fundamental" problems, I'm a "fundamentalist" in the most hard core way. If you don't have a set of "fundamental" core beliefs, then you are not opposed to anything at all. Do you really want to belong to a society where there is NOTHING immoral?
You seem like a fairly intelligent and reasoning person so I don't understand why you have to resort to such an obvious and flimsy false dichotomy. Are you really saying that without a "fundamental" belief system (which you appear to equate with Christianity) there is no possibility of moral behaviour? This would come as a surprise to the ancient Greek philosophers.
Who is to say then that slavery is bad/evil if "everything goes". What if it is part of my "culture"? Who are you to say it is wrong? The moment you say it is, you've moved over to the "fundamentalist" side of things, willing to imprison me, or kill me to enforce your fundamental viewpoint.
Having your morality ordained by a religious code does not resolve this problem. It just becomes an argument about which religion is 'right'. Many Christians in the United States of the early 1800s had no problem with slavery. The very Christian British Empire did not embrace slavery but did not outlaw it until the 1830s, they then enforced the ban pretty actively. The Islamic world has been tolerant of slavery throughout its history. So which of these groups is to be most admired for their consistent and "fundamental" morality?
As for some Americans being scared of "crazy Christians", those same people you label "crazy" are also very scared of those that belong to the "everything goes". They don't want their kids exposed (pun intended) to Pornography at every corner, "Smiling Bob" commercials on TV, Britney, Paris or Lindsay.
Please note "crazy Christians" is your term not mine. You used it while characterising and demonising leftist celebrity types as supporters of "(Socialists, Nazis, Fascists, and Communists)". I can't see how the corruption of your country's culture has anything to do with lack of Christianity, America is the most religiously observant of the western democracies by a long way. Perhaps unfettered commercialism, material greed and corporate malfeasance have more to do with it than lack of belief. I also find it ironic that you include Britney Spears, the self-proclaimed virgin Christian, in your examples of degeneracy.
While you may not see anything wrong with these things, some people do.
I see. If you wish to project your insecurities and prejudices onto anyone who does not adhere to your religious beliefs then so be it. Understand this however, your imputation is unfounded, cowardly, dishonest and intellectually lazy. Perhaps this is the reason "fundamentalists" h
Yes it is a contradiction, because the idea of Predestination is a) unbiblical and b) totally contrary to the concept of Free Will. If you read a little more theology you might come across the idea that logical conclusion of the doctrine of Predestination implies that God is not Benevolent.
Also, even if it is from the NIV version and is written by that loony Paul, the text is pretty clear, there is no qualification about 'being chosen in advance'. I also believe Jesus is pretty clear on the fact that salvation is available to *anyone*, but it has been awhile since I read the bible.
Of course I know that; I quoted it because it's the most commonly used modern translation. This I don't understand. If you believe that the bible is the word of God shouldn't you be *extremely* angry at the idea of a distorted version being circulated? Rather than quoting it shouldn't you be condemning it? otherwise there's not much point in complaining about it. I'm not complaining about the NIV version of Romans, I'm complaining about *you* trying to quote that passage while also proposing the unchristian "greed is good" doctrine of Predestination.Ah but you didn't originally characterise them as 'leftist' or 'radicals', you characterised them as 'atheist'. This is a misleading and unfair implication as atheism was not the dominant ideology of these groups.
The fundamental (pun intended) similarity between the Inquisition, Al Qaeda, Stalinists, the Red Brigades, National Socialists and other dangerous sects is an intolerant and extremist ideology. All extremists are dangerous to lovers of freedom.
The reason some Americans are scared of the "crazy christians" is that there is a brand of Christianity very close to home that is a threat to personal freedom and security and is at least as dangerous as any Nazi, fascist, leftist or Islamic dictatorship.