It's one thing to invade and occupy foreign land, and never see victory because of local efforts. But to overthrow your own oppressive government, when they have vastly superior arms, yes, look to Syria. And maybe Libya, before foreign support.
Maybe they'll succeed, although I'm not quite sure if there are just two sides operating there, one that wins if the other loses. But you're going to need an actual militia at the very least. Not just individuals armed to "fight the government" all by themselves.
A filtering tool should at least be something for each to set up or opt in to, if they feel they need it. If it's supposed to be good parenting, it needs to be something they actively involve themselves with in some form.
That's what it's for, making machines do what humans otherwise have to. That should only mean that it frees up human time.
Instead we have, as we always have had, with royals before, private corporations now, a small elite taking the majority of the resources for themselves, and reaping the benefits of what all of humanity has produced.
The easiest thing to do, is just stop reproducing. At least stop reproducing at these rates. We don't need for every couple to breed, one in ten could do us just fine for a couple of generations. Yes, there's the problem that the elderly depend on the young, but the biggest problem of all, is how many of us there are. We experience Earth's limited resources as more limited, the faster we consume them.
And I'd much rather see people not be born, than be born and then die a slow and painful death.
We are an exception in some sense, by how we work together. An education is an important part of our strengths, passing on knowledge gathered by many individuals, across the generations. I'd rather people learned from the mistakes of others, than die from their own.
Human population growth. In some ways resulting in Earth population decline.
Personally I think a lot more should be done to reduce or cease increasing our numbers. Great, we can keep people alive for longer, and sure, more people alive as well. But why do we need more people? We did okay being below 1 billion for tens of thousands of years, or hundreds of thousands, depending on how you look at it.
I was wondering about that; wouldn't music be different? It doesn't quite entrap your mind as someone talking does.
I also find that I go through my list of exercises more quickly when listening to music, than when listening to podcasts/youtube videos. And am more likely to run while out walking, than I am when listening to a talk.
I initially read the title "If Extinct Species Can Be Brought Back... Should We?", as asking if we humans should be brought back, after having become extinct. So I'm going to respond to that, but I think it'll apply to these other species as well.
If there were someone capable of bringing us back, that all depends on that species. If their environment doesn't really benefit from having us around, then I wouldn't expecet them to bring us back. And with them being a species with similar capabilities as humans, with technology and a decent understanding of reality, I wouldn't think we could offer something significantly different. And they themselves would probably be the biggest negative impact on their own environment, so they really wouldn't need another species like them.
Consider Scientology an experiment, that shows just how easy it is to get people to believe in nonsense. And that it suggests not only to be wary of religion, but to be sceptical of everything, if you want to avoid delusions.
You're suggesting that religion doesn't cause great harm? You don't have to go to wars justified to the people with religion. Something as simple but widespread as hatred against homosexuals. People are being killed over this, but more so, people are killing themselves because of the social pressure, because of the hatred and imposed guilt.
Although I doubt most atheists think religion needs to be wiped out, that's a strawman more than anything else.
No, no. Christianity is all about making you serve God. Everything else is there to get you to that point. Like the whole Jesus guilt trip. This guy suffered for you, gave his life for you. What are you going to do about it? Keep sinning without regret? And "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" doesn't work, it imposes your beliefs on your others. If you believe being gay is wrong, the golden rule says for you to call people out on it.
If we still depend on the Sun in 4 billion years, we're screwed anyway. Maybe we could've burried deep underground or something, shielded from the heat and toxic atmosphere, but we need to become a lot more mobile if we intend to live on as a species (not that it's likely to be the same species as it is today).
With all these "security" measures clogging up the place, there must be a lot more targets for them to hit there, and a lot more easily, than on a plane.
I think they don't, because they see we're doing just fine oppressing ourselves and creating our own terror now.
We said they hated our freedom, so to discourage them, we got rid of it.
I thought the US was never in peace time, at least with the war on terror and everyone in the world being a potential target, including their own citizens in their own country.
Why? Because you say so? You offer nothing in support of this. You sound just like a fundamentalist - "This is so because it is so, no argument allowed".
Evolution. A detrimental behaviour is less likely to survive, while a benefical behvaiour is more likely to. One spider constructs its web with better fly catching capability, it's going to get more food, be able to have more kids, those kids will have a gene template that'll likely make them construct a similarly decent web. Maybe one of them have a mutation that lead them to making an awesome web, and then a few generations down its descendents are the dominant ones. Something like that.
I don't care about my genes, but my genes care about themselves. Or nature does. The ones that produce the most offspring will be the genes that survive. The ones that don't produce offspring at all, gone.
All I'm saying is that morality comes from nature. It's a little complex with us humans since we started devloping language and tools, making genes not quite as important for transferring information from generation to generation. But that's still part of the whole system. If we end up making ourselves extinct by depleting the resources or destroying the environment that we depend on, that's evolution. We didn't make the cut.
It's mostly by default, with Christianity being by far the most significant and only religion with real power in Europe and the Americas, and so the one that most affects people and their understanding of the world in those areas.
Also, I know what's in the Bible, even own one with my name on it, so I can double check stuff I find online. I have to rely on Google to accurately portray the bullshit that's in the Qur'an and the other texts.
Personally I would love for there to be a greater diversity of religions still in use today, maybe that would allow religion to be more philosophical and curious, less dogmatic and demanding. I sometimes wonder what Europe would've been like if we didn't get this one religion unable to coexist with any others, for so many centuries.
Slashdot Mirror
It's one thing to invade and occupy foreign land, and never see victory because of local efforts. But to overthrow your own oppressive government, when they have vastly superior arms, yes, look to Syria. And maybe Libya, before foreign support.
Maybe they'll succeed, although I'm not quite sure if there are just two sides operating there, one that wins if the other loses. But you're going to need an actual militia at the very least. Not just individuals armed to "fight the government" all by themselves.
Tanks and an airforce are needed for that.
A filtering tool should at least be something for each to set up or opt in to, if they feel they need it. If it's supposed to be good parenting, it needs to be something they actively involve themselves with in some form.
That's what it's for, making machines do what humans otherwise have to. That should only mean that it frees up human time.
Instead we have, as we always have had, with royals before, private corporations now, a small elite taking the majority of the resources for themselves, and reaping the benefits of what all of humanity has produced.
The easiest thing to do, is just stop reproducing. At least stop reproducing at these rates. We don't need for every couple to breed, one in ten could do us just fine for a couple of generations. Yes, there's the problem that the elderly depend on the young, but the biggest problem of all, is how many of us there are. We experience Earth's limited resources as more limited, the faster we consume them.
And I'd much rather see people not be born, than be born and then die a slow and painful death.
Is that God talking to the phenomenon that is evolution?
We are an exception in some sense, by how we work together. An education is an important part of our strengths, passing on knowledge gathered by many individuals, across the generations. I'd rather people learned from the mistakes of others, than die from their own.
Human population growth. In some ways resulting in Earth population decline.
Personally I think a lot more should be done to reduce or cease increasing our numbers. Great, we can keep people alive for longer, and sure, more people alive as well. But why do we need more people? We did okay being below 1 billion for tens of thousands of years, or hundreds of thousands, depending on how you look at it.
I was wondering about that; wouldn't music be different? It doesn't quite entrap your mind as someone talking does.
I also find that I go through my list of exercises more quickly when listening to music, than when listening to podcasts/youtube videos. And am more likely to run while out walking, than I am when listening to a talk.
We may very well end up extinct ourselves, depending on how things go. And it will be a result of the composition of nature.
I initially read the title "If Extinct Species Can Be Brought Back... Should We?", as asking if we humans should be brought back, after having become extinct. So I'm going to respond to that, but I think it'll apply to these other species as well.
If there were someone capable of bringing us back, that all depends on that species. If their environment doesn't really benefit from having us around, then I wouldn't expecet them to bring us back. And with them being a species with similar capabilities as humans, with technology and a decent understanding of reality, I wouldn't think we could offer something significantly different. And they themselves would probably be the biggest negative impact on their own environment, so they really wouldn't need another species like them.
People had so much respect for each other, they would respond to words with physical violence?
No, religion doesn't cause war, but it is a very good way to unify people behind your case, whatever you're trying to get them to do.
Consider Scientology an experiment, that shows just how easy it is to get people to believe in nonsense. And that it suggests not only to be wary of religion, but to be sceptical of everything, if you want to avoid delusions.
You're suggesting that religion doesn't cause great harm? You don't have to go to wars justified to the people with religion. Something as simple but widespread as hatred against homosexuals. People are being killed over this, but more so, people are killing themselves because of the social pressure, because of the hatred and imposed guilt.
Although I doubt most atheists think religion needs to be wiped out, that's a strawman more than anything else.
Extremists are just those furthest from the norm. If you're an extreme pacifist, you're probably not a threat to anyone but yourself.
No, no. Christianity is all about making you serve God. Everything else is there to get you to that point. Like the whole Jesus guilt trip. This guy suffered for you, gave his life for you. What are you going to do about it? Keep sinning without regret? And "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" doesn't work, it imposes your beliefs on your others. If you believe being gay is wrong, the golden rule says for you to call people out on it.
Pretty, and radioactive.
If we still depend on the Sun in 4 billion years, we're screwed anyway. Maybe we could've burried deep underground or something, shielded from the heat and toxic atmosphere, but we need to become a lot more mobile if we intend to live on as a species (not that it's likely to be the same species as it is today).
With all these "security" measures clogging up the place, there must be a lot more targets for them to hit there, and a lot more easily, than on a plane.
I think they don't, because they see we're doing just fine oppressing ourselves and creating our own terror now.
We said they hated our freedom, so to discourage them, we got rid of it.
I thought the US was never in peace time, at least with the war on terror and everyone in the world being a potential target, including their own citizens in their own country.
No one knows that there even was a birth.
So in 75 years I guess all the ice has melted.
Why? Because you say so? You offer nothing in support of this. You sound just like a fundamentalist - "This is so because it is so, no argument allowed".
Evolution. A detrimental behaviour is less likely to survive, while a benefical behvaiour is more likely to. One spider constructs its web with better fly catching capability, it's going to get more food, be able to have more kids, those kids will have a gene template that'll likely make them construct a similarly decent web. Maybe one of them have a mutation that lead them to making an awesome web, and then a few generations down its descendents are the dominant ones. Something like that.
I don't care about my genes, but my genes care about themselves. Or nature does. The ones that produce the most offspring will be the genes that survive. The ones that don't produce offspring at all, gone.
All I'm saying is that morality comes from nature. It's a little complex with us humans since we started devloping language and tools, making genes not quite as important for transferring information from generation to generation. But that's still part of the whole system. If we end up making ourselves extinct by depleting the resources or destroying the environment that we depend on, that's evolution. We didn't make the cut.
It's mostly by default, with Christianity being by far the most significant and only religion with real power in Europe and the Americas, and so the one that most affects people and their understanding of the world in those areas.
Also, I know what's in the Bible, even own one with my name on it, so I can double check stuff I find online. I have to rely on Google to accurately portray the bullshit that's in the Qur'an and the other texts.
Personally I would love for there to be a greater diversity of religions still in use today, maybe that would allow religion to be more philosophical and curious, less dogmatic and demanding. I sometimes wonder what Europe would've been like if we didn't get this one religion unable to coexist with any others, for so many centuries.