It would seem that bee deaths due to pesticide interaction should be relatively steady or steadily increasing if pesticide use is also steady, and that the spikes in bee deaths would more likely be from the other factors mentioned in the article.
I'm curious about the things you think religion provides to us currently that can't be provided some other way.
That is an interesting question. I think historically religion has become such a predominant social element due to its effectiveness, so I would ask "what would replace it that would be just as or more effective?". I don't think I can answer that as I think the answer may actually differ depending on the people and their level of knowledge and approach to reason/rationale and even what they would point to as a moral compass or basis. Its a very good question, I don't presume to have the answer. You may assume the role of religion is easily replaced, but religion's weave into our social fabric is deep and complex. It certainly is worthy of a healthy discussion.
A key consideration is that not all people use the same logic and reasoning. Brains are wired very differently, so it becomes quite a challenge to define a moral base using simple logic and reason. Many will even differ on exactly what needs should be filled. I can say that it is very likely that whatever things we put in the place of religion, there is a very good probability that those things can be used as a tool to do bad things as well as good. Logic and reason can overtake simple compassion, or they can reinforce it.
They were attempting to use science to justify their ideology, which is just as bad as people who use religion to justify their ideology and no different.
That kind of makes my point. Religion can be as much of a tool as science and technology. Its not religion that is the central problem, but something more fundamental in society that can find its way with or without religion.
The deadliest wars in history were not based on religious conflict. We didn't build the A-Bomb and wipe out two cities for religious reasons. We did stop there though.. was that some moral decision? If so, what belief system played into it?
Humans are gonna to good shit and bad shit. That religions exist is not the reason.
I don't like religion creeping too much into political campaigns either, but recognize it is an element of our society. Many politicians only let religious tenets impact a few critical issues, mostly abortion, death penalty, etc. At least we know where they stand.
Interestingly, the USA came about when people used religious moral authority as a unifying basis to refute British rule. Not to ignore the non-religious elements that played in, but just recognizing and appreciating the past.
Unfortunately most politicians are idiots, religious or not. If not religious ideals, its other ideals. A guy can be as religious as he/she likes as long as they understand how deal with economic and global issues, and use common sense.
I think the trend will continue on its own without any suppression or totalitarianism or anything else you're reading into my comments.
Actually, this is not what I am reading into your comments, but part of what I was initially addressing when you responded. So I guess you completely missed the context.
As we talked past each other, I'll just go back to the hope that folks can appreciate what religion really is and has been, both good and bad, and just doesn't focus on the negative elements. You see religion as a "cause of many bad things", I see it as a tool used for good and bad, but also historically integral to human social development. There is really no evidence that absent religion we would have been better off and less very bad things would have occurred, and there are cases to be make that we have advanced faster because of a religious structure in society.
I'd still be interested to know if there is any aspect of religion that you have any positive appreciation for? It seems short sighted to just want it to go away without knowing what society needs to take its place.
Because cost/benefit analysis is not a thing, right?
Actually, I was just showing an oversimplified example/reasoning, in response to your oversimplified reasoning/example. Neither apply, as the construct of religion in our society today and historically is very complex. Both our examples were laughable.
Your god says we should treat each other nicely and my god says that we should kill the left-handed.
Another oversimplification. (BTW, I am not religious). You are doing what I see quite often. "I have rationalized that there is no god, therefore I am smarter than those who haven't and we're better off without religion". You completely oversimplify things, ignoring the role religion has played in our societal development and not even attempting to think why the balance shifts as it does between religion and secular. Not to mention ignoring many examples of religious based societies being also the ones that have advanced technologically, despite the conflict between dogma and science. And then you ignore very modern examples of how societies that suppress religion suffer and those that support religious freedom flourish.
I applaud this process and think we should take it to its logical conclusion as quickly as possible.
You are looking at religion as the fundamental cause of things you don't like in the world. I see the shift as more of a barometer of how ready we are let it move even more. North Korea suppresses religion, and I don't like what they put in its place. Be patient and be tolerant. Maybe even try to appreciate some things that religion brings to society as well. How about some awesome music!
Oh religion is a symptom of a problem. It's a symptom of human insecurity, tribalism, and gullibility among other things. Organized religion is a means for some people to control and gain power over others. Thought I had made that clear but if I hadn't, my bad. Religion is a definitely a symptom of deeper problems in the human psyche but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem itself.
Then why so much focus on the symptoms? And, as what you refer to as "problems with the human psyche" might be symptoms as well. Human social evolution is what it is. Assigning 'good' or 'bad' to specific elements of it, and then as to my original point using that as an excuse to denigrate those who practice religion is really just as narrow minded, IMHO, as some claim religious people are, and maybe even more hypocritical. Bouncing back between religion as a 'cause' and a 'symptom' when it suits the point is central reason why we probably can't resolve anything in this discussion.
Would I trust a for profit company's motive for charity more or less than a religious company? I certainly would not trust either more or less based on that information alone. I know for certain that for profit companies see bottom line value in their public appearance, and that is partially why they publicize their charitable work and community service. I also know for certain that many religious people do good things with no expectation of anything in return. It is also proven that when people do good things, it makes them feel better. It can even be addictive. So, you could say that they do it for something in return. Some people do favors hoping that they will get one in return if needed. I don't draw brackets around the good that religious people do and assign it any differently.
So, I see you carefully draw boundaries around the amount of good done to support your point. But you are assuming that wars 'in the name of religion' would not have happened regardless of religion, while history shows that wars are not a religious based phenomena of society. And even where religion is used as a tool, it is not generally the root cause/reason for the war.
I also see you conveniently dismiss the good that religious people do, while not dismissing the bad. Its nice to rationalize that away despite the facts. Kind of like how a religious person might find a way to dismiss a scientific principal. If a non-religious person does something good, do you look as hard for a reason to dismiss it?
Maybe if people didn't assume religion is a root cause, but rather a symptom or tool, we'd deal with it better.
What your posted. Go back and read it. Or do you want to 'clarify' your intent and say you didn't really mean to assign your description me as a result of my post?
Religion is essentially "I believe in a sky daddy because I'm ignorant of science."
I'm not religious, but I surely don't see it that way. I think religion is a very interesting social phenomena. It has emerged in almost all human societies in very similar manners. So, it must fill social needs and help societies, or it wouldn't have thrived and been central to those societies that advanced the fastest. One simple explanation is that religion filled the need to answer questions about the physical world that people didn't have the knowledge to understand. And that is nice and simple, but if you think deeper you see there are purely social reasons that religions thrived. Be it sense of purpose, social alignment or organization, common good aspects, whatever, it certainly became more than just an attempt to explain things.
When one looks at religion in a scientific manner, they should have little reason to fear it, or denigrate those that practice religion. To do so really isn't rational, but rather sometimes seems like a person trying to make themselves feel superior because they can rationalize and away religions beliefs. I've rationalized them away, but I don't think religious people are automatically stupid, and because I know some very smart engineers that are religious as well, I know their sense of reasoning on technical matters is extremely strong. They believe in evolution and established scientific principals. Certainly there are also many that don't, but there are a bunch of non-religious idiots out there as well.
Understanding the impact of cultural upbringing on a person's belief system is important as well. There are interesting psychological phenomenon where very intelligent people can easily dismiss facts and evidence that doesn't align with their cultural upbringing. The brain can work around those inconsistencies. We are all subject to that, not just religious people. But they give us an interesting case study for that phenomena.
So maybe the ever shifting religious landscape it is not a 'good thing' nor a 'bad thing' but actually a reflection of our social needs. And pinning cause on those that are religious rather than looking at the entire social landscape might be quite narrow-minded itself.
Albert Einstein has some interesting quotes regarding his agnosticism. He certainly would never denigrate a religious person, or claim they are intellectually inferior.
Jaglom also envisions a sort of "iTunes for 3D printing," where people can easily buy designs online and print them out at home. He says, "I'll be sitting at home. Maybe something broke; maybe my glasses. Maybe I want to reprint it and I'll go to Oakley, Ray Ban, whatever, Philippe Starck in this case, download the file, pay $3.49 for it, and print it at home. And then you will have to go to your Kinko's or your Fab Labs, your local 3D printing, if you want it in metal or plastics you can't have at home."
This vision is already being implemented by some on-line 3D printing services, and they've already thought further ahead and included DELIVERY!
That is an interesting general description of this material class. The quote "They handle compression, tension, and shearing well" still leaves me questioning how well, as 'well" is a relative term. It kind of tells me they are only marginally good at it, which was my initial concern. Maybe this specific material is better in that regard?
I would think this material on its own may not the solution for a ship deck, but possibly a layer.
The low heat capacity and conductivity would seem to be quite nice for a ship deck that is being hit by the hot sun all day.
Slashdot Mirror
Are there seasonal spikes on that curve?
I wasn't saying pesticides are not responsible for bee deaths, just likely not a big reason for the seasonal spike.
It would seem that bee deaths due to pesticide interaction should be relatively steady or steadily increasing if pesticide use is also steady, and that the spikes in bee deaths would more likely be from the other factors mentioned in the article.
I'm curious about the things you think religion provides to us currently that can't be provided some other way.
That is an interesting question. I think historically religion has become such a predominant social element due to its effectiveness, so I would ask "what would replace it that would be just as or more effective?". I don't think I can answer that as I think the answer may actually differ depending on the people and their level of knowledge and approach to reason/rationale and even what they would point to as a moral compass or basis. Its a very good question, I don't presume to have the answer. You may assume the role of religion is easily replaced, but religion's weave into our social fabric is deep and complex. It certainly is worthy of a healthy discussion.
A key consideration is that not all people use the same logic and reasoning. Brains are wired very differently, so it becomes quite a challenge to define a moral base using simple logic and reason. Many will even differ on exactly what needs should be filled. I can say that it is very likely that whatever things we put in the place of religion, there is a very good probability that those things can be used as a tool to do bad things as well as good. Logic and reason can overtake simple compassion, or they can reinforce it.
They were attempting to use science to justify their ideology, which is just as bad as people who use religion to justify their ideology and no different.
That kind of makes my point. Religion can be as much of a tool as science and technology. Its not religion that is the central problem, but something more fundamental in society that can find its way with or without religion.
The deadliest wars in history were not based on religious conflict. We didn't build the A-Bomb and wipe out two cities for religious reasons. We did stop there though.. was that some moral decision? If so, what belief system played into it?
Humans are gonna to good shit and bad shit. That religions exist is not the reason.
I don't like religion creeping too much into political campaigns either, but recognize it is an element of our society. Many politicians only let religious tenets impact a few critical issues, mostly abortion, death penalty, etc. At least we know where they stand.
Interestingly, the USA came about when people used religious moral authority as a unifying basis to refute British rule. Not to ignore the non-religious elements that played in, but just recognizing and appreciating the past.
Unfortunately most politicians are idiots, religious or not. If not religious ideals, its other ideals. A guy can be as religious as he/she likes as long as they understand how deal with economic and global issues, and use common sense.
I think the trend will continue on its own without any suppression or totalitarianism or anything else you're reading into my comments.
Actually, this is not what I am reading into your comments, but part of what I was initially addressing when you responded. So I guess you completely missed the context.
As we talked past each other, I'll just go back to the hope that folks can appreciate what religion really is and has been, both good and bad, and just doesn't focus on the negative elements. You see religion as a "cause of many bad things", I see it as a tool used for good and bad, but also historically integral to human social development. There is really no evidence that absent religion we would have been better off and less very bad things would have occurred, and there are cases to be make that we have advanced faster because of a religious structure in society.
I'd still be interested to know if there is any aspect of religion that you have any positive appreciation for? It seems short sighted to just want it to go away without knowing what society needs to take its place.
Because cost/benefit analysis is not a thing, right?
Actually, I was just showing an oversimplified example/reasoning, in response to your oversimplified reasoning/example. Neither apply, as the construct of religion in our society today and historically is very complex. Both our examples were laughable.
Your god says we should treat each other nicely and my god says that we should kill the left-handed.
Another oversimplification. (BTW, I am not religious). You are doing what I see quite often. "I have rationalized that there is no god, therefore I am smarter than those who haven't and we're better off without religion". You completely oversimplify things, ignoring the role religion has played in our societal development and not even attempting to think why the balance shifts as it does between religion and secular. Not to mention ignoring many examples of religious based societies being also the ones that have advanced technologically, despite the conflict between dogma and science. And then you ignore very modern examples of how societies that suppress religion suffer and those that support religious freedom flourish.
I applaud this process and think we should take it to its logical conclusion as quickly as possible.
You are looking at religion as the fundamental cause of things you don't like in the world. I see the shift as more of a barometer of how ready we are let it move even more. North Korea suppresses religion, and I don't like what they put in its place. Be patient and be tolerant. Maybe even try to appreciate some things that religion brings to society as well. How about some awesome music!
Lets do away with fire then. People have done bad things with fire.
Oh religion is a symptom of a problem. It's a symptom of human insecurity, tribalism, and gullibility among other things. Organized religion is a means for some people to control and gain power over others. Thought I had made that clear but if I hadn't, my bad. Religion is a definitely a symptom of deeper problems in the human psyche but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem itself.
Then why so much focus on the symptoms? And, as what you refer to as "problems with the human psyche" might be symptoms as well. Human social evolution is what it is. Assigning 'good' or 'bad' to specific elements of it, and then as to my original point using that as an excuse to denigrate those who practice religion is really just as narrow minded, IMHO, as some claim religious people are, and maybe even more hypocritical. Bouncing back between religion as a 'cause' and a 'symptom' when it suits the point is central reason why we probably can't resolve anything in this discussion.
Would I trust a for profit company's motive for charity more or less than a religious company? I certainly would not trust either more or less based on that information alone. I know for certain that for profit companies see bottom line value in their public appearance, and that is partially why they publicize their charitable work and community service. I also know for certain that many religious people do good things with no expectation of anything in return. It is also proven that when people do good things, it makes them feel better. It can even be addictive. So, you could say that they do it for something in return. Some people do favors hoping that they will get one in return if needed. I don't draw brackets around the good that religious people do and assign it any differently.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I think you're using the reasoning that only religious people can be atheophobic.
You are thinking wrong. And IMHO, its irrelevant, but fair enough if that is the statement you wanted to make.
So, I see you carefully draw boundaries around the amount of good done to support your point. But you are assuming that wars 'in the name of religion' would not have happened regardless of religion, while history shows that wars are not a religious based phenomena of society. And even where religion is used as a tool, it is not generally the root cause/reason for the war.
I also see you conveniently dismiss the good that religious people do, while not dismissing the bad. Its nice to rationalize that away despite the facts. Kind of like how a religious person might find a way to dismiss a scientific principal. If a non-religious person does something good, do you look as hard for a reason to dismiss it?
Maybe if people didn't assume religion is a root cause, but rather a symptom or tool, we'd deal with it better.
What your posted. Go back and read it. Or do you want to 'clarify' your intent and say you didn't really mean to assign your description me as a result of my post?
Check out the Nazi medical experimentation for starters.
We probably have a lot in common from a viewpoint perspective. Here's a little deeper take posted below from me;
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
And, please present me the evidence that this conflict would not exist if these societies were not religious? You simply can't.
Are you claiming nothing bad has ever been done in the name of science?
If you tried, could you find good things done in the name of religion?
Actually, I am not religious. So, you arrived at your conclusion using faulty rational.
Religion is essentially "I believe in a sky daddy because I'm ignorant of science."
I'm not religious, but I surely don't see it that way. I think religion is a very interesting social phenomena. It has emerged in almost all human societies in very similar manners. So, it must fill social needs and help societies, or it wouldn't have thrived and been central to those societies that advanced the fastest. One simple explanation is that religion filled the need to answer questions about the physical world that people didn't have the knowledge to understand. And that is nice and simple, but if you think deeper you see there are purely social reasons that religions thrived. Be it sense of purpose, social alignment or organization, common good aspects, whatever, it certainly became more than just an attempt to explain things.
When one looks at religion in a scientific manner, they should have little reason to fear it, or denigrate those that practice religion. To do so really isn't rational, but rather sometimes seems like a person trying to make themselves feel superior because they can rationalize and away religions beliefs. I've rationalized them away, but I don't think religious people are automatically stupid, and because I know some very smart engineers that are religious as well, I know their sense of reasoning on technical matters is extremely strong. They believe in evolution and established scientific principals. Certainly there are also many that don't, but there are a bunch of non-religious idiots out there as well.
Understanding the impact of cultural upbringing on a person's belief system is important as well. There are interesting psychological phenomenon where very intelligent people can easily dismiss facts and evidence that doesn't align with their cultural upbringing. The brain can work around those inconsistencies. We are all subject to that, not just religious people. But they give us an interesting case study for that phenomena.
So maybe the ever shifting religious landscape it is not a 'good thing' nor a 'bad thing' but actually a reflection of our social needs. And pinning cause on those that are religious rather than looking at the entire social landscape might be quite narrow-minded itself.
Albert Einstein has some interesting quotes regarding his agnosticism. He certainly would never denigrate a religious person, or claim they are intellectually inferior.
maybe the relig-a-phobes will calm down now.
artsy-fartsy
English
Adjective
artsy-fartsy (comparative artsy-fartsier, superlative artsy-fartsiest)
(informal) A frivolous or dismissive description of someone or something that is artistic or pretentiously artistic.
Related terms
hoity-toity
highfalutin
See also
fancy-schmancy
What goes around, comes around. Pixel art killed the white line graphics games like Pong. DAMN YOU PIXEL ART! You are reaping your just reward!
Walt Disney's head freezer is designed to keep running indefinitely.
Yeah, after I thought about it a bit, they are low mass and stiff, so they probably transfer sound quite well.
Jaglom also envisions a sort of "iTunes for 3D printing," where people can easily buy designs online and print them out at home. He says, "I'll be sitting at home. Maybe something broke; maybe my glasses. Maybe I want to reprint it and I'll go to Oakley, Ray Ban, whatever, Philippe Starck in this case, download the file, pay $3.49 for it, and print it at home. And then you will have to go to your Kinko's or your Fab Labs, your local 3D printing, if you want it in metal or plastics you can't have at home."
This vision is already being implemented by some on-line 3D printing services, and they've already thought further ahead and included DELIVERY!
That is an interesting general description of this material class. The quote "They handle compression, tension, and shearing well" still leaves me questioning how well, as 'well" is a relative term. It kind of tells me they are only marginally good at it, which was my initial concern. Maybe this specific material is better in that regard?
I would think this material on its own may not the solution for a ship deck, but possibly a layer.
The low heat capacity and conductivity would seem to be quite nice for a ship deck that is being hit by the hot sun all day.