Beenie, I think you have profound Star Trek poisoning!
Sorry Randy, but I don't believe in Roddenberry's hippie free-love commune version of the future any more than I believe in Rick Berman's "happy communist" version (seriously; watch the scene in
First Contact where Picard is explaining to Lily how the economics of the 24th century work. He's describing Red China, for crying out loud!).
Look, my problem is I just do not have any faith in the Human Animal.
Faith is belief without proof. The problem is, you DO have faith; in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, you persist in the belief that human beings are only capable of savagery and self-destruction. This is exactly the same as the "original sin" garbage that religion tries to sell.
We are essentially the same grinning, gibbering, bloodthirsty apes we were 100,000 years ago and aren't likely to change in the next 10,000. What you are talking about is all window dressing. We will always have better machines but for the most part, these machines allow us to get places faster in order to kill, torture, and maim more efficiently.
In order for us to survive the the next century or the next century after that, we will need to fundamentally change our very perceptions and emotional responses from reptile to something somewhat more enlightened. That may happen, it is absolutely possible, as is anything. An evolutionary leap, some divine or otherworldly intervention, or cosmic mutation could make us wake up and stop slaughtering everyone and everything around us.
Again, where's the evidence? The last century has seen the greatest increase in the standard of living for human beings in the history of the world. The wars that we still see around the globe are primarily the death throes of religion, which foolishly believes that there is a level of violence that can turn back its march into oblivion (its march into obsolescence having been complete for nearly a thousand years). And this hasn't happened because of "some divine or otherworldly intervention, or cosmic mutation"; it's happened because it's not just our bodies that evolve. Our
thinking has also evolved; to believe otherwise is to ignore virtually everything you see around you, and to dismiss the advances in our daily lives as mere "window dressing" is not only fallacious, but misses an important point: our ability to focus on minutiae is not only
proof of our ongoing evolution, it's the
substance of it as well. We already think differently than we did 100 years ago; a century ago, every person on this planet (including those here in the civilized West), with a FEW notable exceptions, had to eat EVERY SINGLE THING they could lay their hands on in order to avoid starvation. While this is still unfortunately true in many parts of the world, the fact is that most everyone in civilized societies no longer has this concern.
Remember though that mass extinction is a regular event for good ol' Mama Earth. She likes to clean the slate every couple million years and start over.
First off, you're anthropomorphizing a hunk of rock. I don't really know how that's helpful. And your statement itself ignores the fact that there has never been another species like ours on the planet; our ability to adapt doesn't even have a close second among animal species.
There are several natural disasters that we will have no control over and that are kind of "overdue" in a geological timescale, that could wipe us out lickety split.
NOW you're changing arguments. You've gone from "we'll destroy ourselves, just wait and see" to "well, Mother Nature has it in for us, so it doesn't matter anyway." And I disagree in either case; do you know how many people weren't killed in the tsunami of 2004 who would have been, were it not for early-warning technologies some places had? And how many who died could have been saved, if such technologies had been more advanced and widespread? If you wish to frame it in terms of "Man Vs. Nature," then I've already chosen my side (most of you reading this have, too; you just don't realize it). The primary technological goal of human achievement has been to put ourselves in a position where nature (which, in direct contradiction to the "Mother Nature" nonsense most of us have been subjected to for decades, is not
kind,
charitable,
forgiving,
nurturing or
gentle) can no longer
fuck with us. We're not all the way there
yet, but you better believe we're
getting there.[/quote]
As far as the environmental thing: sure, it gets better in one area and worse in others and people point to the good and say, "See? Everything is cool!"
Please read what I actually wrote, Randy, instead of trying to shove me into your own ideological box. You come across as a bit condescending when you do that.
But the eco-system is all connected as one living organism.
Again with the nonsense of trying to put a human face on the environment.
If China is polluted, (and it is BIG time), then so is/will be America.
Except that America is FAR less polluted than it used to be (regardless of China's problems), and ultimately, China is going to be put in a position where their continued economic growth will be dependent on them cleaning up their act. If China's problems really ARE our problems, then it follows logically that our solutions will be
their solutions.
This stuff doesn't just go away. When we dumped 70 million tons of Dioxyn into our own eco-system in the 60's and 70's because we just didn't know any better and there was no EPA, we didn't realize that that stuff NEVER goes away. Now, our babies are born with it, our food is full of it and it is having effects and will have effects on all of our health for hundreds of years to come, until our biology can adapt to it properly. Just as one small example.
And don't you think the fact that we DO know better now is just one small example of how our thinking changes and evolves over VERY short periods of time? I have to say, your example IS novel; I haven't read a word about Dioxin in at least twenty years. If there IS an ongoing health problem resulting from its former use, I'd actually like to learn a little about it.
But, hey, maybe someone will come up with a miracle like the "Dwarf Wheat" that you refered to
Dwarf Wheat is NOT a "miracle"; it's a product of the human brain, the only force I respect or fear in the entire universe.
or some neato Star Trek technology that will save the world
Once again, you make with a snide Star Trek reference, and again I detect a note of condescension. Not only is it not appreciated, but, to put it bluntly, given the merits of our arguments, it's not even remotely justified.
(as long as it's profitable for some mega-corporation, that is!)
I certainly hope so. Corporations are responsible for virtually everything you see when you look around you (indeed, they make our very ability to have this conversation possible); hell, a corporation brings us our beloved RiffTrax. I'll trust a hundred corporations I KNOW to be corrupt over ONE government that
purports to be honest any day of the week.
Topic: Penn and Teller: BS! (Read 35703 times)
